As the number of interlocks in use continues to grow, so too does the number of interlock cases that cross State lines. Offenders may be arrested for DWI in a State other than the one in which they reside. Likewise, program participants may travel for business or leisure or relocate
to another State. Situations like this pose an increasing challenge for all States. Here, the experi-ences of New York, Oklahoma, and New Mexico are discussed.
New York
New York has two key areas of concern related to interstate matters:
◆ The relocation of interlocked probationers; and
◆ The significant number of drivers who commute across State lines.
An important issue facing many States is the orderly transfer and supervision of probationers sentenced for DWI-related offenses and ordered to install ignition interlock devices as a con-dition of their community supervision. To ensure continuous and uninterrupted supervision of probationers, New York State participates in the Interstate Commission for Adult Offender Supervision (ICAOS) to manage probation cases into and out of the State. The OPCA Interstate Unit coordinates with ICOAS and adheres to the terms of the commission’s Interstate Compact that guides interstate matters. OPCA’s Interstate Compact Unit processes the transfer of proba-tion supervision requests and related correspondence, monitors transfer activities as necessary, provides technical assistance to local probation staff, and serves as the liaison between local juris-dictions and other State Compact offices. The compact covers first-time DWIs; there has yet to be a major interstate case involving interlocks.
While the ICAOS clearly addresses the eligibility for transfer of felony probationers, it currently excludes first time misdemeanor offenders. Ten states, including New York, now have laws in place that require first-time DWI criminal offenders to install ignition interlock devices. New York State has raised this issue with the national ICAOS Office as States struggle to address offender accountability and supervision. There are minor issues associated with interlock inter-state transfer cases. One of the factors creating this challenge is that not all interlock vendors conduct business in every State. Considerable coordination is required to ensure that interlock devices are installed in vehicles prior to leaving the sending State where feasible, and that moni-toring reports are provided to the appropriate supervising entities.
OPCA suggests that since States share similar problems and issues with DWIs, there could be a great deal more collective work to formulate legislation and programs that provide for more effective supervision and monitoring across State lines. New York has found that a small por-tion of the populapor-tion is creating a vast majority of the problems. New York drew a random sample of 100 probationers, 85 of whom had driver licenses. Altogether, this group had 125 revocations and 325 suspensions, and some drivers had more than 20 suspensions. This suggests that a focused effort on the most criminal subpopulation could greatly increase highway safety.
Furthermore, approximately 13 percent of crashes involve drivers known to probation authori-ties, underscoring that these drivers behave differently. Focused interstate efforts on these drivers could yield substantial gains in highway safety.
Oklahoma
Oklahoma has worked to identify four key interstate issues related to interlocks:
1. Oklahoma residents installing in neighboring States: Previously, participants had been permitted to have interlocks installed and serviced at any location, including out of State. For convenience, many participants go to the nearest installation facility, which for some are in neighboring States in such places as Paris, Texas, and Liberal, Kansas.
In the past, interlocks installed at these facilities contained the device settings deter-mined by Texas or Kansas laws, standards different than those in Oklahoma. Program
rules were revised to require Oklahoma participants to use a device approved for use in Oklahoma, and installers were required to load the Oklahoma installation configura-tion profile and tell the driver what constitutes a violaconfigura-tion in the State of Oklahoma.
To further address these cross-border installations, an inclusion zone has been estab-lished. The BOT worked closely with the Oklahoma Ignition Interlock Association to determine that centers located outside the State of Oklahoma, but within 25 miles of the State border, would only be eligible to perform Oklahoma-certified installations if they acquired the same license currently required by service centers and technicians doing business within the State of Oklahoma. To ensure that out-of-State installations performed within the Inclusion Zone are accomplished in accordance with Oklahoma rules and regulations, the Oklahoma licensed ignition interlock technician who installs the device must provide the participant with an acknowledgement form affixed with an installation decal (see Figure 2). Only technicians duly licensed by the BOT can purchase these decals for $10 each.
2. Foreign offenders: Drivers from another State arrested for a DWI in Oklahoma have their driving privileges in Oklahoma revoked and must comply with Oklahoma’s inter-lock laws. Furthermore, pursuant to State reciprocity agreements, the home State may revoke the license. In these situations, Oklahoma serves as the installation authority for the interlock monitoring device. To ensure the installation of an Oklahoma certified ignition interlock device is accomplished in accordance with State rules and regula-tions, upon completion of the installation outside the Inclusion Zone, the technician forwards to the interlock program administrator a completed “Application for Foreign Installation Verification” form (see Appendix B-31) with the fee of $10. With approval of the application, the Board affixes an Installation Decal and forwards the installation verification to the monitoring agency in the State where the license is held. The appli-cant pays for any costs of mailing this application to the Board. The interlock program manager can review the databases to ensure configurations of every installation and to look at data reports to ensure monitoring by Oklahoma rules. This process also pre-vents Oklahoma residents from going to other States for an interlock installation that is not in compliance with Oklahoma regulations.
3. Relocated participants: An Oklahoma resident participating in the interlock program who moves out of State poses a monitoring challenge for Oklahoma. At the partici-pant’s next visit to a service center in their new state of residence, the device settings may be reset automatically to conform to the new State’s laws (whether the settings are reset depends on the manufacturer’s settings). Thus, another State’s laws are governing a driver with an ignition interlock device required by an Oklahoma statute or order.
In some cases, if the vendor maintains interlock operations in both States, the vendors may be able to allow the devices to continue to follow the Oklahoma regulations.
However, in many cases this currently is not an option.
4. Transient violators: While traveling in other States, device fail or equipment issues may require an out-of-state service center visit for a device reset. However, by doing so, the service facility may reconfigure the settings and produce a loss of the logger data. This is an issue that regulations and manufacturers need to address. Ideally, the vendors would not change out-of-State configuration profiles or lose the logger data.
Interlock program managers in Oklahoma suggest that there is a need for more interaction among States to share best practices and to work together to resolve issues such as these. Oklahoma program managers recognize that currently the burden is upon the participants, who cannot be expected to understand all the interstate issues, but who are subject to the consequences of
a system that does not yet work well. The variations in State laws complicate the servicing and monitoring of these devices. Resolution of these matters may require an interstate compact or other cooperation.
New Mexico
New Mexico faces challenges similar to many Western States: large geographic areas with a scattered population. This means that service centers may be located far from offenders. New Mexico stresses the need for reciprocity agreements with neighboring States. Challenges also arise when an offender moves out of State. New Mexico’s goal is to prevent violators from evading their obligations. For example, an out-of-State truck driver convicted of a DWI in New Mexico is subject to New Mexico DWI penalties but is monitored by his or her home State. New Mexico works to communicate with vendors and the courts on a case-by-case basis to methodi-cally track for proper monitoring. New Mexico’s interlock program managers work with vendors to make it not only possible, but also routine to transfer the monitoring of such cases.
New Mexico suggests that more focused and consistent coordination among States can help reduce the opportunities for offenders to evade penalties. States would benefit greatly by estab-lishing common practices and simplified communication procedures to address these issues by working with interlock manufacturers at the national level and leveraging the Interstate Compact.
VII. Interlock Vendor, Data and Device Issues
Ignition interlocks are reliable devices that, when installed properly, can prevent vehicles from being operated by a driver with a BAC above a preset limit. Interlocks are sophisticated pieces of equipment, and proper installation and monitoring of the device is crucial to interlock program success. Interlock programs must coordinate carefully with device manufacturers and install-ers to ensure smooth program operation. States, vendors, and installinstall-ers must work together to address individual and programmatic issues related to devices as they arise.
This section includes the insights of several States on the following three topics:
◆ Working with Vendors to Meet State Requirements
◆ Managing Data Monitoring and Evaluation
◆ Addressing Circumvention Issues