Citation

Tippetts AS, Voas RB. Proc. Int. Counc. Alcohol Drugs Traffic Safety Conf. 1997; 1997: 185-192.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1997, The author(s) and the Council, Publisher International Council on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Thirty-four of the states have enacted legislation which authorizes or requires the use of Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock Devices (BAIIDs) on the vehicles of offenders convicted for driving under the influence (DUI). These laws generally provide for two types of program administration: (1) through the probation power of the court, or (2) through the driver license administration power of the state department of motor vehicles. The advantage of the latter is that the state agency generally has greater resources for managing an interlock program (Voas and Marques, 1992). A limitation in the use of the State motor vehicle department to manage an interlock program is that its only method for motivating the offender to accept an interlock is control over the reinstatement of the driver's license. Research has indicated that approximately half of DUI offenders do not reinstate their licenses when eligible. In contrast, the court has the power to require participation as a condition of probation where the consequences for failure to conform to the requirement could, at least nominally, be incarceration.