A bill that would likely expand the use of alcohol-detection devices in DUI offenders’ cars stalled in a Senate committee on Thursday. Members had concerns about the cost and feasibility of the measure.
When Florida drivers are convicted of driving under the influence for the first time, they lose their driver’s license. But DUI-reform bill sponsor Dorothy Hukill (R-Port Orange) wants to give them another choice.
“There are several states that do provide for mandatory—on first-time convictions—mandatory ignition devices,” Hukill said. “This is a choice. But it is a choice that someone can get back to work, and we as the public can be sure that they are not driving under the influence.”
Hukill is proposing that first-time offenders could choose to have an ignition interlock device installed in all cars they own or have access to. The devices would measure breath alcohol content and, if it’s too high, stop the car from turning on.
The devices are estimated to cost offenders about $75 per car to install, plus about $70 per car per month to rent. That could be a boon for ignition device makers. But Doug Mannheimer, who represents Interlock Systems of Florida, said, his client is concerned, if it’s too expensive, people will just drive other cars.
“Although that would be a lot of business for my client, their concern would be that there’s a tipping point, when people are beginning to pay so much more, they tend to drop out of the system. And then they are, again, drivers without licenses, without insurance and without interlock,” he said.
Hukill’s bill, Senate Bill 796, would extend the mandatory period for second-time DUI offenders to have to have ignition interlock devices to two years. But Laura McLeod, with the Florida Association of DUI Programs, said, the additional monitoring that would be needed for all the new interlock users would be very burdensome for both local police departments and the state.
“The communication that has to happen between the Department of Highway Safety and those violators—and then, we have to see them and read their violation sheets to them—this is extraordinarily intensive, careful administrative work with this population,” McLeod said.
Seeing those logistical concerns, Sen. Greg Evers (R-Pensacola) asked whether it would be worth the cost, considering the relatively low rate of re-offense for people convicted of DUI.
“Would you be surprised to know that 75 percent do not reoffend?” Evers asked.
Hukill’s response: “While that might seem like a very good number, that 75 percent don’t reoffend, it takes one driver to kill one citizen.”
One person who testified in support of the bill said, she knows that first-hand. Connie Russell is with Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
“I actually go by Matt’s Mom now,” she told the committee. “Because in the blink of an eye, over Christmas of 2006, my son, Matthew Beard, who was a senior at Florida State University, I watched him die over a week’s time when he was home for Christmas Break when he was killed by a drunk driver in West Palm Beach.”
Russell said, in states where the devices are mandatory for first-time offenders, drunk-driving fatality rates fall.
But while many on the committee acknowledged Hukill is coming from a good place, Senators like Arthenia Joyner (D-Tampa) said, there were just too many technicalities to work out before it was ready for a vote.
“I tried for an hour last night to navigate through it, and I couldn’t,” Joyner said. “And I consider myself a fairly intelligent woman, who’s practiced law for 43 years.”
The Senate Transportation Committee, which was the bill’s first of four scheduled stops, decided to postpone a vote so Hukill can rework it. Meanwhile, a House version, sponsored by Rep. Dennis Baxley (R-Ocala) passed its first committee stop unanimously and is headed for two more.