Ohio Driver License

Many Ohio residents travel to Michigan for business or pleasure.  While in Michigan they are sometimes arrested for DUI.  A frequent question for these Ohio drivers looking at a Michigan DUI conviction is “what will happen to my Ohio driver license?  Like so many other issues involved with a Michigan DUI conviction, this is not such an easy question to answer.   What follows are many issues and answers, and top Ohio DUI lawyer Tim Huey assisted in explaining Ohio DUI law.

Michigan’s Driver License Sanctions

The state of Michigan can only impose driver license sanctions applicable to your privilege to drive in Michigan.  Accordingly, Michigan DUI law provides that for a Michigan DUI first offense the Michigan driver license sanction would be either a 180 day suspension (for an OWI/DUI/OUIL/UBAL “intoxicated” driving) or a 90 day suspension (for an OWVI – “impaired” driving).

A Michigan intoxicated driving conviction will cause a “hard” 30 day suspension, after which you would be eligible in Michigan for a restricted license after the first 30 days.  With a Michigan conviction for impaired driving you will have a restricted license the whole time.

A Michigan “super drunk” conviction carries with it a 365 days suspension, with no driving for the first 45 days, followed by a 320 day restricted license with an ignition interlock device.

Even as an Ohio resident you will still be required to pay Michigan’s driver responsibility fee.  You will receive by mail a separate demand for payment of the driver responsibility fee (DRF), which is essentially a “tax” that is collected by the Secretary of State.  The DRF for an impaired driving is $500.00 per year for two years, and for intoxicate driver it is $1,000.00 per year for two years.

The Similarity of Michigan DUI Law?

The first question or issue your lawyer will need to answer is whether the law that supports your Michigan DUI conviction is similar to the laws in your home state.  According to a top Ohio DUI lawyer Tim Huey, under Ohio law[i], any DUI conviction from another state that is substantially equivalent to an Ohio OVI [ii] will count as an Ohio prior offense.

Mr. Huey indicates that there has not been a great deal of litigation on the “same or similar” language in this statute. Pursuing an appeal on this issue can be expensive but may be worthwhile because success means no Ohio driver license sanctions.  For example, if client was convicted of “physical control” he may wish to consider an administrative appeal as Ohio has separate statutes for OVI and Physical Control.

If Michigan law is found to be “substantially similar” to Ohio law the way it will work is this: after you plead guilty or are found guilty of a Michigan DUI, the court clerk will advise the Michigan Secretary of State that there’s been a conviction.  Michigan will then send you a letter to your address of record in Ohio indicating a specific driver license sanction.

Ohio Will Receive Notice of Michigan DUI Conviction

Ohio is seemingly a member of all compacts and, moreover, will act on any notice of DUI conviction sent to it by another state or to a national registry, so at some point in time Ohio will learn of the conviction in Michigan.  Determining exactly when involves nothing more than speculation.  Nevertheless, it’s fair to say that at some point after the client you are convicted of a Michigan DUI (and sometimes long after); the Registrar of the Ohio BMV will notify you that a suspension will be imposed 21 days after the mailing of the letter.  This letter will be sent by ordinary mail to the address on your Ohio license.

Length of Ohio Driver License Sanction

The length of the suspension is always a “Class B-4 suspension”[iii] which is a six month suspension.  This is true regardless of whether your Michigan DUI conviction is a 1^st offense or subsequent offense (2^nd, 3^rd super drunk, etc).

It is sometimes possible for the suspension to end prior to the six month period.  This is because the law states[iv] that the Ohio suspension is to end on the last day of the six month Ohio suspension period or on the last day of the suspension of the person’s nonresident operating privilege imposed by the other state or federal court, whichever is earlier.

However, this statute references a suspension by a state or federal “court” and thus may not be helpful when client is convicted in a state where DUI suspensions are not imposed by the court but is imposed by the DMV or BMV or other agency. These complications in Ohio law are one of the many reasons you should hire an Ohio lawyer like Tim Huey to help you with your Ohio license.

According to Mr. Huey, the Ohio BMV normally imposes a full six month suspension and does not end the suspension automatically on the date the suspension ends in the other state. Thus, if applicable, you or your Ohio attorney will likely have to contact the BMV and try to convince the BMV that the suspension is supposed to end earlier.

Obtaining Limited Privileges in Ohio

You should make sure both you and your attorney have certified copies of any entries from your imposing a suspension based on your Michigan DUI as these documents will be needed when trying to persuade the Ohio BMV to acknowledge the suspension and terminate the six month suspension early. You should also understand that it may be necessary to appeal the suspension in order to pursue this relief and that the 21 day clock on the appeal starts running on the date the suspension notice is mailed.

Your goal will be to obtain limited driving privileges during the Ohio suspension.  If such privileges are granted, then they are directed at preserving “the ability to continue the person’s employment.” However, most courts will consider granting some school, medical and, perhaps, family related driving needs.

These privileges are not granted by the BMV but rather by a judge in the Ohio Municipal Court, County Court or Juvenile Court whose jurisdiction includes your Ohio address.

Limited Privileges are not Automatic

It is Tim Huey’s opinion, based on his vast experience, that most Ohio courts will grant such privileges as a matter of routine.  However, this is not required and it’s best not to assume that such privileges are automatic.  Ohio law says “the court may grant the person limited driving privileges.” Use of the word “may” (rather than “shall”) means such privileges are clearly within the court’s discretion. Moreover, the judge “may impose any condition it considers reasonable and necessary to limit the use of a vehicle by the person.” Presumably this could include an “ignition interlock” device or require the client to obtain the yellow and red plates for his car.

A top Ohio DUI lawyer will have an idea as to how tough the judge or judges in your home jurisdiction may be in DUI cases and/or what conditions the judge may impose in granting privileges.

How Long Before You Can Obtain Ohio Privileges?

Your attorney can petition the appropriate court for limited driving privileges as soon as you receive the notice of suspension.  Courts generally grant privileges that are effective immediately, and this avoids the “hard time” period that would apply if you were convicted of OVI in Ohio.  Like everything else, this is not an absolute because the Ohio statute appears to require certain hard time periods be imposed for out of state convictions.

“Hard time” is a period of the suspension in which no privileges can be granted. For out of state convictions the appropriate hard time would be: 1) the first 15 days of the 6 month suspension if the client has no prior DUI or related vehicular injury or death charges within six years, 2) the first 30 days if there is 1 prior DUI or related vehicular injury or death charges within six years. If there are 2 or more priors within 6 years the client cannot get limited privileges during the entire 6 month suspension period.  These hart time suspensions will only occur if the court strictly applies the statute.

Implied Consent Suspensions Don’t Trigger this Action

A Michigan “implied consent” suspension occurs only when you refused a breath or blood test after being arrested for the Michigan DUI.  Such refusal will result in as much as a two year Michigan suspension.  However, there is no specific provision in the Ohio revised Code for the Ohio BMV to impose a separate suspension where an Ohio driver is found to be responsible for an Implied Consent suspension in another state, and consequently, the Michigan DUI Administrative License Suspension will usually not trigger a separate Ohio Suspension.

Not Legal Advice

Nothing herein is meant to be legal advice. In particular, this summary is not meant to be used or relied upon by non-lawyers without the assistance of a lawyer who can review the statutes referred to herein and make his or her own determination as to what the statutes specify.

To the extent that this summary describes standard practices of the BMV and courts, it does so based upon the experience of the author, Mr. Tim Huey. The BMV or individual employees may not always follow the standard practices described herein. More importantly, individual courts, judges and BMV hearing officers may have their own practices, procedures and views of how these statutes should be interpreted.

Get a FREE confidential CASE EVALUATION on your Michigan OWI/OWVI/DUI by calling (248) 306-9159 , or filling out this consultation request form. Call now, there’s no obligation!

[ii] Ohio Revised Code Section 4510.17

[iii] RC 4510.02(B)(4)

[iv] RC 4510.17

Being pulled over for drunk driving may soon mean having the police draw your blood against your will.   And it won’t be a doctor, nurse or paramedic sticking the needle in your arm.  No, the blood will be drawn by the police officer right there at the side of the road.

Think this can’t happen in America?  Think again.  In Arizona such blood draws have not only been happening but have been encouraged for more than a decade.  Now, based on a study by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration this practice is about to be expanded and may eventually be common practice in all 50 states.

According to an Associated Press article, “a select cadre of officers in Idaho and Texas has received in recent months to draw blood from those suspected of drunken or drugged driving. The federal program’s aim is to determine if blood draws by cops can be an effective tool against drunk drivers and aid in their prosecution.”

Why is this happening?  It has to do with the belief that every drunk driving arrest should result in a drunk driving conviction.  The problem arose when the United States Supreme Court ruled that it was permissible for law enforcement to use force, if necessary, to compel an impaired driving suspect to take a BAC test (Schmerber v California, 1966). In this case, the suspect fled the scene of a crash involving serious injury to a young child and then refused to cooperate with a request to take a BAC test.

As a result many States passed implied consent laws that allow drunk driving suspects to refuse to allow their breath to be tested.  According to NHTSA “Since the effect of these laws is to authorize BAC test refusal, where otherwise no such right exists, they have created the BAC test refusal problem.”

NHTSA’s answer is to train officers to draw blood by force at the roadside.  According to the Associated Press article “[O]fficers can’t hold down a suspect and force them to breath into a tube, she noted, but they can forcefully take blood — a practice that’s been upheld by Idaho’s Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Michigan’s courts have also said that the police may force drunk drivers to give blood.  In fact, Michigan’s police may use the infliction of pain to force a drunk driver to succumb to the blood test request. 

The name of this 1997 case is People v. Hanna, and it is described in detail in Defending Drinking Drivers, sec. 155.2.  In this case Michigan’s appeals court found that the police may use the pain compliance device called a “Do Rite stick” to force an intoxicate driver to give blood.

It is NHTSA’s plan is to train police nationwide to begin drawing blood by force.  But, there are many problems.  First among them is the possibility of injury or infection.  Then there is the problem of fear.  About 10% of the population suffers from fear of needles.  The medical term for this fear is trypanophobia.

According to Wikipedia, trypanophobia was officially recognized in 1994 in the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, 4th edition) as a specific phobia of blood/injection/injury type. Phobic level responses to injections cause sufferers to avoid inoculations, blood tests, and in the more severe cases, all medical care.

One of the possible reactions is a vaso-vagal response. The physiological changes associated with this type of trypanophobia also include feeling faint, sweating, nausea, pallor, tinnitus, panic attacks, and initially high blood pressure and heart rate followed by a plunge in both at the moment of injection.

Although most phobias are dangerous to some degree, trypanophobia is one of the few that actually kills. In cases of severe trypanophobia, the drop in blood pressure caused by the vaso-vagal shock reflex may cause death.

The great irony here is that the purpose of drunk driving laws is to prevent death.  Here, in a great twist of fate, our government is encouraging drunk driving enforcement that may itself cause death.

Case One:

People v. K.E.

Charge: OWI (Operating While Intoxicated)

Prior Record: One prior drunk driving in Illinois

Client was stopped for speeding 10-15 MPH over the limit by a Michigan state trooper.  The report indicates she was slow to pull over. She admited to drinking beer had the odor of alcohol, bloodshot glassy eyes and slurred speech. 

Client failed all tests, including the HGN (horizontal gaze nystagmus), the one leg stand and walk and turn standardized filed sobriety tests.  She also exhibits poor balance.

At the jail the client blows into the DataMaster which reveals a breath alcohol content (BAC) of .14/.15.

The case is set for trial and on the first trial date the trooper agrees to a reckless driving.  Case is adjourned to determine if a plea can be worked out.  Client eventually declines to accept this offer, and the case is re-set for trial.

On the new trial date we point out to the prosecutor that the jail had missed the 120 day inspection of the DataMaster that should have occurred subsequent to our client’s breath test.  We argue that without this result the judge will not allow the jury to see the breath test results.

The prosecutor offers a careless driving and the client accepts this plea.  A careless driving is a civil infraction like a speeding ticket or running a red light.

This fantastic result helped the client to avoid the imposition of any driver license sanction on this case and there was no driver responsibility fees imposed.  Also, only three points rather than six points were added to the client’s driving record.

Also, this client was an Illinois licensed driver.  She had moved to Michigan to take a management position at a large department store.  Had she been convicted of any alcohol related charge her Illinois driver license would have been suspended for at least one year.

Case Two:

People v. M.V.

Charge: OWI (Operating While Intoxicated)

Prior Record: one prior MIP and one subsequent OWI

Client is driving his truck through a subdivision when he careens off the road and crashes into a parked car.  He gets back onto the street, stops and a neighbor observes him throwing up.  He continues and hits a second car and a tree, and is observed throwing up a second time.  The neighbor calls the police then follows client across the street into the parking lot of the Middle School across the street.

When the police arrive the client is observed outside his car and is dirty and covered with leaves.  He admits drinking has a strong odor of alcohol on his breath, and when confronted about the cars he hit simply says “I’m sorry.”

The police administer a roadside breath test (PBT) which registers a .20 breath alcohol result.  Our client is arrested and at the station becomes combative and argumentative with the police.  At one point he refers to the arresting office as a “faggot.”  He refuses the breath test at the station.

The case is pending for many months, and at one point we are able to obtain a dismissal “without prejudice.”  Later, an under 21 BAC” is offered, but client refuses to accept this plea bargain.  The case continues on for trial, being adjourned several times.

On one trial date the neighbor appears and we request an evidentiary hearing so that we can obtain his testimony.  After the hearing the court reluctantly agrees to yet another adjournment so that we can obtain the transcript from the evidentiary hearing.

Shortly after the evidentiary hearing the client picks up another drunk driving case in another jurisdiction. 

On the day of trial we are able to negotiate a reduction to careless driving provided he is found guilty or pleads guilty to the second case.  The court also requires that client obtain and follow-through on alcohol treatment.  We had already recommended treatment, and client had already begun his alcohol recovery.

Original drunk driving case dismissed, client pleads guilty to the civil infraction of careless driving as well as the misdemeanor charge of open intoxicants in a motor vehicle.

The result helped the client to avoid the imposition of any driver license sanction on this case and there was no driver responsibility fees imposed.  Also, only three points rather than six points were added to the client’s driving record.

Case Three:

People v. C.H.

Charge: OWI (operating while intoxicated)

Prior record: One OWI and one MIP

What follows is a portion of our summary of the videotape in this case.  We prepared this document to assist in trial preparation and also to assist in any plea negotiations and to identify any possible legal issues:

VEHICLE IN MOTION: 1:48:48

The video is in color and there is limited audio

According to the police report the officer observed the listed vehicle disregard the stop sign. The officer then noticed the vehicle accelerate in speed and drive in the right fog lane. The officer then illuminated his emergency lights to make a traffic stop. None of the driving was captured on camera, when the video began, we observed the officer illuminate his emergency lights and the listed vehicle was stopped on the shoulder of the road.       

PERSONAL CONTACT: 1:51:16

1:51:16            We observed the officer exit his patrol vehicle and walk up to the driver’s side window to speak with the driver, soon to be known as our Client. We are not able to hear the conversation between the two because there is no audio at this time.   

PRE ARREST SCREENING: 1:52:01

1:52:01            Client stepped out of his vehicle.

1:52:08            The officer searched Client.                                                                           

TESTS

Note:   It is unknown whether Officer #1 was/is a certified SFST practitioner. Please refer to the video review addendum to learn how the standardized field sobriety tests should be properly administered.

(1) Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus: 1:52:48 to 1:53:02             

We observed the officer make 2 vertical passes across Client’s eyes. Please note that the test began off screen and half way through the camera angle changed allowing us to view the test being administered, there also was no audio. According to the police report, the officer found all 6 clues in Client’s eyes, lack of smooth pursuit, distinct nystagmus at maximum deviation and onset of nystagmus prior to 45 degrees.

(2) One Leg Stand: 1:53:10 to 1:53:22

We observed Client attempt the one leg stand task three times, each time he used his arms for balance, swayed, and put his foot down after a few seconds. Please note there was no audio during this test. This is consistent with the police report.

(3) Walk and Turn: 1:53:34 to 1:53:50

We observed Client take 8 steps forward, turn, and take 8 steps back, with his arms at his sides. Client had trouble maintaining his balance after his first turn. We were unable to observe Client’s feet on camera walking heel to toe. Please note that there was no audio during the test. According to the police report the officer observed Client take 9 steps forwards, turn, and take 9 steps back. We were unsure if the officer counted an extra step when Client made his turn, and are also unsure how many steps the officer asked Client to take.

1:54:20            The audio begins and we hear the officer ask Client to take a PBT test. The officer never read Client his PBT rights. The officer asked Client if he was correct in stating that he had consumed 2 beers tonight, Client stated he had more then 2 beers.

(4) Preliminary Breath Test (PBT): 1:55:09

1:55:09            We observed Client take the PBT test, which resulted in a .14 BAC level.            

ARREST: 1:55:09

1:55:09            The officer informed Client that he was under arrest for OWI.

1:55:44            The video ends with Client seated in the back of the patrol vehicle.

VIDEO SUMMARY                         

Client was arrested on the evening of March 25, 2009 for OWI 2nd.  The officer stated that the initial reason for the stop was due to Client’s erratic driving. The driving was not captured on camera.Through the video, we observed Off #1 conduct 4 different FST’s:

                        1) HGN

                        2) OLS

                        3) W & T

                        4) PBT       

All of the FST’s take place on camera.  Client had trouble completing the field sobriety tests that were administered. The officer noted he found all 6 clues in Client’s eyes during the HGN test, and Client blew a .14 on the PBT machine. Client admitted to the officer that he had been drinking earlier that night. Client was arrested for OWI and taken to jail; there he agreed to take a chemical breath test resulting in a .14/.14 BAC level.

Again, in this case, like the others, we set the case for trial and there were several adjournments.  Ultimately a careless driving with open intoxicants was offered.  In part this was due to the fact that the arresting officer had been laid off from the state police.

The client decided a final resolution would be better than a dismissal “without prejudice” meaning the case could be brought again if and when the officer was rehired.

Clearly we are not able to obtain these plea reductions for all of our clients.  The point of this is that if you’re facing a drunk driving charge in Michigan then you should call us today to learn how we may be able to obtain similarly spectacular results for your case.

There are many reasons why, in these cases, we were able to obtain such great results.  In part it is due to our Firm’s reputation and experience.  In part it is also due to our tenacity, and our refusal to take “no” for an answer. 

Also, we don’t ever hesitate to set a case for trial.  At the Barone Defense Firm we take many really bad OWI cases to trial, and yes, we lose many of these really bad cases.  But even in losing the prosecutor learns they will have a battle on their hands.

Now, how much of this boils down to shear luck?  Our favorite saying is “luck happens when preparation meets opportunity.”  There is simply no substitute for a well prepared case!

Thus, as we like to say, “wonderful things happen when you answer ready for trial.”

I am often astonished at some of the lies told by some of Michigan’s DUI lawyers.  Usually, these lies are told by low-fee lawyers who aren’t being paid to work hard on your case. Here are some examples:

I’m not getting the videotape because you were drunk, you’ll look bad, and it won’t help your case. 

This one is particularly interesting because the client was represented by a Michigan lawyer who claims on his web site to do the same thing the “more expensive” lawyers do at a much lower “reasonable” fee.  He promises that this will include obtaining and reviewing the video tape. 

So, what was really going on here?  The attorney was being lazy or didn’t want to pay the cost of the videotape, and was trying to justify his laziness to the client!  Yes, this lawyer truly did earn his lower fee!

If you truly look bad on the videotape then you will want to know this, but what if the police report exaggerates your “drunkenness?” 

At the Barone Defense Firm we have found that in the majority of our cases our clients look far better on the video than might be expected from a plain review of the police report.  This is because police reports are often exaggerated or even embellished.  If a video exists there really can be NO reason NOT to obtain and review it.

You want to plead guilty BEFORE the blood test results come back.

It never ceases to amaze me how many lawyers will plead their clients guilty before they even know the blood test results.  I see them do this in court while waiting for my client’s case to be heard.

Many lawyers see the blood test case as undefendable.  This is based on a lack of knowledge of how blood testing works.  This lack of knowledge creates fear in the lawyer.  If you’re charged with drunk driving in Michigan you’re scared enough.  The last thing you want is a lawyer who is afraid!

You can’t win an implied consent hearing, so there’s no reason to show up.

Again, a complete lie, or a complete lack of knowledge or understanding of the system.  We win many implied consent hearings, and even if we don’t win we obtain valuable information about our client’s cases at the hearing, information we can use later to possibly win their case.  Plus, if the cop is more than 20 minutes late, you win by default.

If you asked for but did not obtain an independent test, your case will be dismissed.

True, but only if your case happened prior to July 2006.  That’s when the case of People vs. Anstey was decided by the Michigan Supreme Court.  This “advice” wasn’t exactly a lie, it was just a lack of knowledge of Michigan DUI law.

The list could go on and on, but the point here is when it comes to “purchasing” legal services the old adage applies – buyer beware.

According to a July 1, 2009 Time Magazine article entitled Coming Soon: A Breathalyzer in Every Car.

[A] new highway bill pending before Congress would instruct all 50 states to require all motorists convicted of driving under the influence to equip their cars with interlock systems that shut down a vehicle when a measured amount of alcohol is detected. 

Here is what MADD has to say about this;

Dear MADD Supporter,

Can you picture a nation without drunk driving?  Your assistance is urgently needed to help realize this vision by ensuring that many of the provisions of MADD’s Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving become federal law.  Legislation has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives which seeks to require states to undertake a number of reforms to combat drunk driving consistent with the Campaign.  The bill, known as the Surface Transportation Authorization Act of 2009, would improve highway safety by implementing the Campaign nationally.

In the 1980s, MADD fought successfully to establish 21 as the minimum legal drinking age.  In the 1990s, MADD prevailed again in its fight to set .08 as the per se BAC limit.  Now, in 2009, we MUST put the U.S. on the path towards eliminating drunk driving.  To do this, we need your help and your voice.  You must act immediately! 

Are you up to the challenge?  Then call your Member of Congress and say that you support the impaired driving safety provisions in the Surface Transportation Authorization Act of 2009.  With your help, we CAN eliminate drunk driving. 

There are many interesting things about this new campaign.  First, it would seem that MADD has tacitly acknowledged that their prior multi-decade campaign of slowly and gradually increasing penalties for convicted drunk drivers has failed to reduce the number of drunk driving arrests, which in Michigan remains consistent at around 45-50 thousand arrests per year.  Thus, despite the fact that Michigan’s drunk driving laws get tougher almost every year, the number of  drunk driving (DUI/OWI) arrests has stayed about the same.  Hopefully judges will take notice and recognize also that ever more stringent punishment for drunk drivers, including mandatory jail time, simply has little if any deterrent effect.  This is why we at the Barone Defense Firm stress treatment for our clients as we believe this will better lead to the elimination of repeat drunk driving offenders.

Another thing that is worth knowing is that ignition interlock devices simply don’t work all that well.  A big problem with them is that they use what are called fuel cells to measure the presence and amount of alcohol in a person’s breath, and fuel cells, and therefore ignition interlocks are non-specific for beverage alcohol.  According to Dr. Michael Hlastala’s upcoming DWI Journal: Law and Science article entitled: Limitations of Transdermal Alcohol Testing:

The fuel cell converts electrochemical energy stored in the ethanol molecule into electrical energy manifested as an electrical current.  Fuel cells are not specific for ethanol (ethyl alcohol).  They react with any chemical having an hydroxyl group (-OH), and will thus react to chemicals other than ethyl alcohol, but with a different sensitivity.  Examples of chemicals that can get into the body by inhalation of fumes or skin contact are: methyl alcohol (wood alcohol – used to produce bio-diesel fuel), n-propanol (cleaning solvent), isopropyl alcohol (rubbing alcohol, metabolically produced in uncontrolled diabetes), butyl alcohol, butoxyethanol (strong cleaning agent), ethylene glycol (antifreeze), propylene glycol (used as food supplement) and glycerine (used in many soaps).

How would you feel if you couldn’t get to work on a cold wintery morning because your windshield wiper fluid set off your car’s interlock?  This is exactly what happened to one of our clients, and what will happen time and again across the country if this bill goes into law.

Another significant issue is that it is currently lawful to drink and drive, and unless we reenact prohibition along with this interlock bill there is no way to fairly administer the law.  Think about it this way; do we set the interlocks so that they shut down cars when a delivered breath sample is .08 or above?  If so, then the .08 must mean something, fuel cells are known to produce unreliable quantitative results.  This is why in Michigan the results of the road side preliminary breath testing devices are inadmissible in most instances.  The fuel cell is simply a screening tool to help the officer determine if alcohol has been consumed, in other words to make a qualitative (presence) rather than quantitative (amount) measurement.  This is why I say the only way to administer the ignition interlock law is to make it zero tolerance across the land.  No more drinking a glass of wine at dinner and driving home.

Also, what if the driver has “one for the road” but is .05 when he leaves the bar, but is .09 just before he hits and kills someone?  Is the interlock company going to be liable for this death or is the car manufacturer going to be liable?  After all, the car’s interlock told the driver he was ok to drive.  Otherwise, the driver will have to blow into the interlock every 15-30 minutes just be sure he’s not above the limit.

Then there is the increased cost.  When all of the auto manufacturers are going bankrupt or have other serious financial issues, is this really the time to require technology that will increase a vehicle’s cost?  And who is going to monitor the interlocks?  They will need to be calibrated from time to time, and this all costs money.  I’m old enough to remember the exhaust law we once had where each year you had to bring your car to the mechanic, pay fifteen bucks and have them “certify” that your car didn’t spew exhaust fumes.  This law was a monumental failure and was soon revoked.  Are we now going to have to take our cars each year to a state run facility and have our interlocks checked?

Finally, Michigan all ready has in place an ignition interlock law.  I’ve written about Michigan’s Super Drunk Law previously and talked about some of these issues in that article.

I hope that after reading this you will call your Congress man or woman and tell them to vote “no” on MADD’s new mad attempt to impose prohibition on all of us, and in so doing, increase the cost of our automobiles.  Are you up for the challenge?