Thursday, June 21, 2007
First-time DUI offenders lost chance to avoid new state law to install ignition interlock device
PHOENIX Arizona
First-time DUI offenders have lost a chance to dodge a new state law requiring them to install a device on their cars preventing them from drinking and driving.
An effort to repeal the law, which passed last month, died Wednesday after it failed to get enough support from a committee of six Republican and Democratic lawmakers, said Republican Rep. John Kavanagh of Fountain Hills, who wrote the repeal.
"I'm very disappointed," Kavanagh said. "The law is a useless weapon in the war against drunk driving. The police and courts need effective weapons to battle drunk driving. We're letting the public down."
Kavanagh said he also tried to drum up support for a watered-down version of the amendment that would have required first-time offenders to install the devices only if a judge ordered them to do so based on aggravating circumstances, such as a criminal record.
But support for that also was lacking, he said.
That means the new requirement passed last month stands as state law. It should go into effect 90 days from the end of the legislative session.
State law already required repeat DUI offenders or those convicted of extreme or aggravated DUI to use breath-testing ignition interlocks once their driving privileges are restored.
The new requirement, signed into law by Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano, made Arizona the only state besides New Mexico to have an interlock requirement for first-time drunken driving offenders.
Though the new requirement easily won approval at the Legislature, some lawmakers said at the time that they hoped a special committee would scale back the requirement.
Kavanagh, who at first supported the requirement, said he changed his mind because he since read up on studies that conclude the devices don't lead to a reduction in traffic accidents or repeat offenses by first-time offenders.
"The whole rationale behind this is a blanket net that puts all first and non-extremes on the interlock and scoops up the people who will never re-offend," he said.
Republican Rep. Andy Biggs of Gilbert said he was glad the repeal died.
"It was an attempt to weaken the prosecution of a person convicted of DUI, so I had a problem with that," he said.
First-time DUI offenders have lost a chance to dodge a new state law requiring them to install a device on their cars preventing them from drinking and driving.
An effort to repeal the law, which passed last month, died Wednesday after it failed to get enough support from a committee of six Republican and Democratic lawmakers, said Republican Rep. John Kavanagh of Fountain Hills, who wrote the repeal.
"I'm very disappointed," Kavanagh said. "The law is a useless weapon in the war against drunk driving. The police and courts need effective weapons to battle drunk driving. We're letting the public down."
Kavanagh said he also tried to drum up support for a watered-down version of the amendment that would have required first-time offenders to install the devices only if a judge ordered them to do so based on aggravating circumstances, such as a criminal record.
But support for that also was lacking, he said.
That means the new requirement passed last month stands as state law. It should go into effect 90 days from the end of the legislative session.
State law already required repeat DUI offenders or those convicted of extreme or aggravated DUI to use breath-testing ignition interlocks once their driving privileges are restored.
The new requirement, signed into law by Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano, made Arizona the only state besides New Mexico to have an interlock requirement for first-time drunken driving offenders.
Though the new requirement easily won approval at the Legislature, some lawmakers said at the time that they hoped a special committee would scale back the requirement.
Kavanagh, who at first supported the requirement, said he changed his mind because he since read up on studies that conclude the devices don't lead to a reduction in traffic accidents or repeat offenses by first-time offenders.
"The whole rationale behind this is a blanket net that puts all first and non-extremes on the interlock and scoops up the people who will never re-offend," he said.
Republican Rep. Andy Biggs of Gilbert said he was glad the repeal died.
"It was an attempt to weaken the prosecution of a person convicted of DUI, so I had a problem with that," he said.
# posted by SanDiegoDUI @ 7:52 AM 
| This website & linked blog is made available by this law firm for general information purposes only and to provide a general understanding of the law, not to provide legal advice. Readers of this website/blog are cautioned that reading the website/blog does not create a lawyer-client relationship between the reader and this law firm. |
