California DUI criminal defense attorneys are told district attorneys are skeptical of proposed legislation that would keep first-time drunken driving offenders from starting their cars without breathing into an ignition interlock device.

Even first-timers with a minimum blood alcohol level of .08 would be breathing hard under the bill introduced last week by Assemblyman Mike Feuer, D-Los Angeles.

The ignition device would replace restricted driver licenses and prevent drivers with any amount of alcohol in their system from starting their cars. It would have to be used for five months after a first offense.

If Assembly Bill 91 passes, four counties would be included in a pilot program beginning July 2010. A Central Valley county, perhaps Yuba or Sutter, could be chosen, said Feuer aide Arianna Smith.

Criteria for selecting the four counties have not been established, Smith said.

In West Virginia, where a similar bill was passed, repeat offenses by first-time offenders have declined 70 percent. In New Mexico, the decline was 60 percent, according to Feuer's office.

Assemblyman Dan Logue, R-Linda, said he supports the bill because it would save lives. But similar legislation last year died in committee when concerns arose about the cost to drivers.

For first-time offenders, the cost would be added to expenses that, according to law enforcement agencies trying to discourage drunken driving, are already approaching $10,000, including insurance increases and lost wages.

Cost is not addressed in Feuer's bill, which has the backing of California Highway Patrol Commissioner Joe Farrow and Mothers Against Drunk Driving national president Laura Dean-Mooney.

Sutter County District Attorney Carl Adams said he would not oppose the proposed program but is skeptical.

"It's definitely a good idea for multiple offenders, but is this the kind of restriction that's appropriate for someone who has suffered one conviction for DUI and has an otherwise clear record?" Adams asked.

Unanswered questions include whether the driver would have to install a device not just on his primary vehicle but also on his spouse's car or one he bought for his child, Adams said.

"Would the technology keep him from having someone else start the car and then letting him slide in and drive?" Adams said.

Yes, that would be possible without a fingerprint identification feature, said Logue — but that would be breaking the new law.

Adams questioned whether the device would be as effective as police officers looking for drivers they know should not be behind the wheel.

"It's difficult to judge the strength of technological solutions without knowing the technology," he said.

Yuba County District Attorney Pat McGrath called the concept appealing.

"After all, what better way to keep drinking drivers from actually controlling a car than to have the car itself say, "No, I'm not letting you drive," he said.

But, McGrath said, "practically speaking, we all know that interlocks can be defeated by having a friend start the car or by simply driving a car without an interlock device — and I suspect many problem drinkers would do just that."

The cost to drivers, including routine recalibration of the devices, is also a problem, he said.

Private garages would install and maintain the devices and report to the state.

"The more cynical among us would probably want to know if the legislation was sponsored by the interlock lobby," McGrath said.

"I don't think there's a silver bullet. Preventing DUIs will always depend on education, people taking to heart the saying, 'Friends don't let friends drive after drinking,' the threat of punishment and restricted or suspended licenses and technology," he said.

NEW DUI LAWS in 2009

SB1190: Allows judges to order ignition interlock devices for first-time DUI offenders with a blood alcohol level of 0.15, down from 0.20.

SB 1388: Starting in July, the Department of Motor Vehicles can require installation of an ignition interlock for anyone convicted of driving on a license suspended after a DUI conviction.
p>