Ohio’s Ignition Interlock Law

Ignition Interlock

Beginning October 1, 2008, section 4510.13(d),(e), (f), and (g) mandates the installation of ignition interlock devises as a pre-condition for driving privileges for all repeat DUI offenders. Court fines have been increased to cover costs for indigent offenders and section 2929.28 has been amended to authorize DUI offenders to pay for the installation.  According to 4510.43 and 4510.45 attempting to circumvent the devise is a crime as is failing to turn on all of the features.  Little known amongst the changes is that these statutes make it a crime to fail to report on someone who is circumventing the machine.

As for the way the system will work: Defendants will be required to familiarize themselves with the system.  They must take the car to an installation center.  They must watch a video about the system.  The “failure” on the machine is set incredibly low (.030) and the machine sets a random re-test within the next 5 to 15 minutes.  According to the information sent out by company representatives, “smoking, eating, drinking, or using mouthwash or medicines that contain alcohol immediately prior to a breath test may result in a failed test.” The machine, however, records all failures for later use by your probation officer.  Services will require the offender to schedule another appointment and (obviously) we don’t know how these will work over time.

Other objections to the interlock devices include the failure of probable cause determinations; the wholesale abandonment of innocent until proven guilty protections, the amazingly harsh requirements placed on a misdemeanor offender, the interference with a much-needed ability to drive and the limitations of the fuel cell technology.

As reported by Lawrence Taylor, MADD has been a major proponent of the interlock ignition devices.  Why?  On their list of “Corporate Donors”, six corporations are listed as “Platinum Corporate Donors” — that is, donors of $100,000 or more.  The first is a telemarketing company, DialAmerica Marketing.  Of the remaining five, three are carmakers planning IIDs in their models:  Nissan North America, Daimler Chrysler Corporation  and General Motors Companies (makers of Saab).  FOLLOW THE MONEY!  They have now locked profits into Ohio’s revised code.  See his critique of the interlock scheme at http://www.duiblog.com/2008/05/06/the-truth-about-ignition-interlock-devices/