BY TIM GRENDA, J.D.
Starting July 1, 2010, all motorists who are convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) in four California counties will be required to use an ignition-interlock device on their vehicles designed to prevent them from driving drunk again.
It’s just the latest in a series of get-tough-on-DUI measures nationwide, which in recent years have included increased fines, stiffer jail sentences, and longer losses of driving privileges following a DUI conviction.
Since California tends to be a trendsetter in terms of new laws (see gay marriage, medical marijuana, etc.), it’s safe to assume the increased use of ignition-interlock devices for even first-time DUI offenders will soon pop up in other states.
The California pilot program, set to be launched in Los Angeles, Alameda, Sacramento, and Tulare counties, will require drivers convicted of DUI to have a blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) level at or under 0.03 in order to start their vehicles. The state’s BAC legal limit is 0.08.
People convicted of their first DUI will be required to use an ignition-interlock device installed in their vehicles for five months. A second conviction would force the driver to use the device for one year. The program is set to run through 2016.
An ignition-interlock device is a small computer that forces motorists to blow into a plastic tube before they can start their vehicle’s engine. If the motorist’s BAC is over the set limit, the vehicle will not start. If the driver is below the established BAC limit, the vehicle’s engine will start.
While ignition-interlock devices have been ordered by some judges for years, mostly in the cases of habitual DUI offenders, this is the first time a state has ordered the devices in a blanket fashion for all people convicted of first-time DUIs and for later convictions.
In the past, there has been an issue of drivers having sober friends or even their own children blow into the ignition interlock device, allowing them to get around the restriction and drive drunk. That shady practice is sure to be an issue with this new California regulation.
People convicted of DUI in the four California counties participating in the program will be required to pay for the cost of installing and monitoring their ignition-interlock device. It costs $75 to install the device and about $50 per month to monitor their activity.
DUI offenders who have low incomes and cannot afford to pay full price would qualify to pay less, officials say. But in any event, the cost of the ignition-interlock device will not be passed on to California taxpayers, according to state Assemblyman Mike Fleur, the Los Angeles Democrat who sponsored the bill to create the program.
So, do you agree with California lawmakers and support requiring first-time DUI offenders to blow into an ignition-interlock device before they can drive? Or do you think this regulation is unfair? Let me know!
Also, you can read more about DUI laws and how you can defend yourself against these charges in LawInfo’s Drunk Driving Defense Legal Resource Center.



New Posts
-
5 Dead in Atlanta Spa Suspected Murder-Suicide
21 hours ago
by Justin Witzmann
-
Recently Recalled Food Products
21 hours ago
by Caitlyn Obolsky, Esq.
-
Indiana Court of Appeals Issues Ruling on Anonymous Commenter Defamation Case
21 hours ago
by Caitlyn Obolsky, Esq.
-
ACA Religious Exemption Applies To Religious Schools?
21 hours ago
by Justin Witzmann
-
11 Abused Children Removed From Texas Home
21 hours ago
by Justin Witzmann
-
5 Dead in Atlanta Spa Suspected Murder-Suicide
Facebook Fans
Popular Posts
- Virginia to Consider Law Requiring Ultrasound Before Abortion (144 views)
- How a Couple of Photos Turned a Tourist into a Suspected Terrorist (138 views)
- Antidepressants, such as Prozac, Linked to Birth Defects (109 views)
- Police Arrest Suspect In Breyer Robbery (106 views)
- FDA Warns Multaq is Linked to Serious Cardiovascular Harm and Death (105 views)
Topics
Attorney Marketing (4)
Automobile Accidents (47)
Aviation Accidents/Disasters (25)
Bankruptcy Law (45)
Brain Injury / Brain Trauma (47)
Business Law (86)
CA suits (47)
Catastrophic Injury (86)
Celebrity (40)
Class Actions (75)
Constitutional (108)
Corporate & Securities Law (24)
Criminal Law (237)
Current Events (333)
Dangerous Products / Defective Products (165)
Divorce (15)
Dog Bites (11)
DoOver (30)
Drugs (22)
Drunk Driving (49)
DUI (51)
Dumb or Weird Laws (26)
DWI (45)
Education (13)
En Español (7)
Entertainment Law (13)
Estate Planning (31)
Family Law (66)
Federal (158)
Frequently Asked Questions (12)
General (384)
Historical Cases (6)
How-To's (24)
immigration (12)
Immigration Law (40)
Intellectual Property (19)
Labor & Employment Law (54)
Landlord – Tenant (15)
Law Enforcement (6)
LawSmart (3)
Lead Counsel (729)
Lead Counsel Guest Attorneys (114)
Lead Counsel Corner (1006)
Lead Counsel News (319)
Legal Trends (96)
Litigation (133)
Medical Malpractice (52)
OUI (13)
Personal Injury (181)
Press Releases (25)
Prisons (4)
Privacy (32)
Products Liability (80)
Recall (136)
Slip and Fall / Trip and Fall (39)
Spinal Cord Injury (31)
Sports (9)
Tax Law (18)
Torts (36)
Unfair Insurance Practices / Insurance Bad Faith (12)
Workers' Compensation (22)
Wrongful Death (92)







