Interlock Facts

WASHINGTON – Today, the American Beverage Institute (ABI), which represents over 700 California restaurants, warned the state legislature that California cannot afford to enforce AB91 – the ignition interlock pilot program which the Assembly will be voting on today. Based on estimates from the American Probation and Parole Association (APPA), it would cost California at least $22.5 million per year to ensure that offenders in Los Angeles, Alameda, Sacramento and Tulare counties comply with the interlock mandate.

The exorbitant cost to implement AB91 is just one of many reasons why the legislature should amend it.

“By mandating breathalyzers for first time offenders, regardless of their BAC level, this proposal ignores the root cause of today’s drunk driving problem—hard core alcohol abusers,” said ABI spokeswoman Sarah Longwell.

Data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration show that the average BAC of a drunk driver in a fatal car crash in California is 0.18 percent -- more than twice the legal limit. In addition, the vast majority of first-time drunk drivers don’t commit their crime again. Laws mandating ignition interlocks for all offenders deny judges the ability to distinguish between a driver one sip over the limit and those high-BAC, repeat offenders.

That’s why 27 states have passed high-BAC and repeat-offender laws, while just 11 target low-BAC, first-time offenders. If this bill passes, California will join the handful of states that punish all marginal, first-time offenders with the same interlock they use to punish hardcore drunk drivers.

“Other states are learning that laws requiring interlocks for all offenders are ineffective and are prohibitively expensive to enforce.” said Longwell.

To verify interlock installation and proper use, states have to follow-up with offenders. But, mandating interlocks for all offenders overwhelms states’ parole and probation officers and since no state has the necessary infrastructure to examine the vehicles of all offenders, many simply ignore the mandate. For example, in New Mexico, which boasts the highest compliance rate for interlock installation in the country, only 32 percent of offenders abide by the requirement.

Because California is in a budget crisis, there is no funding for enforcement of the interlock mandate in AB91. Passing AB91 gives California two options: 1) Invest the $22.5 million+ to fully enforce the mandate or 2) Don’t provide the requisite funding and leave themselves unable to enforce the new law.

“The California legislature is poised to pass an unfunded mandate that targets the wrong people,” Longwell continued.  “California should forget this ineffective, expensive pilot program and instead require interlocks for high-BAC and repeat offenders.”