ASSEMBLY JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
STATEMENT TO
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR
ASSEMBLY, No. 2089
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
DATED: NOVEMBER 26, 2018
The Assembly Judiciary Committee reports favorably Assembly Committee Substitute for Assembly Bill No. 2089.
This substitute bill revises the penalty provisions for various drunk driving offenses, particularly making changes concerning the use of, and applicable time periods covering, driver’s license forfeitures andinstallations of ignition interlock devices on motor vehicles owned or operated by these drivers.
Drunk Driving
Concerning the offense of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs (R.S.39:4-50), the bill revises the relevant penalty provisions as follows:
For a first offense, if that offense involved a person’s bloodalcohol concentration of 0.08% or higher but less than 0.10%, or otherwise operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, the court would order a license forfeiture until the person installed an ignition interlock device in one motor vehicle owned, leased, or principally operated by the person, whichever the person most often operates, which would then remain on the vehicle for a period of three months, unless the court was clearly convinced, after consideration on the record of a series of aggravating and mitigating factors as set forth in the bill, to instead order a license forfeiture of three months (a six-month forfeiture would apply instead of device installation if the person did not own, lease, or operate any motor vehicle).
The aggravating and mitigating factors for consideration by the court to order a license forfeiture, instead of device installation would include, but not be limited to: the nature and circumstances of theperson’s conduct, including whether such conduct posed a high risk of danger to the public; the person’s driving record; whether the characterand attitude of the person indicate that the person would be likely to commit another violation; and the need for personal or general deterrence.
If the court did order the installation of the ignition interlockdevice, the person’s driver’s license would only be restored uponshowing proof of such installation, and the commission would imprint
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR
ASSEMBLY, No. 2089
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
DATED: NOVEMBER 26, 2018
The Assembly Judiciary Committee reports favorably Assembly Committee Substitute for Assembly Bill No. 2089.
This substitute bill revises the penalty provisions for various drunk driving offenses, particularly making changes concerning the use of, and applicable time periods covering, driver’s license forfeitures andinstallations of ignition interlock devices on motor vehicles owned or operated by these drivers.
Drunk Driving
Concerning the offense of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs (R.S.39:4-50), the bill revises the relevant penalty provisions as follows:
For a first offense, if that offense involved a person’s bloodalcohol concentration of 0.08% or higher but less than 0.10%, or otherwise operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, the court would order a license forfeiture until the person installed an ignition interlock device in one motor vehicle owned, leased, or principally operated by the person, whichever the person most often operates, which would then remain on the vehicle for a period of three months, unless the court was clearly convinced, after consideration on the record of a series of aggravating and mitigating factors as set forth in the bill, to instead order a license forfeiture of three months (a six-month forfeiture would apply instead of device installation if the person did not own, lease, or operate any motor vehicle).
The aggravating and mitigating factors for consideration by the court to order a license forfeiture, instead of device installation would include, but not be limited to: the nature and circumstances of theperson’s conduct, including whether such conduct posed a high risk of danger to the public; the person’s driving record; whether the characterand attitude of the person indicate that the person would be likely to commit another violation; and the need for personal or general deterrence.
If the court did order the installation of the ignition interlockdevice, the person’s driver’s license would only be restored uponshowing proof of such installation, and the commission would imprint
2
a notation concerning driving with the device on the person’s driver’slicense.
Additionally, for a person with an ignition interlock device installed on a motor vehicle, the three-month installation period would be subject to possible extension for an additional period of 30 days, commencing upon the expiration of the initial period, for attempting to operate the vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.05% or higher during the final 30 days of the initial installation period; if the attempt to operate the vehicle occurred during any extended period, an additional 30-day extension would commence upon the expiration of such extended period. This extension would occur without need of further court order, following notification of the event to the affected person by the Chief Administrator of the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission. A person would have the right to appeal any extended period of ignition interlock installation administratively imposed for attempting to operate a motor vehicle with an impermissible blood alcohol concentration.
If the first offense involved a person’s blood alcohol concentrationof 0.10% or higher but less than 0.15%, the court would order a license forfeiture until the person installed an ignition interlock device in one motor vehicle owned, leased, or principally operated by the person, whichever the person most often operates, which would then remain on the vehicle for not less than seven months or more than one year, unless the court was clearly convinced, after consideration of the series of aggravating and mitigating factors as described above, to instead order a license forfeiture of not less than seven months or more than one year (a forfeiture of not less than one year or more than two years would apply instead of device installation if the person did not own, lease, or operate a motor vehicle). As above, if the person was ordered to install an ignition interlock device, the person could only reinstatethe person’s driver’s license through the Motor Vehicle Commission upon showing proof of such installation, and could, when given notice by the chief administrator, have the installation period extended for one or more additional periods of 45 days, commencing upon the expiration of the current installation period, for attempting to operate the vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.05% or higher during the final 45 days of the installation period.
If the first offense involved a person’s blood alcohol concentrationof 0.15% or higher, the court would order a license forfeiture until the person installed an ignition interlock device in one motor vehicle owned, leased, or principally operated by the person, whichever the person most often operates, and maintain installation of the device during a period of license forfeiture of not less than seven months or more than one year and after the period of license forfeiture for an additional period of not less than seven months or more than one year, unless there was no such vehicle, in which case the person would
a notation concerning driving with the device on the person’s driver’slicense.
Additionally, for a person with an ignition interlock device installed on a motor vehicle, the three-month installation period would be subject to possible extension for an additional period of 30 days, commencing upon the expiration of the initial period, for attempting to operate the vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.05% or higher during the final 30 days of the initial installation period; if the attempt to operate the vehicle occurred during any extended period, an additional 30-day extension would commence upon the expiration of such extended period. This extension would occur without need of further court order, following notification of the event to the affected person by the Chief Administrator of the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission. A person would have the right to appeal any extended period of ignition interlock installation administratively imposed for attempting to operate a motor vehicle with an impermissible blood alcohol concentration.
If the first offense involved a person’s blood alcohol concentrationof 0.10% or higher but less than 0.15%, the court would order a license forfeiture until the person installed an ignition interlock device in one motor vehicle owned, leased, or principally operated by the person, whichever the person most often operates, which would then remain on the vehicle for not less than seven months or more than one year, unless the court was clearly convinced, after consideration of the series of aggravating and mitigating factors as described above, to instead order a license forfeiture of not less than seven months or more than one year (a forfeiture of not less than one year or more than two years would apply instead of device installation if the person did not own, lease, or operate a motor vehicle). As above, if the person was ordered to install an ignition interlock device, the person could only reinstatethe person’s driver’s license through the Motor Vehicle Commission upon showing proof of such installation, and could, when given notice by the chief administrator, have the installation period extended for one or more additional periods of 45 days, commencing upon the expiration of the current installation period, for attempting to operate the vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.05% or higher during the final 45 days of the installation period.
If the first offense involved a person’s blood alcohol concentrationof 0.15% or higher, the court would order a license forfeiture until the person installed an ignition interlock device in one motor vehicle owned, leased, or principally operated by the person, whichever the person most often operates, and maintain installation of the device during a period of license forfeiture of not less than seven months or more than one year and after the period of license forfeiture for an additional period of not less than seven months or more than one year, unless there was no such vehicle, in which case the person would
3
receive a period of forfeiture of not less than two years or more than four years.
With respect to the license forfeiture of a person with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.15% or higher, the person would have the opportunity, beginning 90 days after the start of the forfeiture, topetition the court to restore the person’s driving privileges for theduration of the initially ordered period of forfeiture, subject to the person maintaining the installation of the ignition interlock device inthe person’s motor vehicle both for the remainder of the initiallyordered forfeiture period and afterward for the additional seven-month to one-year period. For a person whose driving privileges were forfeited for a two to four year period because the person did not own, lease, or operate a motor vehicle, such person may petition the court, upon proof of owning, leasing, or intending to operating a motor vehicle, to restore the person’s driving privileges for the duration ofthe forfeiture period after at least two years of the period have passed, subject to the person maintaining the installation of an ignition interlock device in that vehicle. As above, a person ordered to install an ignition interlock device could only restore a driver’s licensethrough the Motor Vehicle Commission upon showing proof of such installation, and could, when given notice by the chief administrator, have the installation period extended for one or more additional periods of 90 days, commencing upon the expiration of the current installation period, for attempting to operate the vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.05% or higher during the final 90 days of the installation period.
If the offense involved a “drugged” driver (i.e., operating a motor vehicle under the influence of a narcotic, hallucinogenic, or habit- producing drug), the court would order a license forfeiture of not less than seven months or more than one year, with no option to instead operate a motor vehicle with an ignition interlock device installed.
For any such first offense of drunk or “drugged” driving occurringon or near a school property or crossing, the bill would eliminate any enhanced penalties currently available under the law and instead treat such an offense the same as all other first offenses.
For a second offense, the bill increases, for all drunk and“drugged” drivers, the period of license forfeiture from the current law’s two years to instead a period of not less than two years or morethan four years. The court would order a license forfeiture until the person installed an ignition interlock device in each motor vehicle owned, leased, or operated by the person to be maintained during the two to four year period of forfeiture, and to remain installed afterward for a period of not less than one year or more than three years, unless there was no such vehicle, in which case the person would receive a period of forfeiture of not less than four years or more than eight years.
With respect to a second offender’s license forfeiture, a person who does not own, lease, or operate any motor vehicle may petition
receive a period of forfeiture of not less than two years or more than four years.
With respect to the license forfeiture of a person with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.15% or higher, the person would have the opportunity, beginning 90 days after the start of the forfeiture, topetition the court to restore the person’s driving privileges for theduration of the initially ordered period of forfeiture, subject to the person maintaining the installation of the ignition interlock device inthe person’s motor vehicle both for the remainder of the initiallyordered forfeiture period and afterward for the additional seven-month to one-year period. For a person whose driving privileges were forfeited for a two to four year period because the person did not own, lease, or operate a motor vehicle, such person may petition the court, upon proof of owning, leasing, or intending to operating a motor vehicle, to restore the person’s driving privileges for the duration ofthe forfeiture period after at least two years of the period have passed, subject to the person maintaining the installation of an ignition interlock device in that vehicle. As above, a person ordered to install an ignition interlock device could only restore a driver’s licensethrough the Motor Vehicle Commission upon showing proof of such installation, and could, when given notice by the chief administrator, have the installation period extended for one or more additional periods of 90 days, commencing upon the expiration of the current installation period, for attempting to operate the vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.05% or higher during the final 90 days of the installation period.
If the offense involved a “drugged” driver (i.e., operating a motor vehicle under the influence of a narcotic, hallucinogenic, or habit- producing drug), the court would order a license forfeiture of not less than seven months or more than one year, with no option to instead operate a motor vehicle with an ignition interlock device installed.
For any such first offense of drunk or “drugged” driving occurringon or near a school property or crossing, the bill would eliminate any enhanced penalties currently available under the law and instead treat such an offense the same as all other first offenses.
For a second offense, the bill increases, for all drunk and“drugged” drivers, the period of license forfeiture from the current law’s two years to instead a period of not less than two years or morethan four years. The court would order a license forfeiture until the person installed an ignition interlock device in each motor vehicle owned, leased, or operated by the person to be maintained during the two to four year period of forfeiture, and to remain installed afterward for a period of not less than one year or more than three years, unless there was no such vehicle, in which case the person would receive a period of forfeiture of not less than four years or more than eight years.
With respect to a second offender’s license forfeiture, a person who does not own, lease, or operate any motor vehicle may petition
4
the court, upon proof of owning, leasing, or intending to operate a motor vehicle, to restore the person’s driving privileges for theduration of the forfeiture period after at least four years of the period have passed, subject to the person maintaining the installation of an ignition interlock device in that vehicle.
As above for any first offender, a person who is a second offender ordered to install an ignition interlock device could only reinstate adriver’s license through the Motor Vehicle Commission upon showing proof of such installation, and could, when given notice by the chief administrator, have the installation period extended for one or more additional periods, commencing upon the expiration of the current installation period, for attempting to operate the vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.05% or higher during the final 30, 45, or 90 days of the installation period, depending upon the blood alcohol concentration associated with the violation in the same manner as described above with respect to a first offense.
For a second offense occurring on or near a school property or crossing, the bill would eliminate any enhanced penalties currently available under the law and instead treat such an offense the same as all other second offenses.
For a third or subsequent offense, the bill increases, for all drunkand “drugged” drivers, the period of license forfeiture from the currentlaw’s 10 years to instead a period of not less than 10 years or morethan 20 years. The court would order a license forfeiture until the person installed an ignition interlock device in each motor vehicle owned, leased, or operated by the person to be maintained during the 10 to 20 year period of forfeiture, and to remain installed afterwards for a period of not less than one year or more than three years, unless there was no such vehicle, in which case the person would receive a period of forfeiture of not less than 20 years or more than 40 years.
With respect to a third or subsequent offender’s license forfeiture,a person who does not own, lease, or operate any motor vehicle may petition the court, upon proof of owning, leasing, or intending to operate a motor vehicle, to restore the person’s driving privileges forthe duration of the forfeiture period after at least 20 years of the period have passed, subject to the person maintaining the installation of an ignition interlock device in that vehicle.
As above for both first and second offenders, a person who is a third or subsequent offender ordered to install an ignition interlockdevice could only reinstate a driver’s license through the MotorVehicle Commission upon showing proof of such installation, and could, when given notice by the chief administrator, have the installation period extended for one or more additional periods, commencing upon the expiration of the current installation period, for attempting to operate the vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.05% or higher during the final 30, 45, or 90 days of the installation period, depending upon the blood alcohol concentration associated
the court, upon proof of owning, leasing, or intending to operate a motor vehicle, to restore the person’s driving privileges for theduration of the forfeiture period after at least four years of the period have passed, subject to the person maintaining the installation of an ignition interlock device in that vehicle.
As above for any first offender, a person who is a second offender ordered to install an ignition interlock device could only reinstate adriver’s license through the Motor Vehicle Commission upon showing proof of such installation, and could, when given notice by the chief administrator, have the installation period extended for one or more additional periods, commencing upon the expiration of the current installation period, for attempting to operate the vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.05% or higher during the final 30, 45, or 90 days of the installation period, depending upon the blood alcohol concentration associated with the violation in the same manner as described above with respect to a first offense.
For a second offense occurring on or near a school property or crossing, the bill would eliminate any enhanced penalties currently available under the law and instead treat such an offense the same as all other second offenses.
For a third or subsequent offense, the bill increases, for all drunkand “drugged” drivers, the period of license forfeiture from the currentlaw’s 10 years to instead a period of not less than 10 years or morethan 20 years. The court would order a license forfeiture until the person installed an ignition interlock device in each motor vehicle owned, leased, or operated by the person to be maintained during the 10 to 20 year period of forfeiture, and to remain installed afterwards for a period of not less than one year or more than three years, unless there was no such vehicle, in which case the person would receive a period of forfeiture of not less than 20 years or more than 40 years.
With respect to a third or subsequent offender’s license forfeiture,a person who does not own, lease, or operate any motor vehicle may petition the court, upon proof of owning, leasing, or intending to operate a motor vehicle, to restore the person’s driving privileges forthe duration of the forfeiture period after at least 20 years of the period have passed, subject to the person maintaining the installation of an ignition interlock device in that vehicle.
As above for both first and second offenders, a person who is a third or subsequent offender ordered to install an ignition interlockdevice could only reinstate a driver’s license through the MotorVehicle Commission upon showing proof of such installation, and could, when given notice by the chief administrator, have the installation period extended for one or more additional periods, commencing upon the expiration of the current installation period, for attempting to operate the vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.05% or higher during the final 30, 45, or 90 days of the installation period, depending upon the blood alcohol concentration associated
5
with the violation in the same manner as described above with respect to a first offense.
A third or subsequent offender would also be required to perform community service for a period of not less than 60 days, which would be in the form and on the terms as the court deemed appropriate. This would be, at a minimum, a doubling of the 30-day community service requirement under the current law for a second offender.
For a third or subsequent offense occurring on or near a school property or crossing, the bill would eliminate any enhanced penalties currently available under the law and instead treat such an offense the same as all other third or subsequent offenses.
Refusing a Breath Test
Concerning the offense of refusing to submit to a breath test (section 2 of P.L.1981, c.512 (C.39:4-50.4a)), the bill revises the relevant penalty provisions as follows:
For a first offense, the court would order a license forfeiture until the person installed an ignition interlock device in one motor vehicle owned, leased, or principally operated by the person, whichever the person most often operates, which would then remain on the vehicle for not less than seven months or more than one year, unless the court was clearly convinced, after consideration on the record of a series of aggravating and mitigating factors as set forth in the bill, to instead order a license forfeiture of not less than seven months or more than one year (a forfeiture of not less than one year or more than two years would apply instead of device installation if the person did not own, lease, or operate a motor vehicle).
As above with respect to a drunk driving offense for a blood alcohol concentration of 0.10% or higher but less than 0.15%, if the person was ordered to install an ignition interlock device, the personcould only reinstate the person’s driver’s license through the MotorVehicle Commission upon showing proof of such installation, and could have the installation period extended for one or more additional periods of 45 days, commencing upon the expiration of the current installation period, for attempting to operate the vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.05% or higher during the final 45 days of the installation period.
For any first offense of refusing a breath test occurring on or near a school property or crossing, the bill would eliminate any enhanced penalties currently available under the law and instead treat such an offense the same as all other first offenses.
For a second offense, the bill increases the period of license forfeiture from the current two years to instead a period of not less than two years or more than four years. The court would order a license forfeiture until the person installed an ignition interlock device in each motor vehicle owned, leased, or operated by the person to be maintained during the two to four year forfeiture period and remain installed afterward for a period of not less than one year or more than
with the violation in the same manner as described above with respect to a first offense.
A third or subsequent offender would also be required to perform community service for a period of not less than 60 days, which would be in the form and on the terms as the court deemed appropriate. This would be, at a minimum, a doubling of the 30-day community service requirement under the current law for a second offender.
For a third or subsequent offense occurring on or near a school property or crossing, the bill would eliminate any enhanced penalties currently available under the law and instead treat such an offense the same as all other third or subsequent offenses.
Refusing a Breath Test
Concerning the offense of refusing to submit to a breath test (section 2 of P.L.1981, c.512 (C.39:4-50.4a)), the bill revises the relevant penalty provisions as follows:
For a first offense, the court would order a license forfeiture until the person installed an ignition interlock device in one motor vehicle owned, leased, or principally operated by the person, whichever the person most often operates, which would then remain on the vehicle for not less than seven months or more than one year, unless the court was clearly convinced, after consideration on the record of a series of aggravating and mitigating factors as set forth in the bill, to instead order a license forfeiture of not less than seven months or more than one year (a forfeiture of not less than one year or more than two years would apply instead of device installation if the person did not own, lease, or operate a motor vehicle).
As above with respect to a drunk driving offense for a blood alcohol concentration of 0.10% or higher but less than 0.15%, if the person was ordered to install an ignition interlock device, the personcould only reinstate the person’s driver’s license through the MotorVehicle Commission upon showing proof of such installation, and could have the installation period extended for one or more additional periods of 45 days, commencing upon the expiration of the current installation period, for attempting to operate the vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.05% or higher during the final 45 days of the installation period.
For any first offense of refusing a breath test occurring on or near a school property or crossing, the bill would eliminate any enhanced penalties currently available under the law and instead treat such an offense the same as all other first offenses.
For a second offense, the bill increases the period of license forfeiture from the current two years to instead a period of not less than two years or more than four years. The court would order a license forfeiture until the person installed an ignition interlock device in each motor vehicle owned, leased, or operated by the person to be maintained during the two to four year forfeiture period and remain installed afterward for a period of not less than one year or more than
6
three years, unless there was no such vehicle, in which case the person would receive a period of forfeiture of not less than four years or more than eight years.
A person who does not own, lease, or operate a motor vehicle may petition the court, upon proof of owning, leasing, or intending to operate a motor vehicle, to restore the person’s driving privileges forthe duration of the forfeiture period after at least four years of the period have passed, subject to the person maintaining the installation of an ignition interlock device in that vehicle.
As above with respect to a first offense of refusing a breath test, a person who is a second offender ordered to install an ignition interlockdevice could only reinstate a driver’s license through the MotorVehicle Commission upon showing proof of such installation, and could have the installation period extended for one or more additional periods of 45 days, commencing upon the expiration of the current installation period, for attempting to operate the vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.05% or higher during the final 45 days of the installation period.
For a second offense of refusing a breath test occurring on or near a school property or crossing, the bill would eliminate any enhanced penalties currently available under the law and instead treat such an offense the same as all other second offenses.
For a third or subsequent offense, the bill increases the period of license forfeiture from the current 10 years to instead a period of not less than 10 years or more than 20 years. The court would order a license forfeiture until the person installed an ignition interlock device in each motor vehicle owned, leased, or operated by the person to be maintained during the 10 to 20 year period of forfeiture, and to remain installed afterwards for a period of not less than one year or more than three years, unless there was no such vehicle, in which case the person would receive a period of forfeiture of not less than 20 years or more than 40 years.
A third or subsequent offender who does not own, lease, or operate a motor vehicle may petition the court, upon proof of owning, leasing, or intending to operate a motor vehicle, to restore the person’s drivingprivileges for the duration of the forfeiture period after at least 20 years of the period have passed, subject to the person maintaining the installation of an ignition interlock device in that vehicle.
As above with respect to a first or second offense of refusing a breath test, a person who is a third or subsequent offender ordered toinstall an ignition interlock device could only reinstate a driver’slicense through the Motor Vehicle Commission upon showing proof of such installation, and could have the installation period extended for one or more additional periods of 45 days, commencing upon the expiration of the current installation period, for attempting to operate the vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.05% or higher during the final 45 days of the installation period.
three years, unless there was no such vehicle, in which case the person would receive a period of forfeiture of not less than four years or more than eight years.
A person who does not own, lease, or operate a motor vehicle may petition the court, upon proof of owning, leasing, or intending to operate a motor vehicle, to restore the person’s driving privileges forthe duration of the forfeiture period after at least four years of the period have passed, subject to the person maintaining the installation of an ignition interlock device in that vehicle.
As above with respect to a first offense of refusing a breath test, a person who is a second offender ordered to install an ignition interlockdevice could only reinstate a driver’s license through the MotorVehicle Commission upon showing proof of such installation, and could have the installation period extended for one or more additional periods of 45 days, commencing upon the expiration of the current installation period, for attempting to operate the vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.05% or higher during the final 45 days of the installation period.
For a second offense of refusing a breath test occurring on or near a school property or crossing, the bill would eliminate any enhanced penalties currently available under the law and instead treat such an offense the same as all other second offenses.
For a third or subsequent offense, the bill increases the period of license forfeiture from the current 10 years to instead a period of not less than 10 years or more than 20 years. The court would order a license forfeiture until the person installed an ignition interlock device in each motor vehicle owned, leased, or operated by the person to be maintained during the 10 to 20 year period of forfeiture, and to remain installed afterwards for a period of not less than one year or more than three years, unless there was no such vehicle, in which case the person would receive a period of forfeiture of not less than 20 years or more than 40 years.
A third or subsequent offender who does not own, lease, or operate a motor vehicle may petition the court, upon proof of owning, leasing, or intending to operate a motor vehicle, to restore the person’s drivingprivileges for the duration of the forfeiture period after at least 20 years of the period have passed, subject to the person maintaining the installation of an ignition interlock device in that vehicle.
As above with respect to a first or second offense of refusing a breath test, a person who is a third or subsequent offender ordered toinstall an ignition interlock device could only reinstate a driver’slicense through the Motor Vehicle Commission upon showing proof of such installation, and could have the installation period extended for one or more additional periods of 45 days, commencing upon the expiration of the current installation period, for attempting to operate the vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.05% or higher during the final 45 days of the installation period.
7
For a third or subsequent offense of refusing a breath test occurring on or near a school property or crossing, the bill would eliminate any enhanced penalties currently available under the law and instead treat such an offense the same as all other third or subsequent offenses.
Ignition Interlock Device Installation; License Reinstatement
A person required to install an ignition interlock device would be required to provide the vendor of the device at the time of installation the blood alcohol concentration, or information on the refusal to submit to a breath test, on which the sentence was based. Every vendor of an ignition interlock device would be required to adopt real time data reporting of the blood alcohol concentration of a person required to install a device and the predetermined fail level of each device.
With respect to all cases for which a person has been ordered to install one or more ignition interlock devices, the court would notify the Chief Administrator of the Motor Vehicle Commission. The commission would thereafter require that the one or more devices beinstalled before the reinstatement of the person’s driver’s license. Thecommission would imprint a notation on the restored driver’s licensestating that the person could not operate a motor vehicle unless it is equipped with an ignition interlock device, and would enter this requirement in the person's driving record.
For a third or subsequent offense of refusing a breath test occurring on or near a school property or crossing, the bill would eliminate any enhanced penalties currently available under the law and instead treat such an offense the same as all other third or subsequent offenses.
Ignition Interlock Device Installation; License Reinstatement
A person required to install an ignition interlock device would be required to provide the vendor of the device at the time of installation the blood alcohol concentration, or information on the refusal to submit to a breath test, on which the sentence was based. Every vendor of an ignition interlock device would be required to adopt real time data reporting of the blood alcohol concentration of a person required to install a device and the predetermined fail level of each device.
With respect to all cases for which a person has been ordered to install one or more ignition interlock devices, the court would notify the Chief Administrator of the Motor Vehicle Commission. The commission would thereafter require that the one or more devices beinstalled before the reinstatement of the person’s driver’s license. Thecommission would imprint a notation on the restored driver’s licensestating that the person could not operate a motor vehicle unless it is equipped with an ignition interlock device, and would enter this requirement in the person's driving record.
