While prosecutors and defense attorneys agree there could be some benefit to changes in a stiffer driving under the influence law that warrants more jail time and enforcement, some officials are at odds on whether the changes are worth the expense.
Effective Sept. 1, Alabama Senate Bill 61 will require a year of jail time versus three months for first-time DUI offenders and double penalties for offenders whose blood alcohol content is 0.15 or higher at the time of arrest.
A driver is considered legally intoxicated once their BAC reaches 0.08.
In addition to the Senate bill, state House Bill 361 will require the installation of an ignition interlock device for all offenders who are convicted of a DUI and had a blood alcohol content of 0.15 or higher at the time of their arrest.
The offenders will be expected to blow into the interlock device before cranking a vehicle, according to House bill. The vehicle should not start if the blood alcohol content is 0.02 or higher.
Officials said more than 40 states have similar DUI laws that require interlock devices, which will cost offenders about $2 to $3 a day, as well as potential maintenance costs once a month.
Offenders found operating a vehicle that is not equipped with an ignition interlock device would be removed from the vehicle and taken into custody.
An offender who claims not to own a vehicle is still required to pay $75 a month to the Alabama Impaired Driving Prevention and Enforcement Fund.
It was not clear how much – if any – of the maintenance or daily costs for the device would go to the fund.
A total of 318 people were killed on Alabama’s roadways in alcohol-related crashes in 2008, according to the Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs.
According to Dale County District Attorney Kirke Adams, more than 100 DUI arrests have come through his office since January 2010, and half of the arrests were of repeat offenders.
“The new penalties are severe, as they should be. The fact that an ignition interlock device will be placed on your vehicle should make people think twice about drinking and driving,” Adams said.
Defense attorney Eric Davis agreed the law strengthened DUI regulations in the state, but he said mandatory treatment may have been a better course of action than increased fines and expenses for an interlock device.
“A lot of people we deal with on DUIs are indigent in the first place, and this law will require them to pay more money and could potentially overload an already loaded court system. The people that are going to benefit from this law are those that make the interlock devices and those that install them,” Davis said.
“It’s a great thing if this law can save a life, but perhaps the focus should have been mandatory treatment instead of locking up a bunch of people who probably need education and intervention in relation to an addiction.”
Defense attorney Everett Urech said stiffer penalties in the law could increase litigation on the correctness of a BAC reading of 0.15 or above.
But Urech said the installation of an interlock device may be a way to allow offenders to at least drive to and from work, potentially making Alabama’s roadways safer and discouraging illegal driving.
“These changes in the law show that DUI is a serious offense and there are serious consequences for those who break the law. Unfortunately, I believe there are many people who drive in Alabama while their license has been suspended for DUI and other offenses. In many of these cases it is to get to and from work,” Urech said via email.
