Ignition Interlock Device v. SCRAM bracelet. Which would you rather have?

If you recently have been arrested for a DUI in King County then you face the possibility of either an ignition interlock device or a SCRAM bracelet being imposed at your DUI arraignment.  Lately with the negative publicity DUI cases have been getting, along with the recent tragedies involving repeat drunk drivers more and more Judges are setting stricter conditions of release after a DUI arrest.  Sometimes involving both a SCRAM device and or an ignition interlock device. 

Obviously if you're at a DUI arraignment in King County and the Prosecutor is asking the Judge to impose either one of the above conditions an objection should be made under criminal rule 3.2.  However if it appears the Judge is going to grant the Prosecutors request.  Which condition is better to have?

In case you don't know an ignition interlock device is a contraption that is installed in your vehicle through your dashboard.  Before the driver starts their vehicle they have to blow into the interlock device and it tests for alcohol.  If the driver tests positive for alcohol and the level is higher than the programed level the vehicle will not start. Typically this level is a 0.02 or 0.04.  

A SCRAM bracelet is a device used to detect alcohol.  It stands for Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitoring.  It attaches to an individuals ankle and detects alcohol through sweat.  The bracelet will test every so often, usually every hour.  If alcohol is detected then the SCRAM bracelet reports the positive test to a regional monitoring center who then informs the Court.  

So back to my original question.  Which is better?  Well in my opinion as both a Seattle DUI Attorney and citizen concerned with the recent tragedies an ignition interlock device is the better of the two.  Why?

First an ignition interlock device is much less expensive.  A typical ignition interlock device costs about $75 a month.  The cost of a SCRAM bracelet costs around $12-$15 a day.  That equals about $360 a month.  

Secondly in my opinion an ignition interlock device is a much more effective tool to prevent drunk driving.  Why?  Well in order to start the vehicle a driver needs to be sober or the car will not start.  Most people I know only have 1 car.  They are not going to get drunk and go through the trouble of trying to find another car to drive.  Secondly a SCRAM bracelet in no ways deters drunk driving.  An individual can still drink, get drunk, get behind the wheel of their vehicle and drive.  It's not like if the bracelet detects alcohol the police are going to immediately find the individual and arrest them.  By the time the Court finds out it could be too late.

So why would a Court impose a SCRAM bracelet and not an ignition interlock device.  I don't know.  Perhaps it is a punitive measure.  Perhaps it is to drain an individual financially in an effort to teach them a lesson.  Clearly in my opinion it is in violation of Criminal Rule 3.2 which states the least restrictive means possible must be imposed.  And an IID is the least restrictive means possible other than a simple abstain condition. 

_
About the author: Matthew Leyba is a DUI Attorney in Seattle, WA.  His practice focuses on representing those accused of DUI and other related offenses.  He is currently ranked as one of the Top Seattle DUI Attorneys by Avvo, and listed as a Rising Star in Seattle DUI Defense by Super Lawyers Magazine.  An honor less than 2.5% of all Attorneys receive. 

Should State's lower the blood alcohol level in DUI cases to 0.05?

Recently the National Traffic Safety Board conducted a study and recently recommended that all State's reduce the blood alcohol level in DUI cases to 0.05.  Currently the level in all 50 states is 0.08.  Citing the need to reduce traffic fatalities, and drunk driving cases the NTSB looked at other countries that have this reduced blood alcohol level.  Specifically European countries, and Australia.  

In my opinion and this is not just because I'm a DUI Attorney in Seattle.  I believe reducing the current alcohol level to 0.05 would really not accomplish much.  First of all you still get charged with a DUI if your blood alcohol level is below a 0.08.  Secondly such a proposal would meet stiff opposition from many agencies.  Not such DUI Attorneys but the restaurant and tourism industry, beverage industry.  Heck even MADD has not endorsed such a proposal if though the NTSB recommendations have been out there for quite some time. 

So what is the point with this recommendation.  Well I really don't think there is one.  How much would lowering the legal limit really do.  I mean if you want to reduce traffic fatalities then there should be a zero tolerance level.  That is the only way to say traffic fatalities would be reduced.  

The difference between a .05 and a .08 is maybe 1 drink.  Will that 1 drink really affect someones ability to drive?  Probably not.  I'm not sure of any studies but I bet most traffic fatalities involving DUI cases the defendants probably have blood alcohol levels two or maybe three times the legal limit.  They are not below the current legal limit, and if they are then the defendant has to be under the combined influence of alcohol and drugs.

Now the thing to keep in mind is the NTSB has no legal authority regarding this change.  They are simply an agency that has made a recommendation.  It will not happen at least in my lifetime.  If it did I would be extremely surprised, and I probably would no longer be a practicing Seattle DUI Attorney.  So it wouldn't really bother me none because I wouldnt have any clients getting screwed over by it.  

_
About the author: Matthew Leyba is a Seattle DUI Attorney.  His practice focuses on representing those accused of DUI and other traffic offenses.  He is currently rated as one of the Best Seattle DUI Attorneys by Avvo, and listed as a Rising Star in DUI Defense by Super Lawyers Magazine.  An honor less than 2.5% of all Attorneys receive. 

Governor Inslee signs alcohol amnesty law for minors

Governor Inslee signed a bill into law this last week that would essentially give minors immunity against a minor in possession criminal charge if they seek medical help for an overdose.  I guess the theory behind the bill is the following.  A couple minors are having a few beers.  One of the minors gets so intoxicated that the friends believe the minor is suffering from alcohol poisoning.  They choose not to call the police or 911 because they are worried they will get in trouble because they have been drinking too.  Without emergency medical help the minor with the alcohol poisoning either dies or is severely injured.

This law approved by the Legislature last month is meant to prevent something like that from happening.  As a Seattle DUI Lawyer it is an interesting idea.  As a parent I think it is a wonderful idea.  As a parent if my daughter (when she is old enough) was with some friends and they were too afraid to call 911 because they didn't want to get in trouble, I would think this type of law would make it so they would call 911.  But my hesitation with it is I think it is kind of irrelevant.  

I have represented many individuals charged with a Seattle Minor in Possession charge.  Not once has it ever been because there was alcohol in my clients system.  It usually occurs when a minor is at a house party, or at a park and they are drinking in public.  A police officers comes and gives them citations because the alcohol is in plain view.  I would think there would be some legal issues if a MIP was charged when there was no evidence of actual alcohol other than on the persons breath or in their system.  

So I don't know how helpful this law would be.  I suspect it is more about appeasing the public and like all bills it is probably 99% political.  But from a recent Seattle Times article about it there are 12 other States doing this, or have similar types of laws.  And it is a problem in college with students drinking too much to the point where they get alcohol poisoning.  But like I said I have never heard of someone getting charged with a MIP without the actual physical possession of the alcohol.  This is an interesting bill, and given the negative reaction some of the other alcohol related bills recently received for being unfeasible and too expensive this seems like a genuine way to help those in need.

_
About the author: Matthew Leyba is DUI lawyer in Seattle, WA.  He is rated as one of the best Seattle DUI lawyers by Avvo, and listed as Rising Star by Super Lawyers Magazine and the Seattle Met Magazine.  An honor less than 2.5% of all Attorneys receive.