Advancing Ignition Interlock

ABSTRACT
Title of Thesis:
ADVANCING IGNITION INTERLOCK: THE STATE

OF INTERLOCKS IN MARYLAND AND
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DEVICE
IMPROVEMENTS, PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS, AND
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION
Katherine Butt, Rachel Clark, William Collins, Andrew
Czisny, Daniel Ramsbrock, Michael Sandler, Grace
Snodgrass, Dan Tasch, Samantha Tenenbaum, Katherine
Walsh, James White, and Pearce Wroe
Thesis directed by:
Major Jay Gruber

Department of Public Safety
Dr. Greg Jackson
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Dr. Dimitrios Hristu-Varsakelis
Department of Mechanical Engineering
This thesis evaluates the ignition interlock program in Maryland, focusing on both
technological and administrative aspects. Initial research revealed problems in
program compliance and a need for enhanced administration. We drew comparisons
between successful interlock programs and made recommendations for improvements
in the areas of communication, training, penalty and incentive system, technology
integration, treatment, and legislation. Information technology enhancements were
recognized as an additional way to monitor program participants more effectively. We
also saw a need to develop a more convenient interlock device to increase public
acceptance. Lab experiments to test technological alternatives to the interlock
assessed the feasibility of using a passive sensor in tandem with a breathalyzer in
interlock devices. However, we determined that in its current state, passive sensor
technology was infeasible for such use.
ADVANCING IGNITION INTERLOCK: THE STATE OF INTERLOCKS IN

MARYLAND AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DEVICE IMPROVEMENTS,
PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS, AND TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION
By
Katherine Butt, Rachel Clark, William Collins, Andrew Czisny, Daniel Ramsbrock,
Michael Sandler, Grace Snodgrass, Dan Tasch, Samantha Tenenbaum, Katherine
Walsh, James White, and Pearce Wroe
A Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the

Gemstone Program, A. James Clark School of Engineering
University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland
April 2006
Acknowledgements
Any research project depends on the guidance of dedicated mentors. We are
especially grateful to Major Jay Gruber who enthusiastically led our thesis progress,
Dr. Greg Jackson for his valuable expertise in the lab, Dr. Dimitrios Hristu-Varsakelis
for helping to focus our research at the outset, and Team Librarian Robert Kackley for
his direction.
We must also acknowledge the many experts in the field who were so
generous with their time and insight. Ms. Jane Valenzia at the Motor Vehicle
Administration provided a solid understanding of Marylands interlock program and
was continually supportive of our efforts. We would also like to thank Dr. Robert
Voas, Dr. Kenneth Beck, Dr. R. Thomas Gentry, Dr. Michael Hilton, Ms. Lynda Kerr,
Dr. Robyn Robertson, and Mr. Jarel Kelsey for their significant contributions to our
project.
Finally, we would like to thank our families for their constant love and support
throughout this and all endeavors.
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements........................................................................................................3
Table of Contents...........................................................................................................4
List of Figures................................................................................................................8
Introduction....................................................................................................................9
Origin and Development of Thesis Project..................................................................11
Team Formation...................................................................................................11
Focusing Our Research........................................................................................12
Developing Research Questions..........................................................................14
An International Survey of Interlock Programs and Recommendations for
Improvements in Maryland..........................................................................................16
The History of Ignition Interlock Devices...............................................................17
Background on the Ignition Interlock Program in Maryland..................................21
Marylands Impaired Driving System.................................................................21
The Interlock Component of Marylands Impaired Driving System...................25
The Effects of TEA-21....................................................................................26
Interlock Administration..................................................................................28
Methodology............................................................................................................33
Survey Methodology...........................................................................................33
Question Development....................................................................................33
Survey Distribution..........................................................................................35
Information Technology Program Development.................................................37
Literature Review....................................................................................................39
International Ignition Interlock Symposiums......................................................39
2003 Ignition Interlock Symposium....................................................................39
Acceptance.......................................................................................................39
Compliance......................................................................................................41
Participation.....................................................................................................43
Treatment.........................................................................................................44
Legislative Issues and Current Developments.................................................47
Restricted Licenses and Interlocks..................................................................49
Leaders in Interlock Program Development....................................................50
Participation.....................................................................................................52
Acceptance.......................................................................................................54
Recidivism.......................................................................................................54
DWI and Interlock System Effectiveness Nationwide............................................56
Enforcement in the DWI System.........................................................................57
Prosecution in the DWI System...........................................................................60
Adjudication and Sanctioning in the DWI System..............................................66
Monitoring in the DWI System...........................................................................70
Effectiveness of Individual State Interlock Programs.............................................74
DWI and Interlock System Trends in Maryland..................................................74
4
Probation Officers: Areas for Improvement....................................................75

Probation Officers: Recommendations for System Improvements.................76
Judges: Areas for Improvement.......................................................................78
Judges: Recommendations for System Improvements....................................79
Additional Data................................................................................................81
DWI and Interlock System Trends in Pennsylvania............................................82
DWI and Interlock System Trends in New Mexico.............................................86
DWI and Interlock System Trends in California.................................................91
Current Law.....................................................................................................93
Challenges........................................................................................................95
Successes.........................................................................................................98
Future...............................................................................................................99
Effectiveness of International Interlock Programs................................................101
DWI and Interlock System Trends in Australia.................................................101
Southern Australia.........................................................................................101
Victoria..........................................................................................................103
DWI and Interlock System Trends in Sweden...................................................106
Background....................................................................................................106
Current Law...................................................................................................107
Challenges......................................................................................................108
Success...........................................................................................................110
Future.............................................................................................................110
Findings.................................................................................................................113
Results of Survey Methodology........................................................................113
Expert Interview Results....................................................................................114
Trends in Interlock Programs.............................................................................118
Broader Participation.....................................................................................118
Enhanced Treatment and Addiction Screening..............................................119
Increasing Education, Training, and Communication between Parties.........120
Conclusions............................................................................................................121
Marylands Ideal Interlock System....................................................................121
Recommendations for Marylands Interlock Program..........................................124
Information Sharing...........................................................................................124
Current State..................................................................................................124
Short Term Goals...........................................................................................124
Long Term Goals...........................................................................................125
Ideal Program.................................................................................................127
Training..............................................................................................................127
Current State..................................................................................................127
Short Term Recommendations.......................................................................128
Long Term Recommendations.......................................................................130
Ideal Situation................................................................................................131
Technology Integration......................................................................................132
Current State..................................................................................................132
Short Term.....................................................................................................133
Long Term......................................................................................................134
Ideal System...................................................................................................135
Penalty and Incentive System............................................................................135
Current State..................................................................................................135
Short Term Goals...........................................................................................136
Long Term Goals...........................................................................................137
Ideal Program.................................................................................................139
Treatment...........................................................................................................139
Current State..................................................................................................139
Short Term Goals...........................................................................................140
Long Term Goals...........................................................................................141
Ideal Program.................................................................................................142
Legislation.........................................................................................................143
Current State..................................................................................................143
Short Term Goals...........................................................................................144
Long Term Goals...........................................................................................146
Ideal Program.................................................................................................146
Logistical Considerations for Interlock Program Recommendations................147
Limitations of Study..........................................................................................148
Limitations of Information Technology Development......................................149
Outcomes from Research...................................................................................151
The Feasibility of Passive Alcohol Detection in Motor Vehicles.............................153
Introduction............................................................................................................154
Literature Review..................................................................................................155
Electroencephalography....................................................................................155
Transdermal.......................................................................................................159
Vestibular...........................................................................................................160
Motor Skills.......................................................................................................161
Fuel Cells...........................................................................................................165
Effectiveness of Passive Sensors.......................................................................168
Progressive Experimentation: Setup, Procedures, and Findings...........................173
PHASE 1: Sensor Sensitivity.............................................................................176
Phase 1(a): In-lab Trials.................................................................................176
Phase 1(b): In-vehicle Trials..........................................................................178
PHASE 2: Circuit Amplification.......................................................................182
Phase 2(b): In-vehicle Trials..........................................................................184
PHASE 3: Air Pump..........................................................................................188
Phase 3(b): Absolute Control Trials...............................................................189
Phase 3(c): In-vehicle Trials..........................................................................191
Control Trials.................................................................................................193
Experimental Trials........................................................................................193
Analysis and Conclusions......................................................................................198
Limitations of the Study........................................................................................202
Recommendations..................................................................................................204
Passive Alcohol Sensors....................................................................................204
Advanced Research Programs...........................................................................205

Thesis Conclusions....................................................................................................208
Bibliography..............................................................................................................210
Appendices................................................................................................................219
List of Figures
Figure 1: Maryland Criminal Penalties........................................................................22
Figure 2: Maryland Administrative Drivers License Sanctions.................................23
Figure 3: Process through which Drink-Driving Offender Enters Interlock System. .30
Figure 4: Progress through the Interlock Period..........................................................31
Figure 5: License Reinstatement Process....................................................................31
Figure 6: PAS Systems International Fuel Cell Passive Sensor................................176
Figure 7: Guth Laboratories Breath Simulator..........................................................177
Figure 8: Phase 1(a) experimental setup....................................................................178
Figure 9: Sensor Stand with Sensor and Multi-meter................................................180
Figure 10: Breath Simulator Holder in with Multi-meter and Up Close with Breath
Simulator............................................................................................................181
Figure 11: Amplification Circuit................................................................................183
Figure 12: Reconstructed Sensor Stand with Power Converter and Amplifying
Circuitry.............................................................................................................183
Figure 13: Phase 2(b) in Car Setup with Amplifying Circuitry.................................185
Figure 14: Diagram of the Air Pump Mechanism Used in Phases 3(a), (b), and (c). 189
Figure 15: Air Pump Mechanism...............................................................................192
Figure 16: Phase 3(c) Setup......................................................................................192
Figure 17: In-vehicle control trials within the cabin of vehicles...............................195
Figure 18: Using 0.04 alcohol concentrated air samples..........................................196
Figure 19: Using 0.08 alcohol concentrated air samples..........................................197
Introduction
According to the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration
(NHTSA), more than two million alcohol-related vehicle crashes occurred in the
United States in the year 2000 resulting in over 16,000 fatalities. In Maryland alone,
over 200 died in 37,000 alcohol-related crashes in 2002. In 2004, NHTSA reported
over 280 traffic accident fatalities in Maryland were related to alcohol consumption.
What these statistics indicate is that the problem of drink-driving continues to
endanger society. Should the trend go unchecked, these shocking crash rates could
increase further in the future.
Currently one effective ways to address this problem is through the use of the
ignition interlock, a device which prevents intoxicated drivers from starting their
vehicles (Beirness & Simpson, 2003). Ignition interlocks function by determining the
breath alcohol concentration in a sample of exhaled air obtained from the driver in a
breathalyzer test to verify sobriety. If the driver registers below a predetermined
blood alcohol limit, the car will start normally; if the driver is above the limit the
ignition will be locked and the car will not start. The device also requires the driver
to provide new breath samples intermittently while the car is running to ensure others
cannot simply start the car for an intoxicated driver.
While interlock programs have proven to be one of the more effective ways to
reduce alcohol-related vehicle collisions, many problems persist with both the
interlock technology and administrative programs. Current interlocks are
embarrassing, intrusive, and often distracting for the driver. At a cost of
approximately 75 dollars per month, the devices are fairly expensive to install and
maintain. Furthermore, the required calibration every one to two months and a warmup period of three minutes in cold weather render the device extremely inconvenient
for users.
Administration of state interlock programs has also proven problematic.
Caseload, paperwork, noncompliance, and sentencing monitoring, have all presented
difficulties for administrators. The results of each breath test are recorded and stored
in the devices log and must be monitored by ignition interlock program staff to
identify users who consistently attempt to drive while intoxicated. The tedious
process requires a sizeable portion of the staffs time and stretches personnel capacity
to its limits.
The devices capability for reducing alcohol-related crashes among users has
been documented, but the interlock is still plagued by numerous technological and
administrative barriers to its full success. Officials must aim to improve the
effectiveness of ignition interlock administration, streamline the work done by
administrators, and confront the relatively inconvenient and undesirable nature of the
interlock if they hope to improve the interlock system. Addressing these problems
will facilitate improved utilization of interlock technology and advance the
widespread adoption of ignition interlock technology as an approach for reducing the
incidence of drink-driving.
10
Origin and Development of Thesis Project

Team Formation
This report is the culmination of three years of research by a University of
Maryland undergraduate research team. The team formed in the spring of 2003 in
conjunction with the universitys Gemstone Honors program. As Gemstone
participants, team members spent a full year brainstorming and evaluating research
topics within a larger group before forming around the topic of ignition interlocks.
The decision to study the devices arose from a perceived need to better promote
interlocks to the public, find an affordable way for more people to install on a
voluntary basis, and make technical adjustments to the device to better suit it to these
purposes. The research team is comprised of twelve undergraduate students and
advised by mechanical engineering professors Dr. Dimitrios Hristu-Varsakelis and Dr.
Greg Jackson, and Major Jay Gruber of the Department of Public Safety.
The team first explored the concept of fully replacing current ignition
interlock systems with technology that was more reliable and less intrusive than
breathalyzers. We hypothesized that by altering the device to make it more userfriendly, it could be marketed and appeal more to the private sector. As a result, more
people would install a device without a court mandate. We identified parents of young
drivers as a target demographic since they would be most likely to install the devices
to ensure their children did not drink and drive. The team looked at a variety of
technologies that had been researched in the field and spoke with interlock expert
Robert Voas about the feasibility of extending interlock use to new demographics.
11
Focusing Our Research

In October 2003, with funding from the Gemstone program, two team
members traveled to Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, to attend the Fourth Annual
Ignition Interlock Symposium. The annual event is hosted by the Traffic Injury
Research Foundation (TIRF) and sponsored by Alcohol Countermeasure Systems,
LifeSafer Interlock, Inc., and the International Council on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic
Safety (ICADTS). While at the symposium, the team members had the unique
opportunity to hear keynote speakers, converse informally with a number of experts
in the field, and develop a better sense of how the team mission could fit into the
global ignition interlock movement. Team members also obtained contact information
for a number of individuals who were later contacted by phone for expert interviews.
Through the interviews the team sought information relating to the technical and
program facets of various interlock systems. Around this time we chose to split our
large team into two subgroups, one focused on technological development and the
other on interlock program analysis.
Among the many contacts the team made through the symposium was Jane
Valenzia, interlock program director at the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration
(MVA), and Dr. Robert Voas, renowned interlock expert and head of the Pacific
Institute of Research and Evaluation (PIRE) in Calverton, Maryland. In the three
years following the symposium these two interlock experts have been most
supportive of the efforts of the team.
The program subgroup relied heavily on Valenzia for insight into Marylands
interlock program throughout the project. In addition to the numerous expert
12
interviews done by phone, two team members traveled to the MVA headquarters in
Glen Burnie, Maryland, on October 25, 2004, to conduct personal interviews with
Valenzia and her colleagues. These interviews provided the team with a solid picture
of Marylands interlock program and what aspects might merit improvements.
Shortly after the symposium, on December 11, 2003, Voas delivered a
presentation to the team entitled, Opportunities to Improve Interlocks, that
described the decades-long battle against drink-driving. The presentation focused on
the advantages and drawbacks of traditional drink-driving penalties, such as
incarceration and license suspension, as well as more modern technological measures
including global positioning systems, blood alcohol concentration monitoring,
biomarkers, and ignition interlock programs. Voas reviewed eight studies that
analyzed offender recidivism during and after their interlock installation period. He
also discussed the genesis of TEA-21, the restrictions it places on state interlock
programs, and the ways in which interlocks might be made more appealing to
offenders, parents of young drivers, commercial drivers, and the public in general.
On April 9, 2004, several team members traveled to Voas PIRE offices to
meet with him and his colleagues and deliver their own presentation outlining our
project topic and thesis proposal. The visit to PIRE provided the team with an open
forum for expert critique on the nature and structure of our thesis goals, which we
were able to take into consideration as we continued to shape our research questions.
Based on information gained through the symposium and our meetings with
Voas, the team decided to shift our research goals and focus on improving existing
technology and programs. Following the symposium we recognized the majority of
13
implementation problems, including judicial compliance and lack of inter-agency

communication, lay with the program structure and not in the device itself. As such
we chose to approach the problem by changing the system from within. Our thesis
would include a study of successful interlock programs from around the world whose
strengths could be applied to improve Marylands program. Instead of developing
wholly new technology, the team began to explore a tandem device that incorporated
a passive sensor with the traditional breathalyzer to reduce intrusiveness.
Developing Research Questions

The team continued through several months of research with guidance from
Voas and Valenzia. During this time, the program subgroup spent a good deal of effort
on developing surveys for program participants and refining the questions for expert
interviews. Meanwhile, team members on the technology subgroup began laboratory
testing of the hybrid breathalyzer-passive sensor device. In addition, two team
members spent time in the offices of the Maryland MVAs interlock program.
Through conversations with Valenzia and the three other program administrators, the
team members quickly realized one considerable weakness in the program was a lack
of a centralized database that stored information on interlock participants. Creating
such a database became a third focus for the team, adding an information technology
aspect to the projects program and device improvement goals. At the end of our first
year, the team submitted a thesis proposal to the Gemstone program that listed our
finalized research questions. The remainder of the teams research and this report
address these questions. They are as follows:
What are the necessary elements of a successful interlock program, and how can the
Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration improve supervision and administration of its
14
own program
How can interlocks be made more convenient through the introduction of new
technology?
How can information technology improve the interlock program in Maryland?
15
An International Survey of Interlock

Programs and Recommendations for
Improvements in Maryland
16
The History of Ignition Interlock Devices

Historically, most efforts to reduce drink-driving have aimed to give offenders
cause to consider their behavior. The Zero Tolerance Law, a nationwide law, makes it
illegal for youths under the age of 21 to drive with a positive blood alcohol
concentration (BAC). This law has reduced an estimated 4 percent of impaired
driving fatalities on average. The .08 BAC Law, now in place in all 50 states and the
District of Columbia, lowered the legal driver blood alcohol limit from .10 to .08
percent. The minimum legal drinking age has been one of the most influential efforts
in the prevention of drink-driving. In 1984, states were encouraged to target saving
young lives by increasing the minimum legal drinking age to 21. These state laws
have prevented an estimated 700 to 1,000 deaths per year (Taylor, 2002).
National movements have further reduced the number of impaired drivers.
Since 1980, MADD has championed many efforts such as tougher drunk driving
penalties and dramshop laws that make sellers of alcohol liable for damages
sustained by persons injured by drunk drivers (Fulkerson, 2003). However, despite
these accomplishments, death rates due to alcohol-related accidents remain
shockingly high.
Over time, highway administration officials have increasingly turned to
technology for drink-driving prevention. Several decades ago, these individuals began
to show interest in devices that prevented intoxicated drivers from starting their
vehicles. The first device to do this was developed in the 1960s. NHTSA took notice
of the technology and requested proposals from potential manufacturers in 1970. The
proposed system was named the Alcohol Safety Interlock System. Interest in the
17
technology was evident; 25 firms provided prototypes, and while no units were
satisfactory at the time, some devices were though to have serious potential for
implementation (Voas, 1988).
Over the next decade, NHTSA began to develop a more feasible product.
Early assumptions regarding measurements and overall purpose enervated the system.
Since the invention of the breathalyzer in 1954, there had been little development for
user operation (Fulkerson, 2003). Breath test technology proved to be easily fooled by
users, so performance-measuring devices seemed more practical. Reservations about
worsening emergency situations led to a version of the device which did not prevent
the vehicle from starting, but instead signaled other motorists by activating the horn
and lights. The Alcohol Safety Interlock System was then renamed the Drunk Driver
Warning System.
Most officials realized then the public would never accept such a system as a
new vehicle standard. An earlier attempt by the Department of Transportation to
install seatbelt interlocks caused enormous backlash from the public. Problems with
false positives, or even legitimate failures of the test would embarrass most users, so
potential users were narrowed to those who would be forced to install such a device.
Drink driving offenders quickly became the most logical group for participation
(Voas, 1988).
Performance-measuring devices posed another problem for NHTSA
engineers. Among the tasks compared for effectiveness in measuring driver
intoxication levels were: The Critical Tracking Task, the Reaction Analyzer, and the
Divided Attention Test. The Critical Tracking Task included a meter with a pointer
18
that moved away from the center of the display. The task was to attempt to keep the
needle at the center for some amount of time. In NHTSAs Reaction Analyzer, drivers
saw two lights; one would vary in brightness while the user tried to control the second
light to imitate the intensity of the first. During the Divided Attention Test, the
participant would have to react to numbers displayed during the test by pushing
pedals with their feet or buttons on the steering wheel. In all performance-measuring
tests, NHTSA found limited sensitivity to blood alcohol concentrations (Voas, 1988).
General Motors and researchers at the University of Michigan attempted
similar performance tests during the 1970s. One task required users to remember a
five-digit random number and re-enter that number without errors in a specific
amount of time. Another test involved a physical tracking task, and in both tasks,
participants were given time to establish comfortable use of the instruments. Sturgis
and Mortimer concluded that the General Motors tasks were not sufficiently sensitive
to alcohol.
As NHTSA worked with performance tests, breath-alcohol measurements
became more reliable with the introduction of semiconductor sensors. This new
technology was re-evaluated by NHTSA in 1986 when several breath-test ignition
interlocks were presented at an industry workshop. Each device had its own solutions
for common concerns such as fake breath samples and tampering. Success at the
workshop resulted in further testing in California (Voas, 1988). The breathalyzer
technology was determined to be effective and the first ignition interlock law to
incorporate the technology, the California Farr-Davis Driver Safety Act, was enacted
in 1986. Throughout the 1990s, pilot programs expanded into different states and
19
developers needed to address several problems with the new equipment.

Nevertheless, the breathalyzer remains the definitive interlock technology and
NHTSA published device model specifications in 1992 (Marques, et al, 1999).
20
Background on the Ignition Interlock Program in Maryland

After NHTSA evaluated the new breath-test ignition interlocks in the late
1980s and determined the technology to be effective, Maryland took steps to
incorporate the interlock into its impaired driving system. The interlock program,
written into Maryland law in 1989, was incorporated into the states impaired driving
system as an administrative sanction for repeat offenders convicted of driving under
the influence (DUI) of alcohol.
Marylands Impaired Driving System

Marylands impaired driving system is subdivided by A and B offenses.
A offenses occur when a person records a BAC greater than or equal to 0.08, while
B offenses are those with a BAC less than 0.08. When a driver is arrested on an
impaired driving charge, he or she must complete a breath test at a police station to
determine BAC level. If the test is not completed within two hours of arrest or the
offender fails to cooperate with the procedure, the offender is considered to have
refused the test.
Driving while intoxicated (DWI) cases in Maryland are prosecuted and
adjudicated at the county level. Often counties, judges, and prosecutors vary greatly
in their practice of DWI law, especially with regards to interlock sentencing. As a
result, offenders can engage in judge shopping to bring their cases in front of judges
who are known for leniency and lesser sentencing. Not only does judge shopping
allow offenders to evade appropriate sanctioning, it delays the court process and
increases the chance of an offense never reaching trial at all.
21
Regardless of their BAC at arrest, first-time offenders generally plead to a B

offense during trial and are sentenced to probation before judgment. Probation before
judgment includes one year of probation coupled with alcohol education
requirements. Upon completion of the sentence, offender DWI records are cleared.
Consequently, any repeat offense within five years is considered a first offense in
terms of criminal penalties and might result in another probation before judgment
sentence. More often, these individuals plead down to a B offense and receive a
fine and probation. Jail and community service are typically only enforced for third or
subsequent offenses.
The chart in Figure 1 describes the criminal penalties for first, second, and
third-time offenders in Maryland.
Type of
Penalty
Fine
Jail
Drivers
License
Suspension
Figure 1: Maryland Criminal Penalties

First Offense
Second Offense
B: $500.00
A: $1,000
B: 60 days
A: 1 year
B: 60 days suspension
A: 6-month revocation
Probation
Yes
Before
Judgment
Community None
Service
22
Third Offense
B: $500.00
A: $2,000
B: 1 year (5
days mandatory if
within 5 years, or
community
service)
A: 2 years
B: 120 days
suspension
A: 1 year
revocation
No
B: $500.00
A: $2,000
B: 1 year
A: 3 years (10
days mandatory if
within 5 years, or
community
service)
B: 120 days
suspension
A: 1 year
revocation
No
30 days in lieu of
jail
60 days in lieu of
jail
In the administrative system, offenders are not granted the same leniency they
might find with the probation before judgment sentence. Offenses are not erased from
an individuals record, and administrative officials may suspend the license of any
A offender regardless of prior offenses. A offenders have the right to appear
before an Administrative Law Judge to appeal the suspension or modify the terms to
accommodate travel for school, employment, or medical treatment.
Ignition interlocks are most frequently used in the administrative system as a
penalty for repeat DUI offenders; those who have been convicted of two or more
serious alcohol offenses within a five year period. A repeat offender can elect to
install an ignition interlock in his car after serving a mandatory one-year hard license
suspension. If the offender does not choose to install an interlock device, he will have
to serve additional license suspension time as determined by the courts. The ignition
interlock system is discussed in detail in the following sections.
The chart in Figure 2 describes Marylands Administrative Drivers License
Sanctions. These sanctions may be enforced in addition to any criminal penalties.
Figure 2: Maryland Administrative Drivers License Sanctions

Blood Alcohol
First Offense
Second Offense
Third Offense
Level
Refusal to submit
120 days or 1 year
1 year suspension
1 year suspension
to a blood, breath
interlock
or urine test
B offense
None
None
None
A offense
45 days; may get
90 days; may get
90 days; may get
work modification work modification work modification
As in many states, BAC test refusals pose a significant problem in Maryland
as the results help ensure DWI convictions and identify problem drinkers. High BAC
23
test results facilitate conviction and give judges the option of mandating alcohol
dependency screening and treatment as part of an offenders sentence. Therefore, it is
important to reduce the occurrence of BAC test refusals in Maryland.
First-time offenders who refuse to provide a breath sample are automatically
subject to a 120-day license suspension, as opposed to the maximum 45 days they are
likely to receive as part of the probation before judgment sentence. However, many
first-time offenders refuse to take the test mainly due to a lack of understanding of the
associated consequences. Yet test refusal is more advantageous for repeat offenders.
Repeat offenders are more familiar with the system and receive harsher criminal
penalties for test refusal. Therefore, second-time offenders who refuse the test often
plead to a B offense and are charged as first time offenders. On the other hand,
second-time offenders who do complete the test and are categorized at the A level
face more severe sanctioning. As a result, many repeat offenders refuse the test aware
of the relative ease of ignoring license suspension.
To combat this problem, better information on the BAC testing process is
needed so first-time offenders are aware of the benefits of taking the test. This
information could be disseminated in driver education courses or printed on licenses.
In addition, law enforcement officials should be better trained to encourage breath
tests, and penalties should be strengthened for repeat offenders who refuse a test.
24
The Interlock Component of Marylands Impaired Driving System

As a component of Marylands impaired driving penalty system, the state
enacted its first ignition interlock statute, Maryland Vehicle law 27-107, in January
1989. At that time, few states had enacted interlock laws, and thus Maryland was
considered a first-mover in the field. The statute defined the ignition interlock system
as an additional penalty for driving under the influence of alcohol. Furthermore, an
ignition interlock device was defined as a device that connects a motor vehicle
ignition system to a breath analyzer that measures a drivers blood alcohol level and
prevents a motor vehicle ignition from starting if a drivers blood alcohol level
exceeds the calibrated setting on the device.
The statute also outlined court actions, court and administration records, and
conditions imposed. When the court imposes the use of an ignition interlock as part of
an offenders sentence, the court is required to state on the record the requirement for
an interlock and the period of use; this information must then be relayed to the
Maryland MVA. The MVA is responsible for ensuring that its records reflect that the
offender is not permitted to drive a motor vehicle without the interlock installed,
barring any exceptions set forth by the court. One exception outlined by the statute
occurs in the event that a person is required to operate a motor vehicle for
employment purposes and that vehicle does not have an ignition interlock installed.
Additionally, the offender must provide proof of installation of an interlock device
and periodic reporting to a service provider for verification of proper use of the
interlock. Finally, the offender is required to pay the cost of leasing/buying,
25
monitoring, and maintaining the system; the administration may establish a payment
schedule when necessary.
As defined in the statute, an offender is prohibited from operating a motor
vehicle without an ignition interlock device installed or soliciting or having another
person start a motor vehicle equipped with an ignition interlock device. Offenders are
also prohibited from tampering with or attempting to circumvent the operation of an
ignition interlock system. Also, a person is prohibited from knowingly furnishing a
motor vehicle not equipped with an ignition interlock to an offender who is prohibited
from operating a motor vehicle without an ignition interlock installed.
In accordance with the new law, the Maryland Department of Transportations
Motor Vehicle Administration established regulations for the certification,
installation, repair, and removal of an ignition interlock device, as well as guidelines
for participant eligibility and minimum standards for service providers. Correlation,
reliability, accuracy, security, environmental, and operational standards critical to the
success of the program were created. In addition, guidelines for product liability,
inspections, device removal, and revocation of approval of devices were set.
During the 1990s, Marylands interlock program gradually evolved. Because
most states were behind Maryland in enacting interlock legislation, only small steps
were made by the federal government to evolve the state of the interlock system. In
1998, the federal government created the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century; this significantly advanced the state of the ignition interlock system not only
in Maryland, but throughout the United States.
The Effects of TEA-21
26
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) was enacted on
June 9, 1998 in support of a variety of federal initiatives such as improving public
safety, protecting the environment, and creating employment opportunity. One section
of TEA-21 focused on safeguarding the nations highways and authorized the federal
surface transportation programs for highways, highway safety, and transit between
1998 and 2003. The bill would prove to be one of the most influential pieces of
legislation behind the ignition interlock system.
TEA-21s road safety focus was not incidental. More than 40,000 Americans
die and three million are injured in highway crashes each year. As part of the
nationwide fight against drunk driving, the bill allocated $500 million in federal
transportation funds for states who abandoned their 0.10 legal BAC limit in favor of
the lower 0.08 standard. By 2004, 47 states including Maryland enacted legislation to
enforce a legal BAC level of 0.08. TEA-21 created an additional $219 million in
grant money for states to enact escalated licensing for individuals convicted of
driving under the influence. Escalated licensing ensures that hard core drinkingdrivers receive the harshest penalties and are thus prevented for longer periods of
time from drink-driving and endangering lives. Programs created under TEA-21 are
administered by NHTSA.
In July 1998, the original bill was amended through the TEA-21 Restoration
Act which included a stringent provision to ensure the widespread adoption of Repeat
Intoxicated Driver laws. Repeat Intoxicated Driver laws targeted individuals who had
been convicted two or more times for driving while intoxicated (DWI) or driving
under the influence (DUI). The laws mandated a series of penalties for these
27
offenders; license suspension for at least one year, vehicle impoundment or interlock
installation on each of the offenders vehicles, an alcohol abuse assessment and
medical treatment, and tiered community service and imprisonment penalties for
second or subsequent offenses. States that did not create these laws by October 1,
2000 would lose one and a half percent of their highway funds to an apportionment
for drink-driving countermeasures and enforcement (Minimum Penalties, 1998).
The funds lost would increase to three percent after October 1, 2002, providing states
with a strong incentive for implementing the new measures to combat drink-driving.
Interlock Administration
Maryland restructured its own interlock program in early 1998 to integrate the
various administrative agencies into one oversight body. In 2002, then-Governor Paris
Glendening signed a law to mandate interlock installation for all individuals
convicted of drink-driving twice within a five-year period (OBrien, 2002). The law
also required a hard license suspension of one year before the ignition interlock could
be installed.
Currently in Maryland, legislative efforts are being made to eliminate the
mandatory one-year hard suspension an offender is subject to before he is allowed to
have an interlock installed in his vehicle. Study findings indicate that the
effectiveness of license suspension and revocation may be limited with multiple
alcohol offenders, many of whom continue to drive with a suspended or revoked
license (Beck et al., 1999). The goal is to reduce the mandatory suspension so that
drivers can have ignition interlocks installed in their cars more quickly. The longer it
takes to install an ignition interlock in an offenders car, the more likely that offender
28
is to drive on a suspended license. Installing an interlocks in an offenders vehicle

has been proven to reduce the likelihood that the offender will recidivate while the
device is installed. This finding was confirmed in a randomized trial in Maryland with
drivers with multiple alcohol offenses; it was observed that participation in the
interlock program reduced offenders' risk of committing an alcohol traffic violation
by about 65 percent while the device is installed (Beck et al., 1999).
The states administrative interlock program is currently run by a staff of four
people at the Maryland MVA. Approximately 6,000 people are enrolled in the
interlock program, but only 4,250, or 70 percent, actually have interlocks installed (J.
Valenzia, personal communication, February 23, 2006). The discrepancy is the result
of some offenders not having automobiles in which to install the interlock.
Marylands judicial program is enforced by the Drinking Driver Monitoring Program
(DDMP). Offenders who receive probation before judgment in their DWI trial enter
the judicial portion of the system, while offenders convicted of a DWI enter the
administrative interlock program. Figure 3 illustrates the process through which
drink-driving offenders enter Marylands interlock system.
29
Figure 3: Process through which Drink-Driving Offender Enters Interlock

System
The MVA works with four different service providers: Draeger Interlock,
National Interlock Services MD Ltd., Guardian Interlock, and Smart Start. A service
provider supplies each offender with an interlock device that contains an alcoholspecific fuel cell. The service provider trains the offender getting the device installed
in his car and teaches him how to operate the device. The offender is responsible for
returning to the service provider for monthly check-ups during which time all of the
information stored on the device (number of re-tests, recorded BAC levels, etc.) is
downloaded into a computer system. This information is then sent to the MVA so
30
administrators can determine how closely each offender is abiding by the rules of the
program. For example, according to Jane Valenzia, data collected by Draeger
Interlock in December 2005 indicated 2,185 high BAC recordings (over .025) out of
64,836 tests for 809 clients. Offenders who violate the rules may be subject to
increased penalties as determined by the MVA on a case by case basis. Figures 4 and
5 illustrate the offenders progression through the interlock period and license
reinstatement process.
Figure 4: Progress through the Interlock Period
Figure 5: License Reinstatement Process
31
The service provider participation agreement created by the MVA stipulates

that all service providers must meet the national standards set forth by NHTSAs 1992
specifications and guidelines for Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock Devices. Vendors
must also comply with on-site inspections conducted by the MVA. These on-site
inspections ensure that vendors have the appropriate facilities, equipment, and
documentation. During the inspection, the MVA completes a Maryland Ignition
Interlock Program On-Site Inspection Form to verify that service providers install the
interlock devices in a tamper proof manner. Data loggers are also inspected to ensure
that they contain all required information about the customers, vehicles, installation
date, and interlock usage data. The ignition interlock devices sold by the service
providers must also meet NHTSA Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock Device
specifications effective April 1992. The specifications establish performance criteria
and methods of testing for ignition interlock devices such as: accuracy/precision test
requirements, breath sampling requirement, calibration stability, temperature tests,
and tampering and circumvention.
32
Methodology
To answer the aforementioned research questions, the team collected
information from both primary and secondary sources. Primary research was
conducted by surveying interlock program participants in the state of Maryland and
interviewing experts in the ignition interlock field. Secondary research on
International Ignition Interlock Symposium presentations and findings, Traffic
Industry Research Foundation projects, and other reports containing state- or countryspecific data enabled the team to more fully address the research questions. The
second research question regarding the use of information technology was primarily
addressed by working closely with the MVA to help develop a new client data
management system, the Interlock Case Manager.
Survey Methodology
Question Development
Conducting original survey research proved to be one of our most challenging
obstacles. The surveys were designed to elicit Maryland interlock participants
opinions of the system so as to provide a concrete analysis of the areas of the program
most needing improvement. We selected a survey methodology because it would
allow us to draw a quantified description from a specific population (Sapsford, 1999).
In order to achieve statistically significant results, we calculated a sample size of
around 361, based on an estimated 6,000 Maryland interlock participants.
In order to move forward with our surveys in accordance with university
policy, the team completed an Institutional Review Board (IRB) proposal through the
University of Maryland in the spring of 2004. The University of Maryland requires all
33
campus research groups to obtain IRB approval to protect subjects. Our specific IRB
would ensure that the rights and welfare of MVA administrators, interlock vendors,
program participants, and field experts was protected during team interviews and
surveys. To secure approval the team submitted our project abstract, methods of
subject selection, interviewing and surveying procedures, a list of subject risks and
benefits, and copies of the consent forms for interview and survey subjects
(Appendix 1, Appendix 2). We also noted potential conflicts of interest and included
a complete copy of interview and survey questions. After receiving initial IRB
approval, the team filed an addendum to cover alterations to survey questions made in
response to vendor concerns over potential biases. A second addendum was filed later
to allow for an electronic consent form that could be used for anyone who chose to
complete an online version of the survey.
The team chose to distribute the surveys at vendor locations throughout the
state, knowing that each participant must visit one of these locations each month for
device servicing and data download. Valenzia assisted the team in our distribution
efforts by contacting vendors to request their cooperation in our research. Ultimately
all four certified vendor companies in Maryland agreed to distribute the surveys at
their most populous locations.
We spent several weeks in the spring of 2004 devising appropriate questions
for the survey. Team members first developed a list of questions on their own before
combining them with the rest of the team into a master list of 14 questions, 11 on a
Likert scale of one to five and three open-ended, which focused on how participants
viewed the interlock program and the device itself (Appendix 3). The team amended
34
the survey in September 2004 to include seven additional questions relating to

participant internet habits and interaction with the MVA (Appendix 4). The additional
questions were aimed at evaluating the benefit of providing an interlock program
webpage through the MVA.
After securing IRB approval we sent the revised surveys to cooperating
vendors, Draeger Interlock, Guardian Interlock, National Interlock, and Smart Start,
for review. Within days several vendors contacted Valenzia with concerns that the
questions were leading and encouraged participants to assume a negative view of the
program. We reviewed the survey and revised the language in the questions to address
the vendors concerns (Appendix 5). The survey ultimately sent to vendors for
distribution had undergone a total of four revisions (Appendix 6).
Survey Distribution
Two of the vendors agreed to distribute the survey immediately, while
managers at Smart Start and National Interlock requested a chance to review the
survey once more. Smart Start quickly approved the new version, but National
Interlock did not respond. The team continued with their inquiries at National
Interlock by phone and email, and each time was told the survey was under review.
After several months without progress the team halted its efforts to distribute at
National Interlock locations.
Surveys delivered to the three participating locations in November 2004 were
printed on one double-sided 8 by 11 page with the consent forms attached to the
front. For each location, the team also constructed a box covered with white paper
that described the purpose of the survey, as well as single-page pamphlets that
35
explained the teams goals. Draeger Interlock agreed to distribute the survey at two of
their locations, Guardian Interlock agreed to distribute at three, and Smart Start
agreed to distribute at four locations. Approximately 50 surveys per distribution
location were delivered to the companies central locations in Rockville, Towson, and
Frederick. The team arranged for vendor technicians at each location to either place
the surveys and deposit boxes in a visible space or directly hand the surveys to
participants as they entered and direct them to place it in the box when completed.
Originally the team intended to leave the surveys at each location for
approximately two months. As each interlock participant is required to visit a vendor
location every 30 days, the team assumed this period of time would allow all of the
vendors customers an ample opportunity to visit and complete the survey. However
when the team inquired about retrieving the surveys after the two-month period,
location managers informed us that few surveys had been completed. In response, the
team chose to leave the surveys at each location indefinitely in hopes of gaining
additional responses.
When reports of a low response rate persisted, the team attempted another
means of conducting our survey. With approval and assistance from Valenzia, the
team drafted a flier advertising an identical online version of the survey created
through the University of Maryland Office of Information Technology. Valenzia
agreed to send the fliers in the MVAs monthly mailings to each participant to ensure
every individual on the program would be aware of our teams efforts. Response rates
for the online survey were no more encouraging than those at the vendor locations.
36
Far from the 361 we anticipated, our final sample size was only two paper and seven
online surveys.
Information Technology Program Development

The primary information technology (IT) concern in Marylands interlock
program is the lack of a centralized database for participant records and progress.
Each month, four program administrators at the MVA must examine each
participants monthly data log to identify any pattern of failed tests that might indicate
repeated non-compliance. Moving these printed records into a computer system
would make the process more accurate and efficient and free a great deal of the
administrators time for other projects such as individual casework. To assist in this
effort, the team chose to develop an integrated database system, the Interlock Case
Manager. This system is designed to eliminate the current tedium experienced by
MVA staff when conducting a simple search through a myriad of different systems.
In developing the Interlock Case Manager system, the team was subject to the
same requirements and oversight as any MVA IT project and first sought the
necessary approval from the Maryland Department of Transportation Office of
Information Resources (OIR). Jane Valenzia, head of the Maryland interlock program,
submitted an initial description of our proposed software program and its projected
costs and benefits to the OIR Steering Committee. Once the committee approved the
proposal, OIR staff programmer Jim Hergenhahn was assigned to assist the team
through the process. To facilitate the sharing of information during the development
process, the MVA drafted a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between itself
and the University of Maryland. As the MVA computer systems contain private and
37
highly sensitive information, the MOU is necessary to protect its integrity. As per
OIR requirements, our team produced process and user documentation throughout the
project to ensure a smooth transition when OIR takes over the development in May
2006.
The logistics of software development were initially complicated by the fact
that our team would need access to the MVAs internal network in order to code the
program. After discussing the issue with OIR staff, we decided to continue with offsite development and later work with Hergenhahn to integrate the completed software
into the MVA network. To facilitate our efforts, OIR installed a complete
development platform, including Visual Studio and Microsoft SQL Server, on a PC
workstation. This computer was set up as a remote development server on the UMD
campus so that team members involved in IT development could work
collaboratively.
Working remotely presented several problems during the planning and
development process. To begin, ongoing communication with OIR staff was critical
as they are responsible for completing, integrating and maintaining the Case Manager
software upon completion. However, in the absence of frequent face-to-face
meetings, communication with OIR staff suffered.
38
Literature Review
International Ignition Interlock Symposiums
The team began its research endeavor in 2003 by attending the fourth annual
Ignition Interlock Symposium sponsored by the Traffic Injury Research Foundation
(TIRF). TIRF is a national independent road safety institute that studies programs
aimed at reducing traffic-related deaths and injuries. Findings presented at the 2003
symposium enabled the team to identify the critical areas in the interlock field,
namely acceptance, participation, and compliance. The team also team networked
with experts from around the world and has worked with several of these experts
during the duration of the project.
TIRF also sponsored symposiums in 2004 and 2005. Below is an account of
the most critical findings presented at each of the three symposiums.
2003 Ignition Interlock Symposium

In 2003, interlock vendors and program administrators from across the globe
gathered on Hilton Head Island, South Carolina for the fourth annual Ignition
Interlock Symposium, sponsored by TIRF. The theme of the symposium was,
Enhancing Acceptance, Participation and Compliance. Numerous presentations and
workshops were held to discuss these topics, many of which were attended by two
team members who traveled to the conference. Here we have discussed the general
findings and recommendations gathered first-hand throughout the symposium.
Acceptance
According to symposium participants, the biggest hindrance to program
acceptance in the U.S. has been rapid integration of interlock systems. Following
39
TEA-21, states felt pressured to quickly create and implement an interlock program to
ensure continued federal funding. In their race to establish these programs, they did
not take the necessary time to develop a prototype that met their own states needs,
relying instead on advice from states with existing programs. However, because of
the vast differences in state laws and cultures across the country, a successful east
coast program will not always be effective in the Midwest. The states who hastily
enacted new interlock programs failed to take into account their unique cultural
environment. As a result, citizens were not receptive to the programs or their
implementation.
Furthermore, legislators, the courts, and the general public suffer from a lack
of basic information on interlock programs. Because interlock technology is widely
unknown to the average citizen, it also has little bearing on the decisions of
legislators. Consequently, they are slow to enact stricter legislation. Meanwhile, the
court system does little to enforce the legislation already in place.
Like the general public, many judges who hear DWI cases are unfamiliar with
modern interlock technology and are skeptical of their effectiveness. As a result, only
an estimated 10 percent of eligible offenders are sentenced to interlock installation In
other words, for 90 percent of eligible offenders, the ignition interlock is never an
option.
Symposium participants devised several approaches to these problems. First,
states must endeavor to disseminate more information regarding interlock devices and
programs among administrative agencies, members of the criminal justice system,
and offenders. The general public must also be made more aware of interlock systems
40
to add increased incentive for judges to use the interlock sentencing option. Once the
technology is familiar to the public, they will advocate for increased implementation.
In addition, legal pressure must be placed on judges to exercise the interlock
option. Pressure tactics might include lawsuits against the state over DWI cases
where a judge ignores a mandatory interlock sentence. If judges persist in
disregarding interlock legislation, the state could choose to suspend them from the
bench. Finally, judges' sentencing records should be publicized to hold them
accountable for any failure to impose mandatory sentences. These records could
generate great public concern and increased pressure for compliance with mandatory
interlock sentences.
Compliance
The discussion on compliance was centered around a debate on the ability of
judicial versus administrative programs to effectively monitor offenders. Regarding
caseload, administrative programs allow a high offender-to-supervisor ratio, while
judicial programs typically require greater supervision to enforce installation and
other sentencing conditions. This stems from the fact that probation officers in
judicial programs must follow up with offenders individually, whereas the monitoring
staff and offenders in administrative systems are rarely in contact. However,
administrative programs have little leverage with noncompliant offenders, and most
systems do not allow administrators the option of entering these individuals into the
criminal justice system as a penalty. Judicial programs, however, can stipulate
incarceration for violation of probation conditions in case of noncompliance.
41
Regardless of the nature of the underlying system, there is a general lack of

communication between vendors, administrative agencies, and the criminal justice
system. One example of this disconnect is the case of a high BAC violation in an
offenders device data log. The violation is first detected by the vendor during the
monthly data download, at which time they have the option of notifying the
administrative agency or probation officer. Many violations simply fall through the
cracks because no centralized database exists where vendors can upload and store
information on each participant. Instead vendors must email or fax all information to
the MVA. This task is tremendously time-consuming as each vendor works with
hundreds of offenders. Furthermore, administrative and judicial monitoring agencies
often cannot fully resolve those violations that are reported because they lack the
authority to levy appropriate sanctions. In many cases, the most severe action
available is to remove the offender from the interlock program altogether and suspend
his license. However, industry experts estimate that approximately 70 percent of
drivers continue to drive on suspended licenses, so the threat of license suspension or
revocation is largely ineffective. In fact, some drivers prefer the risk of driving while
suspended to the high costs and inconvenience of interlock installation.
To address noncompliance, symposium participants recommended intensified
monitoring of interlock violations. This would necessitate enhanced communication
between all parties involved, as well as stricter sanctions, such as extended interlock
periods, to deter offenders from repeat violations. A reward system should also be
enacted which would allow offenders an early exit from the program for consistent
compliance. Finally, parole and probation officers must be more engaged in the
42
interlock process and more informed about the device and program. They should be
able to easily detect signs of program violations, such as device tampering, in order to
effectively enforce offender compliance.
Participation
Because only an estimated 10 percent of eligible offenders are sentenced to
interlock installation, program participation is limited from the start. Repeat offenders
are eligible to participate in the interlock program after serving their first year of
mandatory license suspension. Yet studies have shown this mandatory suspension
period is ineffective for individuals who continue to drive on suspended licenses
because they believe the risk of apprehension is low. After driving for a year on a
suspended license, the offender grows accustomed to this lifestyle and is less likely to
elect to have an interlock installed in place of a second year of license suspension.
Because the risk of apprehension is extremely small, the merits of a longer license
suspension outweigh the inconvenience and cost of interlock installation.
Aside from the convenience factor, offenders choices for license suspension
are often motivated by misinformation regarding the device. Many offenders do not
fully understand the interlock device or program and are therefore hesitant to enroll.
Symposium participants identified several ways to correct the voluntary
participation obstacles. First, financial obstacles could be removed by establishing
indigent funds from the state liquor tax. Furthermore, the early exit reward system
could include fee deferral for compliant participants. To deter offenders from driving
on a suspended license, states could eliminate the one-year hard suspension. Instead,
vehicles could be impounded at the time of offense and released only once an
43
interlock is installed. To encourage voluntary enrollment among alcohol abusers who

have not been convicted of a DWI, the state could work with support programs such
as Alcoholics Anonymous to advocate the use of interlocks during treatment.

The fifth annual Ignition Interlock Symposium, titled Pushing Back the
Frontiers, was held in Phoenix, Arizona in 2004 and explored the treatment
possibilities, developments in the field, and legislative topics.
Treatment
Regarding options for coordinated treatment in interlock programs, several
presentations were delivered that described alcohol treatment organizations already in
place around the country. One such organization, the National Association of State
Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors, attempts to coordinate efforts in national
prevention and treatment networks. In 2004, NASADAD received a 1.779 billion
dollar federal grant to pursue these objectives (Gallant, 2004).
Within its national treatment network, NASADAD focuses on four services;
detoxification, rehabilitation and residential treatment, ambulatory treatment which
includes outpatient services, and treatment in conjunction with prescribed methadone
for drug abusers. The most intensive treatment service is detoxification, which
requires 24-hour care for patients. The detoxification, rehabilitation, and ambulatory
treatment could be incorporated into ignition interlock programs to reduce recidivism
and generate lifestyle changes in offenders (Gallant, 2004).
Thomas H. Nochajski, Ph.D., of the School of Social Work at the University
of Buffalo discussed how standard substance abuse treatment could be incorporated
44
with education programs, victim impact panels, and community service to establish a
comprehensive rehabilitation system for DWI offenders. Primary problems associated
with treating DWI offenders include retention, treatment engagement, and high dropout rates. To address these problems, treatment should be centered on the offenders
individual needs and emphasis should be placed on motivation for change, behavioral
skills, and relapse prevention. Under the standard treatment model, each offender
would be assessed to determine whether the nature of his or her alcohol abuse was
medical, psychological, and biopsychosocial. Throughout the treatment process, the
provider should follow standard protocol to work through the offenders attitudes
toward alcohol use and rehabilitation (Nochajski, 2004).
Retention of individuals in treatment programs is essential for reducing
recidivism rates and producing long term behavioral changes. Effective treatment can
result in a variety of positive outcomes for offenders, including lower health care
costs and a 7-9 percent reduction in recidivism rates. Because treatment based
exclusively on abstinence has proven relatively unsuccessful, programs for DWI
offenders should instead focus on non-confrontational styles of treatment which
evoke reasons to change drink-driving behavior and strengthens offenders selfefficacy for altering drink-driving habits. Emphasis should be placed on combining
various treatment strategies and on providing follow-up care to monitor results
(Nochajski, 2004).
On the long-term effects of interlocks after the installation period, David
Timken, Ph.D. noted that recidivism rates increase greatly once the device is removed
from an offenders vehicle. Consequently, the devices have little impact on driving
45
behavior beyond the installation period which increases skepticism about their
implementation. To address post-installation recidivism, Timken suggested improving
risk prediction by offering specialized counseling for offenders through the courts and
motor vehicle administrations (Timken, 2004).
Regarding risk prediction, Timken asserts that a BAC level of 0.02 or greater
is a better predictor of recidivism than prior DWI offenses, moving violations, or
demographics. As such, interlock data collected during installation could be used to
assess the probability of recidivism after the device is removed. Under Timkens
assertion, offenders recording high BAC levels while in the interlock program would
be more likely to recidivate once removed from the program. Therefore, program
administrators could use the BAC data output provided by the vendors to identify
high-risk offenders and impose additional sanctions or time restraints to reduce the
recidivism risk (Timken, 2004).
Also, offenders should have access to a specialized interlock enhancement
program like Support for Interlock Planning (SIP) during their enrollment period. SIP
is built around personal change readiness and motivational enhancement theory
(Marques, Voas, Timken 2004). The theory follows a strategies set forth in the
FRAMES model: Feedback to the individual about personal risks; Responsibility
for change lies with the individual; Advice to embrace change is clearly given; Menu
of choices available to the offender are discussed; Empathy is provided by the
therapist; Self-efficacy and hope are key messages to convey. SIP provides a manual
and workbook to use throughout the program, and requires offenders to attend six
individual sessions and four group sessions as well as receive necessary clinical
46
enhancements. When the offender has successfully completed the SIP program, he or
she should receive a protocol for continued compliance with regards to future
treatment (Timken, 2004).
The Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation conducted a research study
on court-stipulated interlock DUI offenders in Texas to determine if interlock users
exposed to a structured motivationally-centered program (similar to SIP) can reduce
the rates of recidivism after the interlock no longer controls their drinking-driving
(Marques, Voas, Timken 2004). Preliminary outcomes from the study indicate that the
intervention provided in a program like SIP has a positive impact on reducing
recidivism. Several assessment methods were utilized to reach this conclusion,
including AUDIT and DrInC. Results from the AUDIT assessment showed a strongly
significant statistical decrease from pre- to post-program alcohol consumption for
males and females. The DrInC assessment showed that during the intervention
program, the strongest change in offenders was an increase in impulse control which
is an important preliminary step in gaining control of alcohol. To further prove the
effectiveness of programs like SIP, actual driver records or interlock BAC evidence
must be analyzed to determine the rates of recidivism once offenders leave the
treatment programs (Marques, Voas, & Timken, 2004).
Legislative Issues and Current Developments
In many states, greater program effectiveness will also require revisions to
existing interlock laws and program specifications. James Frank, from NHTSA in
Washington, D.C., discussed the organizations evolving model specifications for
interlock devices. Recent revisions to the original 1992 model address technical
47
issues including sensor technology, precision and accuracy treatment, breath sample
size requirements, temperate extreme testing, radio-frequency interference testing,
circumvention testing, calibration stability testing, the ready to use time
requirement, conformance testing, formats for data logger output, and program
guidelines (Frank, 2004).
Though helpful in establishing interlock programs, Michael Sandoval, chief of
the New Mexico Department of Transportation Traffic Safety Bureau, discussed how
TEA-21 has posed a variety of problems as states have attempted to navigate its many
requirements and implications. Under TEA-21, any individual convicted of a
subsequent DWI offense must receive a one-year hard license suspension prior to
interlock installation. In addition, device installation is prohibited during treatment
and supervised probation periods. Consequently, offenders are kept off the device
during critical periods and instead often drive on suspension (Sandoval, 2004).
To combat this problem, the U.S. House of Representatives enacted HR3550.
This bill stipulates that any individual convicted of a DWI is subject to a minimum
one-year license suspension, or a 45-day suspension followed by a limited license
reinstatement for the purpose of transportation to and from work, school, or an
alcohol treatment program.
In a different discussion on TEA-21, Karen Sprattler, National Director of
Public Policy for MADD, reported the organizations recommendations for policy
changes to increase DWI enforcement and the establish frequent, highly publicized
sobriety check points. MADD also advocates tougher sanctions for higher-risk
drivers. High-risk drivers include those who have been convicted of a second or
48
subsequent offense within a five-year period, those who are convicted with a BAC
greater than 0.15 and those convicted of driving on a suspended license. Specifically
the organization recommends a 90-day waiting period and one year of hard license
suspension before issuing an interlock-restricted limited license to these individuals.
During the waiting period the offenders vehicle would be impounded to prohibit
driving, and the interlock would remain on the vehicle for the duration of suspension
(Sprattler, 2004).
High-risk drivers could also be penalized with incarceration or house arrest, as
well as additional fines. They would also report to a case manager at least once a
month and attend a victim panel. Finally, these drivers would undergo mandatory
alcohol abuse assessment and treatment. Treatment programs would last for one year
and the probation period would last an additional two years (Sprattler, 2004).
Restricted Licenses and Interlocks
To provide an example of stricter restrictions, Judy Groezinger from
Washingtons Department of Licensing discussed the states interlock-restricted
license requirements. In order to qualify for restricted license reinstatement, offenders
must provide proof of insurance and device installation. Once a license has been
issued, offenders are required to attend substance abuse treatment sessions or group
meetings. Offenders must also complete a specified number of community service
hours and pay an additional 100 dollar fee (Groezinger, 2004).
Dwight Surgenor, of the Manitoba Transportation and Government Services,
reported on the restrictions in place in the Canadian Province of Manitobas interlock
program. Manitobas interlock program, established in 2003, states that upon
49
conviction an offender will be subject to court-imposed driving prohibition and

license suspension under the Highway Traffic Act. Criminal consequences include
one, two, and three year prohibition sentencing options; administrative consequences
include one, two, five, seven, and ten year hard suspension options. In addition, the
program mandates a ten year look-back period for prior offenses.
Under Manitobas requirements, offenders must apply to a license suspension
appeal board for a conditional license which permits driving during predetermined
times and days. To qualify for the conditional license, offenders must complete an
impaired driver assessment and install an interlock on their vehicles for the entire
length of the predetermined suspension period plus one additional year. At that time
offenders are permitted to remove the device so long as they have received a
satisfactory program review (Surgenor, 2004).
Leaders in Interlock Program Development
New Mexico has been a recent leader in ignition interlock legislation and Dr.
Robert Voas, from the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, presented the
states Ignition Interlock License Act of 2003 as one solution to the problematic hard
suspension barrier. Under the act, suspended DUI offenders can obtain a limited
license once they bring proof of insurance and the vehicle with an installed device to
the Motor Vehicle Department. Unique to New Mexicos program is the stipulation
that any offender serving a revocation period has the opportunity to reenter the
driving system after installing an interlock in his vehicle. By providing this
alternative to hard suspension and allowing offenders to re-enter the system through
the interlock provision, New Mexico has witnessed a significant increase in interlock
50
installation. More than 3,000 interlocks were installed in the year following the laws
enactment alone (Voas, 2004).
To evaluate the effectiveness of New Mexicos 2003 act, NHTSA partnered
with the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation. The two organizations agreed
to conduct a study to identify weaknesses in the mandatory law and to determine
whether offenders who are subject to mandatory installation produce the same
reduction in recidivism rates as voluntary participants. The organizations plan to
collect data through the end of 2006 and complete their study in 2007.
Since the 2004 symposium, New Mexico has continued to lead interlock
initiatives through new legislative efforts. For example, the state implemented a fund
to assist indigent program participants, and in 2005 enacted legislation to mandate
device installation for any individual convicted of a DWI (Voas, 2004). Additionally,
one bill would have mandated interlock installation for all new and used cars sold in
the state and awarded tax incentives for vehicles sold with a device in place. The bill
did not pass, yet such progression towards state-wide interlock usage will both
accelerate participation rates and general knowledge of the device within New
Mexico and serve as a prototype for other programs.
Universal device installation is critical to significantly reduce drunk driving,
according to Chris Coxon of Transport South Australia. Like HB 126, the Australian
Design Rule mandates devices for all new vehicles. Sweden has also embraced the
concept of universal installation with the commercial introduction of the Alcokey.
The Alcokey, which costs 300 US dollars, requires drivers to press the unlock button
and blow a breathe sample below the set BAC level before they may start the engine.
51
Several vehicle manufacturers, including Volvo and Scania, allow customers to

request interlock installation as a feature (Coxon, 2004).
Coxon also predicted that cost would be a major barrier to the universal
installation of interlocks. A cost-benefit analysis showed that the cost of full interlock
integration would likely exceed the resulting social benefits in monetary terms. This
variance would likely generate pressure for reduced device costs and would detract
from public acceptance. To boost acceptance, Coxon suggested program
administrators conduct surveys to gauge public opinion, and release research
highlighting the benefits of interlock integration. Finally, one program must serve as
the legislative leader to model what an integrated system should look like. Here, New
Mexicos recent developments could prove extremely useful. (Coxon, 2004).

The sixth annual symposium, entitled A Global Perspective, was held in
Annecy, France in 2005 and returned to the topics of program participation and
acceptance, and also explored the problem of recidivism.
Participation
In discussions of program participation, symposium participants expressed
concern that first-time offenders and repeat offenders receive different sanctions. This
is largely due to an assumption that first-time offenders merely made a poor decision
and should be better educated so that they do not repeat their mistake. However, a
study conducted at three New England alcohol treatment agencies studied 1,252
offenders and determined that more than 80 percent were alcoholics or problem
drinkers. Offenders typically drive above the legal BAC level anywhere between 200
52
and 2,000 times before apprehension and are often habitual drink-drivers (Ignition
Interlock Symposium, 2005). Because first-time offenders are assessed incorrectly,
they are rarely sentenced to interlock installation despite studies which have proven
the devices effectiveness among this group (Marques & Voas, 2005).
Symposium participants also discussed interlock participation for commercial
drivers. One study is evaluating the practicality of implementing Alcolock devices on
commercial vehicles by conducting driver interviewing before, during and after the
Alcolock use, and analyzing device data. Initial interviews have indicated a generally
positive or neutral attitude toward the device among commercial drivers and could
serve as a catalyst for greater commercial implementation (Silverans, 2005).
Another step toward increased participation would be insurance incentives for
device installation. Insurance rates increase tremendously with a DWI conviction and
some offenders lose their coverage altogether. Interlock installation decreases
offender recidivism rates while installed and should therefore be viewed as a risk
reduction. In Quebec, La Capitale Assurances Generales Inc. waives the premium
surcharge for first-time offenders who enroll in the interlock program for a year, and
offers a 50 percent discount for second offenders who enroll. Still, fewer than 100
individuals have participated in this program since its inception in 1998. One US
insurance company abandoned a similar program when it generated little interest and
other companies have been reluctant to implement such an unprofitable incentive.
Legislation is necessary to mandate the insurance cost reductions and entice more
offenders to participate in the programs (Sweedler, 2005).
53
Acceptance
Regarding program acceptance, one current study in Great Britain is
evaluating offender attitudes towards the device. Already, researchers have found
some offenders have difficulty adjusting to the technology and complain that it
disrupts their regular routine. Others are much more comfortable with the device and
have easily modified their drinking and driving behavior. Offenders expressed
dissatisfaction with rolling retests, the warm-up period, reactions from family and
friends, and the inconvenience of device maintenance visits. These early results
indicate there is a persistent need to make the program more attractive to offenders in
order to facilitate increased implementation and acceptance (Clayton & Beirness,
2005).
Recidivism
Symposium participants also discussed offender recidivism rates to illustrate
continuing problems in that area. In New Mexico, the researchers have found that
interlocks reduce recidivism by 65 percent while installed, and 44 percent overall
(Roth, Marques, & Voas, 2005). A different study in Maryland concluded that second,
third and subsequent offenders demonstrated reduced recidivism rates during the
installation period, yet only second and third offenders continued to demonstrate the
reduction once the device was removed (Ignition Interlock Symposium, 2005). In
order to determine an offenders recidivism risk, several factors must be assessed.
Prior to installation, driving records are the best predictor of repeat offenses, however
once offenders are enrolled the rate and pattern of their BAC tests becomes more
useful in indicating recidivism. As mentioned in the 2003 symposium, the BAC data
54
can be used to extend the installation period until offenders demonstrate that they
have permanently altered their drinking and driving behavior (Marques & Voas,
2005). Because interlocks are effective while installed, all DWI offenders should
receive mandatory interlock sentences for a minimum of one year. Removal should be
contingent upon the offenders completion of a year-long period during which time
they do not record a breath sample above 0.04 (Roth, Marques, & Voas, 2005).
55
DWI and Interlock System Effectiveness Nationwide

The enactment of TEA-21 in 1998 encouraged states to either create interlock
programs if they had not yet done so, or to significantly improve their interlock
programs (as Maryland did). Although there was a strong incentive for states to
incorporate the interlock technology into their impaired driving systems as a means to
sanction DUI offenders, little research had been done to evaluate the effectiveness of
such interlock programs. The Traffic Injury Research Foundation conducted a
comprehensive study in 2001 to inventory the current state of interlock programs
throughout the United States.
From 2001 to 2003, the Traffic Industry Research Foundation (TIRF)
conducted a comprehensive research study to identify methods for improving the
efficiency and effectiveness of the United States criminal DWI system for hard core
drink drivers. In order for a DWI system to operate effectively, all parties must
cooperate and communicate effectively to ensure drink drivers are properly detected
and sanctioned. Yet a myriad of complications hinder police officers, legal
prosecutors, judges, and probation officers in this effort. The study identified the most
significant problems and made recommendations for improvement at each phase of
the judicial process. TIRF Research Associate Robyn D. Robertson and President and
CEO Herb Simpson served as the studys principal investigators. The findings from
the study were organized into four main categories: enforcement, prosecution,
adjudication and sanctioning, and monitoring.
56
Enforcement in the DWI System

The first report, released in November 2001, analyzed DWI enforcement.
Researchers undertook a comprehensive literature review and held workshops with 32
DWI investigation officers in six different states to identify key problems. High-risk
drivers account for a majority of alcohol-related crashes yet many of these drivers are
never caught nor convicted. As such, TIRF examined how DWI law enforcement
could be improved to enhance the detection and apprehension of hard core drinkdrivers. The DWI arrest process can be extremely detailed and tedious and as a result
officers often find the system difficult to navigate. Officers identified nine key
problems that impede the detection and apprehension of drinking drivers: paperwork,
test refusal, detection, incomplete evidence, medical cooperation, failure to appear,
access to records, testimony, and resources.
The problem officers first identified was the excessive paperwork they must
complete regularly which allows less time on direct enforcement and therefore
reduces the deterrent effect. Creating standardized forms would simplify paperwork
and allow officers to spend more time monitoring and enforcing drink-driving laws.
Many offenders refuse to even adhere to BAC testing since test refusal sanctions are
far less severe than conviction sanctions. When individuals refuse BAC testing they
prevent officers from obtaining evidence critical in DWI cases. Officers suggested
increased penalties for test refusal to evoke greater compliance and allow officers to
gather evidence for court proceedings.
Detection is another critical enforcement issue. Of an estimated 150 million
people who drink-drive each year, only 1.4 million arrests are made (National
57
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2002). Consequently, habitual drink-drivers

are undeterred from changing their behavior. To improve detection, officers
recommend increasing and enhancing detection training, especially in the areas of
field sobriety testing, horizontal gaze nystagmus, and passive sensors.
Due to the complexity of the arrest process errors often result in the collection
of incomplete evidence. Such errors reduce the likelihood of conviction at trial. A
simplified arrest process and increased training on evidence collection could alleviate
this problem. To ease the process, officers should be better trained in the specific
evidence necessary at the time of arrest. Also, forms should be standardized to allow
quick data recordation during an arrest and ensure information is not lost in the
interim before the trial date. As data collection and presentation becomes more
standardized, judges will feel more comfortable with evidence interpretation in court
and will be more likely to convict an offender of drink-driving.
Cooperation from medical authorities must also improve to increase DWI
conviction rates. Drink-drivers are more likely to be involved in crashes that require
medical attention; however medical staffs often hesitate to provide patient
information that would prove intoxication. Much of this hesitation likely stems from
ethical obligations not to violate the confidentiality of the doctor-patient relationship
by divulging sensitive information to the police. However, if officers better
communicated their reasons for soliciting the information, hospitals might be more
cooperative. Sharing information with officers would help ensure that valuable
information regarding patient BAC levels at the time of a vehicle crash could be
procured as evidence for a later DWI case.
58
Once an individual is arrested, they may still fail to appear in court. Officers
reported that failure to appear rates can reach as high as 30 percent and that the extent
of the problem is largely determined by the penalties levied on offenders who fail to
appear. When offenders fail to appear in court, resources are wasted and the chance
that offenders will evade prosecution and conviction increases significantly.
Strengthening penalties for offenders who fail to appear could be a step toward
eliminating this problem.
One-third of officers reported difficulty gaining access to drivers records.
Because consequent charges depend on information gathered at the scene of the
arrest, accurate and accessible record-keeping is essential.
Seventy-eight percent of officers interviewed rarely testified in court as few
cases go to trial. Effective trial testimony is limited by several factors; length of time
between arrest and trial, limits on admissibility of evidence, and a lack of opportunity.
Workshops and mock trials could better prepare officers to testify in court. Workshop
curriculum would be designed to train officers in the forms of data collection
necessary to secure DWI convictions in court. One data point which is critical to
conviction is the BAC level at the time of arrest. This is often one of the most
important pieces of information judges rely on when sentencing offenders. Therefore,
one workshop might focus on techniques for persuading offenders to submit to a
BAC test.
Researchers identified a lack of resources as the last main barrier to DWI
enforcement. Funding is often limited as is the equipment necessary to properly
measure and convict suspected offenders. More money and a strategic re-allocation of
59
existing resources are needed to ensure an acceptable level of quality enforcement is

maintained.
Recommendations for improvements to the system were classified in five
categories. In the first category, training and education, researchers found that officers
in the DWI field need better training in detection and arrest procedures, technology
usage, and trial procedures to ensure proper and effective enforcement. The second
category focused on communication and cooperation and noted that officers, motor
vehicle administrations, health personnel, and other stakeholders must maintain open
communication to facilitate the DWI process. The third category of recommendations
addressed record linkages, availability and access. To improve this aspect of the
system, officers should be provided with updated information in a timely manner to
further increase the likelihood of arrests and successful prosecutions. A fourth
category of recommendations advocated better use of current technology, including
mobile computers, electronic forms, and passive alcohol sensors, to assist officers in
effectively enforcing the law. The final group of recommendations, which addressed
legislation and regulation, asserted that DWI law should be modified so that there is a
consistent look-back period in which previous arrests and convictions are
considered. Test refusal should be criminalized and penalties should be increased so
that offenders cannot easily evade the system.
Prosecution in the DWI System

A second TIRF report was published in June 2002 and focused on prosecution
as a key element in the DWI system. TIRF researchers surveyed 390 DWI
prosecutors to ascertain their opinions, views, and experiences with the system. Those
60
surveyed identified ten main problems that impede successful prosecution:

evidentiary issues, test refusal, motions and continuances, incomplete records,
inadequate penalties, failure to appear, legislative complexities, expert witnesses, plea
agreements, and prosecutor training. The officers in TIRFs earlier study had also
identified many of these problems as impediments to successful DWI enforcement.
Evidentiary issues, such as the quality and quantity of evidence gathered
during the arrest, were of primary concern among prosecutors. Effective prosecution
relies heavily on this evidence so errors or omissions in the data can greatly decrease
the likelihood of a conviction. To address this problem, prosecutors suggest the use of
validated sobriety tests, such as the Standardized Field Sobriety Test, to improve the
strength of evidence. Ninety-seven percent of prosecutors said that better
communication with police officers would help them to collect all evidence necessary
for a successful trial.
Prosecutors also cited test refusal as a hindrance to the proper prosecution of
offenders. Nearly 75 percent of prosecutors reported that BAC is the most convincing
piece of evidence in court. Unfortunately nearly a third of officers in the TIRF study
reported some form of test refusal during their DWI investigations, meaning the
offenders BAC was probably not recorded. Appropriately sanctioning an offender
with an unknown BAC is much more difficult because the criminal and
administrative penalties are based upon predetermined BAC levels. Prosecutors agree
with officers that test refusal should be criminalized and more serious sanctions
should be imposed to counteract this problem. Still, by 2003 only 11 states had made
test refusal a criminal offense.
61
Prosecutors also cited motions and continuances as significant problems.

Motions are often overused and can delay proceedings, making it difficult for
prosecutors to win convictions. Delays also mean more time between the offense and
the imposition of sanctioning, which reduces the deterrent effect. Prosecutors believe
that access to more timely information and the creation of processing guidelines for
cases would expedite the trial process.
Prosecutors must also deal with inconsistent and incomplete records that make
it more difficult to secure effective sanctioning. For example, records indicate as
many as 40 percent of repeat DWI offenders are charged as first-time offenders due to
incomplete and inaccurate records. Prosecutors surveyed suggested that offenders
could be more effectively prosecuted if all agents in the DWI system were required to
maintain accurate records for a specific period of time following an arrest, termed the
mandatory look-back period. Standardized record-keeping would also help officers
monitor out-of-state and out-of-county drivers who can be difficult to track.
Inadequate and inconsistent penalties also reduce the effectiveness of the DWI
system. Prosecutors believe states should have tiered sanctioning systems that
increase the severity of the penalties for repeat offenses. Penalty systems should be
evaluated to guarantee they are sufficiently deterrent and stricter sentencing
guidelines should be imposed to make certain repeat offenders receive harsher
penalties.
Prosecutors, similar to officers, cited offenders failure to appear in court as a
major problem in the DWI system. Repeat offenders are more likely to fail to appear
during trial because they know the loopholes in the system and are aware of the low
62
risk of apprehension. A failure to appear results in wasted resources and often means
the offender is never prosecuted or convicted for their DWI arrest. Prosecutors
offered three solutions for this problem: defendants who fail to appear in court one or
more times should be held in custody until trial following any subsequent DWI
arrests; if it is not practical to hold the defendant in custody, a substantial bail should
be imposed to ensure a court appearance; finally, legislators should increase the
penalties for offenders who fail to appear, and judges should consequently adhere to
these harsher penalties.
In the past five years, significant growth in DWI laws has led to legislative
complexities that have arisen to make the system inconsistent in places. These
inconsistencies translate into loopholes through which repeat offenders can often
avoid prosecution. In order to identify and correct these loopholes, prosecutors
recommend an extensive legislation review be completed by all major stakeholders in
each state.
In more than half of DWI trials, prosecutors rely on the testimony of expert
witnesses to win convictions. However, due to poor funding and scheduling
problems, expert testimony is not always available and the consequence is often an
acquittal for guilty defendants. Prosecutors recommend creating a databank of past
expert testimony in DWI trials. This way, prosecutors in subsequent trials could
access the databank to obtain pertinent information for presentation in court.
Plea agreements can also cause problems in the DWI system because they
lead to reduced sanctions and penalties, undermine the deterrent effect, and make it
more difficult to identify repeat offenders. During plea agreements, first-time
63
offenders typically receive probation before judgment. As long as the terms of the
probation are completed, their criminal records remain clean. Therefore, the second
time they are convicted of a DWI, they are viewed as first-time rather than repeat
offenders, and receive lighter sanctions. Although prosecutors are generally satisfied
with the frequency of plea bargains in the system, they would like the contents of the
plea arrangements to be restricted so that offenders, particularly repeat offenders, are
granted less leniency.
Just as officers identified improper training as a problem, prosecutors cited a
lack of knowledge about the DWI system as a serious obstacle to securing
convictions. Forty-eight percent reported that they did not receive proper training
prior to working in the DWI system. Many noted that DWI cases are often given to
new prosecutors as a form of training; this is counterproductive to the system as the
prosecutors lack of confidence and experience make them more hesitant to proceed
to trial and more likely to negotiate plea arrangements. Ninety-four percent of
prosecutors surveyed would like more training in the area of DWI prosecution. In
addition to training, they believe it would be helpful to meet with DWI prosecutors
from other jurisdictions and states to discuss common problems and strategies.
Prosecutors suggested using mock trials and turnover binders containing
information on previous trials as ways to gain experience and disseminate
information. Lastly, prosecutors said that vertical prosecution would help maintain
consistency and efficiency in handling cases from start to finish. In a vertical
prosecution system, from the time a DWI case begins until it is disposed of by
sentencing, one prosecutor is responsible for that and any other case the individual
64
offender may have pending. As such, the prosecutor follows the case from
preliminary hearing, through pre-trial motions, trial and finally sentencing. The
benefits to a vertical prosecution system include a more effective working
relationship between officers, the prosecutor, and other key parties involved in each
case, continuity in prosecution, and prosecutors who are better prepared to handle the
many challenges in DWI cases.
Recommendations for improving prosecution were separated into the same
categories as those for improving enforcement. First, better training and education in
the areas of DWI evidentiary issues, trial proceedings, and legislation could provide
prosecutors with a solid footing for winning trial convictions. In addition,
communication and cooperation between officers, new prosecutors, legislators,
criminal justice professionals, and other stakeholders would enhance the flow of
information through the DWI system. Similar to officers, prosecutors recommended
creating a turnover binder that contains notes on key issues and procedures in DWI
cases. Prosecutors also support the implementation of a vertical prosecution system to
eliminate trial confusion and delays. Regarding technology, prosecutors recommend a
greater facilitation of blood evidence, considered by many to be a more valid and
reliable indicator of BAC level than the current breathalyzer technologies.
Prosecutors suggested several improvements for improvements to record-keeping,
including uniform driver abstracts, uniform look-back periods, and standardized court
reporting practices. Greater access to technology such as legal websites, as well as the
creation of a databank that houses expert testimony data, will help to enhance
prosecution efforts. Lastly, legislation and regulation changes are needed to ensure
65
that prosecutors can effectively prosecute and convict offenders. Improvements might
include: increasing bail amounts for failing to appear, criminalizing test refusal and
increasing associated penalties, and using tiered penalty systems to penalize repeat
offenders.
Adjudication and Sanctioning in the DWI System

In December 2002 TIRF issued its third report, which focused on problems
and improvements in the areas of DWI adjudication and sanctioning. In addition to a
comprehensive survey completed by 900 judges in 44 states, a series of workshops
were conducted by a smaller group of senior judges and court officials. TIRF
collected and analyzed the resulting information to identify key problems and
solutions in the adjudication and sanctioning of DWI cases. Judges have been plagued
by the same legal complexities in DWI laws as prosecutors, and find it more and
more difficult to effectively adjudicate related cases. Judges in the TIRF study
identified nine key problem areas in their field: sentence monitoring, evidentiary
problems, caseload, motions and continuances, failure to appear, records, sentencing
disparity, mandatory minimum sentences, and juries.
Sentence monitoring can be a significant challenge in DWI cases. There are
often not enough probation officers to effectively monitor all cases, and a reported 50
percent of offenders fail to abide by the terms of their probation. Without consistent
supervision, these offenders easily find ways to circumvent the rules, thereby
decreasing the effectiveness of the justice system. Judges said the flow of information
between courts and officers must be streamlined so that monitoring is coordinated and
66
fewer offenders are able to circumvent the system. Judges also said specialized DWI
courts would provide a better forum for closely monitoring offenders.
Evidentiary problems concern judges as well as prosecutors because they
often lead to lesser charges and plea agreements. Many judges acknowledged that
they lack sufficient scientific and technical knowledge regarding DWI offenses, and
that they rely on strong evidence presented in court. Judges should be better educated
in DWI evidentiary issues to increase the likelihood of accurate convictions. Judges
often find it difficult to correctly sentence offenders in the absence of recorded BAC
information from which to base their decision. Consequently, they said resolving the
test refusal problem would ensure BAC information would be available in all cases.
Given the approximate 1.4 million DWI arrests each year, courts are
constantly overburdened with these cases. Such offenses are the most frequently
adjudicated misdemeanors in lower courts which reduces the amount of time judges
have to study DWI law. Because of the immense backup, many offenders cases are
dismissed or they are acquitted due to delays. Forty-three percent of judges agreed
that more adjudicates are needed to facilitate the process. More than half of judges
said specialized DWI courts are more efficient in handling DWI cases, and would
reduce the incidence of dismissals and acquittals.
Judges also agreed with prosecutors that motions and continuances constitute
a significant barrier to the effective adjudication and sanctioning of offenders. These
tactics create unnecessary paperwork and waste the courts valuable time and
resources. Twenty percent of judges recommended limiting motions and continuances
in DWI cases to alleviate the problem.
67
Failure to appear was another concern for the judges in the survey. Defendants
who miss their trial are often able to avoid prosecution and conviction altogether.
They also waste time and resources and lower the deterrent effect of the courts. The
judges recommended that repeat offenders with a history of missing their DWI court
appointments be held on bail following subsequent arrests.
Because DWI records for any given offender have often been maintained by
different agencies for different periods of time, information is inconsistent and often
inaccurate, a problem noted by the judges. Without current and accurate information,
judges are unable to make informed decisions and many offenders are released
without penalty. Forty-four percent of the judges said that the National Driver
Register (NDR) is one of the most effective databases for identifying problem drivers.
However, because NDR data is derived from state motor vehicle administrations,
greater efforts must be made to improve the quality and quantity of the original
information entering the database. Uniform driver abstracts and standardized lookback periods could further assist judges searching for information on a particular
defendant. Abstracts would allow judges to quickly locate key information on any
offender in the system which would aid the decision-making process during trial.
Standardized look-back periods would mandate that information be kept on file for
each offender for a specified period of time. This is critical to monitoring repeat
offenders and ensuring that they receive appropriate sanctions dependent on prior
convictions.
A variety of influencing factors including fiscal concerns, caseload, personal
experience, and the availability of sanctioning options, means that DWI sentencing
68
can differ significantly even in similar cases. As a result of sentencing disparity, some
defendants are not properly sanctioned. This leads to the additional problem of judge
shopping when offenders look to try their case before a judge known for leniency.
The judges reported that access to summaries of scientific research, specialized DWI
courts, and tiered penalty systems for repeat offenders would maintain more
consistency in sentencing while still permitting discretion when needed.
In a previous attempt to correct sentencing disparity, states have introduced
mandatory minimum sentences. However, the judges said these minimums often
impede the sentencing process when the stipulated sanctions are not appropriate for a
certain case. Instead more judicial discretion in mandatory minimums would help to
better encompass the wide variety of DWI cases.
Jury trials in DWI cases often produce much lower conviction rates compared
to non-DWI cases; defendants recognize jurors sympathetic attitudes toward drinking
and driving and take advantage of this situation in court. When juries cannot reach a
decision, defendants often face less harsh penalties or wholly avoid sanctioning.
Seventy-five percent of judges said one way to more fully inform juries in DWI cases
is to include test refusals as evidence.
Similar to the previous two reports, the sanctioning report categorizes
solutions into five main categories: training and education, communication and
cooperation, record linkages, availability and access, technology, and legislation and
regulation, all of which were discussed in detail in the previous sections on
adjudication and sanctioning.
69
Monitoring in the DWI System

TIRF published a final report in July 2003 that focused on monitoring issues
in the DWI system. TIRF collected information from 890 probation and parole
officers via a comprehensive survey and from other probation and treatment
professionals through a series of workshops. These individuals identified eight key
areas of the DWI system that could most use improvement: non-compliance with
court orders, caseload, conflicting goals, sentencing disparity, program design,
paperwork, net-widening, and records.
Non-compliance with court orders occurs in approximately 44 percent of DWI
cases, often resulting from a lack of information from service providers about
offender non-compliance and a lack of authority to monitor and impose sanctions on
offenders who violate the terms of their sentences. Probation and parole officers
agreed that better communication with service and treatment providers would be a
first step towards eliminating non-compliance. In addition, expanding treatment
facilities for offenders would add an additional layer of supervision. Few offenders
who drive on suspended or restricted licenses are ever apprehended and many find it
easy to continue driving regardless of their sentence. An increase in random
community alcohol tests would allow officers to detect more offenders who violate
their sentences and deter others in the program from doing so.
Overwhelming caseloads have also been an obstacle for parole and probation
officers. An increasing number of DWI arrests combined with funding and resource
cutbacks have led to a serious deterioration in probation supervision. Officers
recommend increasing the number of probation officers, limiting the size of
70
caseloads, and using technologies such as transdermal testing, which uses electronic
monitoring with alcohol testing, to minimize unmanageable caseloads.
Probation officers often face conflicting goals of enforcement versus
rehabilitation. Ideally officers could focus on both, yet funding and resource
limitations make this dual task difficult. Generally officers dedicate much more time
to enforcement efforts than they do to rehabilitation initiatives. Unfortunately,
spending less time on rehabilitation initiatives often translates into increased
recidivism rates since offenders are never encouraged to change their drinking
behavior. Officers agree that more treatment facilities are needed to increase
rehabilitation options and curb recidivism rates.
Sentencing disparity continues to be a concern for probation officers.
Probation officers stated that judges should be better informed of the penalty structure
for repeat offenses so they might demonstrate more consistency in their rulings.
Particularly a problem with repeat offenses, sentencing disparity detracts from the
deterrent effect of the courts and keeps dangerous drivers on the road.
Poor program planning and design leads to legislative discrepancies,
inconsistent enforcement, and an excessive financial burden for offenders, all of
which officers said decrease a programs success. Offenders are able to identify and
exploit those inconsistencies which make monitoring and enforcement difficult and
occasionally even those who would benefit most never enter the program at all.
Officers recommend funding for indigent offenders who cannot afford their program
costs as an effective way to address this issue. Further, a careful evaluation of
71
program entry requirements would ensure that all offenders who should be admitted
into a DWI program meet the qualifications.
Probation officers reported that they spend approximately one-third of their
time filling out forms and writing reports. The attention given to paperwork each day
detracts from the amount of time officers can dedicate to monitoring and
rehabilitation efforts. Even more alarming, some officers admitted that paperwork
discourages them from reporting all DWI incidents. Standardized forms and a greater
reliance on technology would decrease the time spent on paperwork. Web-based
applications would allow all parties to more efficiently share information, thereby
improving communication as well as reducing paperwork.
As states have focused on net-widening, placing more offenders in
alternative DWI programs rather than correctional institutions, officers have
understandably experienced a greater increase in caseloads. Consequently, probation
officers have been less effective since they must stretch their time and resources even
further. Officers recommended that states undergo a strategic review on the practice
of net-widening to determine for whom it is most appropriate and how best to
mitigate its negative consequences.
Finally, sixty-two percent of probation officers surveyed rated their
accessibility to offender criminal records as poor. When officers are unable to
access offenders records, the information they have at their disposal during trial is
often inadequate. A lack of evidence in court makes judges reluctant to pass harsh
sentences and ultimately enables repeat offenders to evade appropriate sanctions.
72
Officers recommended that each offenders records be maintained for a mandatory

look-back period to ensure they are sanctioned appropriately in the future.
The comprehensive TIRF study highlighted five key recommendation areas
for the DWI system: better training and education in DWI law, more effective
communication between parties, increased access to offender records, greater
technological integration, and more supportive legislation. It is critical that judges,
prosecutors, and officers work collaboratively to implement the recommendations
discussed here in order to improve the overall effectiveness of enforcement,
prosecution, adjudication and sanctioning, and monitoring within the DWI system.
Only when the DWI system is operating at a maximum level of efficiency will the
ignition interlock subsystem be able to do the same.
73
Effectiveness of Individual State Interlock Programs

In addition to the nationwide data collection on DWI system improvements,
the Traffic Industry Research Foundation solicited specific feedback from individual
states regarding the status of their interlock programs. Comparisons were then made
between the data collected in the national research study and the data gathered from
each state. The team focused its research on four of the most progressive interlock
programs in the United States; Maryland, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, and California,
to determine where the most significant strides have been made, and also to identify
the areas for improvement in DWI enforcement, prosecution, adjudication and
sanctioning, and monitoring.
DWI and Interlock System Trends in Maryland

In conjunction with the nationwide data collection on DWI system
improvements, TIRF created a comprehensive survey aimed at soliciting statespecific information from judges and parole officers in the state of Maryland. Twentytwo probation officers in the state of Maryland ranked eight key problems according
to the severity of their impact: caseload, paperwork, sentencing disparity, noncompliance, conflicting goals, program design, net-widening, and records. These
problems closely resemble those that TIRF identified nationwide. Maryland officers
noted that caseload and paperwork were the most significant issues they faced and 46
percent said that paperwork consumes the majority of their time. Here, form
standardization and computerized reporting would allow officers to more closely
manage their caseloads without the intensive paperwork. Electronic forms would
74
increase the ability of officers to create and maintain accurate records that are critical
to an offenders progress.
Probation Officers: Areas for Improvement
Maryland probation officers reported that those DWI court sanctions which
are monitored 100 percent of the time include treatment and counseling, community
service orders, fines and fees, license sanctions, and victim impact panels. However,
ignition interlock sanctions are only monitored 85 percent of the time. Just as TIRF
found nationwide, Maryland probation officers often must choose between spending
resources on enforcing sanction compliance, or on focusing on offender treatment.
Maryland survey results indicate that 23 percent of officers prioritize enforcement,
while 77 percent of officers equally prioritize enforcement and treatment/integration;
the nationwide trend was 26 percent and 73 percent respectively. Officers also
reported that 47 percent of offenders fail to comply with the conditions of their
sentences, up from the national 43 percent, and that license sanctions and treatment
are the most ignored requirements. Contrarily, Maryland offenders are somewhat
more compliant with ignition interlock requirements than their counterparts
nationwide. Fifty-four percent of officers cited poor program design as the biggest
cause of non-compliance, yet Marylands interlock compliance rate suggests it may
have an edge over other states in that respect.
The report also noted that approximately 47 percent of offenders evade DWI
sanctioning because they cannot afford the associated costs. This statistic is
considerably higher than the national average of 13 percent. In order for the ignition
interlock system to effectively deter drink driving, the financial burden on indigent
75
offenders must be reconciled so that all eligible individuals can be placed on the
program.
In contrast to the national trend, 54 percent of Maryland officers rated
accessibility and accuracy of criminal records as excellent, while 61 percent rated
the accessibility and accuracy of driver records at the same caliber. The nationwide
averages were 38 percent and 30 percent, respectively. This data indicates that recordkeeping is less problematic in Maryland than elsewhere. Still, only 39 percent of
Maryland officers said they were able to satisfactorily track clients who relocate,
compared to a national average of 48 percent. This demonstrates an information
disconnect across state lines. More open communication among state agencies is
necessary to ensure offenders do not disappear from the system when they relocate.
Furthermore, 69 percent of Maryland officers reported considerable sentencing
disparity in DWI cases compared to the national 53 percent. However they reported
that sentencing is less likely to reflect the severity of the offense 31 percent of the
time, a decrease from the national 46 percent.
Probation Officers: Recommendations for System Improvements
The Maryland officers in the TIRF study made several recommendations for
DWI system improvements. First, to address the problem of insurmountable
caseloads, 52 percent of Maryland officers said that more probation officers must be
employed to spread the cases. Sixty percent of officers believe the maximum caseload
limit for regular supervision should be between 100 and 200 offenders, and 39
percent believe the maximum caseload for intensive supervision should be not exceed
76
90 offenders. According to the national study, caseloads can range from 100 to 3,000
per officer.
Probation officers believe that incarceration and alcohol treatment are the
most effective sanctions for offenders. Thirty-seven percent of officers felt that
addiction treatment is effective and 73 percent agreed that more treatment facilities
are needed. They also said the state should certify treatment providers to standardize
the programs minimum requirements. Seventy-three percent of officers, compared to
50 percent nationwide, believe women and minorities need specialized facilities. To
increase the use of treatment as a sanctioning method, 82 percent of officers believe
that judges must be better informed about the impact of addiction on offenders and
the necessity of treatment. To improve the enforcement of offender compliance with
these sanctions, 29 percent said they required more technical assistance and 25
percent required better cooperation with police. An overwhelming 91 percent of
officers felt that vehicle impoundment should be used more frequently in DWI cases.
Maryland officers also recommended several specific improvements for the
interlock aspect of the DWI system. To best improve interlock programs, 43 percent
of officers reported that they require better data logger training. Data loggers store
information obtained from each offenders interlock device, such as number of rolling
retests, failed starts, etc. Probation officers must understand the information contained
in the data loggers as they can help to identify which offenders require the closest
supervision and enforcement. Additionally, 33 percent of officers want to work more
closely with service providers to identify those offenders that run the highest risk of
violating program requirements so that enforcement effectiveness can be improved.
77
Judges: Areas for Improvement

TIRF also obtained survey responses from 28 Maryland judges who ranked
nine impediments to effective DWI adjudication and sanctioning: failure to appear,
caseload, evidentiary problems, sentence monitoring, excessive motions, juries,
sentencing disparity, and mandatory minimums. These issues closely resemble those
identified in the national TIRF study; however, Maryland judges ranked failure to
appear as their primary concern while it ranked fifth nationwide. When an offender
fails to appear in court, there is a risk that this offender will not receive the
appropriate sanctions or may escape penalties altogether. If there is poor
communication between judges and officers or if there is a lack of adequate data on
the offender, then an offenders failure to appear may essentially go unnoticed and
unreported in the system.
Approximately 15 percent of DWI cases in Maryland go to trial compared to
16 percent of cases nationally. In Maryland, a jury resolves 21 percent of these cases
whereas juries only determine 12 percent of cases nationwide. As TIRFs nationwide
study showed, DWI trials by jury result in less harsh penalties than those decided by
judges, which could mean Maryland offenders are more likely to evade appropriate
sanctioning than in other states. Twenty-seven percent of Maryland judges said
excessive motions significantly delay DWI cases while nationally, 34 percent of
judges classify excessive motions as a major area of concern.
Sentencing disparity is again mentioned as an area of concern as it leads
offenders to judge shop. Fifty-four percent of Maryland judges reported this trend
in comparison with a national 46 percent. In Maryland, some decisions in DWI cases
78
are up to the discretion of the judge. Therefore, an offender may judge shop and
attempt to have his case heard by a judge who is known to be more lenient. This can
greatly impact the interlock system, because some judges are more skeptical of the
interlock technology and less likely to require an offender to have an interlock
installed in his car.
Judges: Recommendations for System Improvements
Maryland judges provided recommendations in response to the concerns they
delineated. To begin, 71 percent of judges suggested more training for police and
prosecutors to improve the quality of evidence presented in court, and 81 percent said
all professional groups would benefit from additional training and workshops.
Seventy-five percent of judges said test refusal should be addressed through
legislative measures, and 30 percent in particular said penalties for a refusal should be
strengthened in legislation.
In the courts, 62 percent of judges believed test refusal should be made
admissible during sentencing. Only 6 percent said that test refusal admissibility
should be excluded entirely. A 94 percent majority of judges felt prior convictions
should be admissible during sentencing, though only 13 percent agreed they should
be allowed during trial. An overwhelming 94 percent of judges agreed that mandatory
alcohol evaluations should be available to assist judges in sentencing.
In addition, 69 percent of judges responded that greater access to scientific
evaluations of sanctions would ease their decisions. This indication is very important
because it suggests that judges require scientific confirmation of ignition interlock
effectiveness before they will mandate interlock installation. Providing adequate
79
information to judges regarding interlock effectiveness is therefore paramount to the

success of interlock programs during the judicial phase.
Notably, fifty-six percent of judges said that tiered penalties would assist them
in sentencing repeat offenders; this is noticeably lower than the national 74 percent
average. Though tiered sentencing could reduce disparity, it is possible that the judges
surveyed wished to retain their autonomy when levying sentences due to the
individual nature of cases. This may prove to be a significant barrier to improving
Marylands interlock system because interlocks are typically mandated for classified
hard-core offenders who face more severe sanctions and penalties. Without a tiered
penalty system, offenders might never be sentenced to the interlock if they come
before judges who are skeptical and hesitate to mandate installation of the device.
Half of Maryland judges reported that greater communication between courts
and treatment facilities would improve monitoring efforts, and 93 percent said that
probation and parole officers were best prepared to monitor offenders. According to
44 percent of judges surveyed, more DWI judges are needed in Maryland to address
caseload concerns and improve sentencing decisions. When judges are faced with
excessive caseloads, they have less time to spend on each case, cannot adequately
consider all evidence and circumstances, and consequently may not apply the
appropriate sanctions. Only 19 percent of Maryland judges supported legislatively
limiting motions and continuances as a tool for expediting court proceedings. Fifty
percent and 46 percent of judges, respectively, identified the National Driver Registry
and uniform driver abstracts as the best way to maintain complete criminal and driver
records. Forty-seven percent of judges said incarceration was most likely to reduce
80
offender recidivism, while 38 percent said treatment was. A majority of judges

reported that more treatment centers are needed for repeat offenders and 47 percent
said DWI courts would be better equipped to handle DWI cases.
Additional Data
Additional data regarding effectiveness of the Maryland interlock program
resulted from a 1999 study by Beck, Rauch, Baker, and Williams titled Effects of
Ignition Interlock License Restrictions on Drivers With Multiple Alcohol Offenses: A
Randomized Trial in Maryland. To conduct the two-year study, researchers randomly
created two groups, one that installed the interlock for one year, and one that followed
the traditional treatment program without interlock installation. These two groups
were monitored for two years following their offenses. Results indicated that in their
year on the interlock, group one had a 65 percent less chance of committing an
alcohol traffic violation. Only 2.4 percent of group one participants committed such
an offense, as opposed to 6.7 percent in group two. During the second year neither
group used an interlock and no significant difference was found in their alcohol traffic
violation rates. Researchers concluded that Maryland's interlock program is effective
in reducing alcohol traffic offenses among repeat offenders while the device is
installed on their vehicles. Once the device is removed, offense rates return to
previous levels.
In more recent studies, Rauch has asserted that Maryland's interlock program
does in fact reduce the incidence of recidivism, alcohol-related crashes, moving
violations, and administrative actions, and that it is the most widely accepted program
in the country (Ignition Interlock Symposium, 2005).
81
Research by the Department of Public and Community Health at the

University of Maryland supports Rauchs claim that Marylands interlock program
enjoys widespread public support. In 2005 the department, which conducts regular
public surveys on transportation issues, found that 43.2 percent of those surveyed
believed a person convicted for the first time of DUI should be required to install an
ignition interlock for 12 months (Monitoring the Future of Maryland, 2005). Though
current Maryland legislation does not stipulate the use of ignition interlocks for firsttime DUI offenders, this study indicates that there would be public support for such
an initiative. Furthermore, when respondents were asked whether those individuals
with repeat DUI convictions should be required to install interlocks for at least 12
months, an overwhelming 87.4 percent majority said they should. As evidenced by
this survey, there is tremendous public support for the use of ignition interlocks for
repeat DUI offenders in Maryland.
DWI and Interlock System Trends in Pennsylvania

On June 22, 2000, Pennsylvania enacted its first ignition interlock laws
embodied in Act 63. Under the law, all repeat DWI offenders were required to
complete a two-year hard license suspension, or they could opt to complete a oneyear hard suspension followed by a year on an interlock-restricted license (L. Kerr,
personal communication, April 2006). When the federal government deemed the
optional portion of the law in violation of the federal repeat offender law in 2003, the
state replaced Act 63 with Chapter 38, Section 3805 of the comprehensive drunk
driving law Act 24 (Ignition Interlock, 2005).
82
Act 24 established the Pennsylvania Department of Transportations

(PENNDOT) authority to administer the states interlock program. In accordance with
federal regulations, the law mandates a one-year interlock installation period for each
vehicle owned or registered by a repeat DWI offender as a condition for license
reinstatement. Offenders can qualify for a hardship exemption from the program if
their income falls below 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines, however they
must still install an interlock on one vehicle (L. Kerr, personal communication, April
2006). They can also qualify for an employment exemption if operating a vehicle is
vital to their job responsibilities (Ignition Interlock, 2005). This exemption allows
offenders to operate their employers car without an interlock, provided it is for
business use and does not carry more than 15 passengers (L. Kerr, personal
communication, April, 2006). To disseminate information on the states interlock
system, the Pennsylvania DUI Association and PENNDOT created the Ignition
Interlock Quality Assurance Program in order to educate judges, law officers, and
probation officers about the ignition interlock law. For example, the Quality
Assurance Program trains these individuals so they are aware the state only
recognizes devices that rely on electro-chemical fuel cell sensor technology or
alcohol fuel cells (Ignition Interlock, 2005). The Quality Assurance Program also
inspects installation centers to ensure compliance with PENNDOT requirements. The
state also requires all convicted DWI offenders to undergo evaluation by the Court
Reporting Network to determine what treatment is necessary (L. Kerr, personal
communication, April 2006). Failure to comply with interlock laws can result in a
83
fine of $300-$1,000 and up to 90 days in prison (Interlock Programs-Pennsylvania ,

2005). In 2005, 2,945 people were on the interlock program in Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvanias comprehensive treatment program provides DWI offenders
an opportunity to enter the Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition Track (Move
to .08, 2003). Offenders who agree to the rehabilitative track undergo screening for
alcohol addiction and may be referred to other treatment programs as necessary.
Based on an offenders intoxication level at the time of arrest, program
administrators determine how quickly the offender receives treatment and the
duration of their license suspension. Most offenders are responsible for covering the
cost of their treatment and a failure to meet the programs requirements can result in a
transfer to the supervision of a parole officer (Move to .08, 2003).
In 2002, the Traffic Injury Research Foundation (TIRF) surveyed 34
Pennsylvania judges to determine their main concerns regarding the states DWI
system. The judges ranked nine problem areas in order of severity: sentence
monitoring, evidentiary issues, mandatory minimums, caseload, excessive motions,
record-keeping, trials by jury, failure to appear, and sentencing disparity (TIRF:
Pennsylvania, 2002).
Mandatory minimums and juries present a greater problem in Pennsylvania
than they do nationally, while caseload, excessive motions, failure to appear and
sentencing disparity are less of a concern. The TIRF results also indicate a serious
deficiency in the evidentiary knowledge of judges in DWI cases. Less than half of the
judges said they could evaluate evidence related to horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN)
testing, breath test calibration and accuracy, retrograde extrapolation, blood partition
84
ratios, and accident reconstruction. However, 81 percent of the judges surveyed did
feel that DWI prosecutors were prepared to present such evidence knowledgeably.
Sixty percent of judges cited heavy caseload as the largest obstacle to effectively
monitoring offenders. According to the survey, 25 percent of offenders are
apprehended for sentence non-compliance, less than the 28 percent apprehended
nationwide (TIRF: Pennsylvania, 2002).
In Pennsylvania, nine percent of DWI cases go to trial compared with 16
percent nationwide. Of these cases, 14 percent are decided by jury, compared with 12
percent nationwide. The practice of judge-shopping does not seem to be as much of
a problem in Pennsylvania as in other states, which indicates a lesser level of sentence
disparity (TIRF: Pennsylvania, 2002).
Judges in the Pennsylvania study then provided recommendations for
resolving the issues they had identified. To improve evidentiary knowledge, judges
suggested all agents engage in further training to familiarize themselves with DWI
law and science. Fifty percent of judges felt the issue of test refusal should be
addressed through legislation, and many said refusals should be permissible as
evidence in court (TIRF: Pennsylvania, 2002).
Eighty percent of judges thought better cooperation between courts and
treatment facilities would enhance monitoring efforts, and said probation and parole
officers were the best agents for this task. Of those surveyed, 13 percent felt more
DWI judges were necessary to quell the caseload problem, compared with a national
average of 43 percent. Another 20 percent favored legislatively limiting motions and
continuances to expedite case processing (TIRF: Pennsylvania, 2002).
85
A solid 80 percent of Pennsylvania judges felt compulsory alcohol evaluations

would help them issue appropriate sentences and 71 percent thought that easier access
to scientific evaluations of sanctions would be helpful as well. Regarding recidivism,
judges said that incarceration and treatment were the most effective sanctions for
repeat offenders, and most felt more treatment facilities were necessary (TIRF:
Pennsylvania, 2002).
DWI and Interlock System Trends in New Mexico

The New Mexico state legislature first considered implementing an ignition
interlock program in September 1995, after the state reported the second highest rate
of DWI-related deaths in 1994, and has since become the national leader in interlock
initiatives. The program first found support in 1995 from then-Governor Gary
Johnson, the Motor Vehicle Division, and area judges, including one judge who
publicly advocated for, every resource we can get for backing the DWI program
(Morris, 1995).
The new interlock program also faced a number of critics who questioned the
infallibility of the device and the ability of offenders to pay the 60 dollars a month in
associated costs. Some legislators feared indigent offenders who could not afford the
program costs would simply be prohibited from using their vehicles during their
sentences. Others were concerned the cost burden of the program would be passed on
to taxpayers should it be made mandatory (Morris, 1995).
Despite these reservations, the state legislature approved New Mexicos first
interlock laws in House Bill 282, which took effect on July 1, 1999. The original
version of the law gave judges the option of mandating an interlock for any repeat
86
offender who wished to avoid license suspension (Massey, 1999). Under the 1999
interlock law provisions, program participants were only permitted to operate their
vehicles when traveling to work or school.
The new program met with early success. The Santa Fe New Mexican
reported in 2000, that 15 months after its implementation the program had grown to
140 participants, a sign of judicial support. In that time, only one offender had been
rearrested; nearly ten times lower than expected. Furthermore, the interlock program
spurred additional drink-driving initiatives, such as the DWI Planning Councils
driver sobriety pledge (Constable, 2000).
In 2002, the legislature expanded the law to mandate interlock installation for
any repeat DWI offender. The law was again amended in 2003, with the
implementation of the Ignition Interlock License Act. Unlike earlier versions, the new
law allowed for participants in the program to drive wherever they wished so long as
they possessed a valid interlock license and device (The Institute of Public Law,
2005).
The interlock laws were not flawlessly implemented, and in 2003 the
Albuquerque Journal reported that from January to November of that year only 300 of
the 873 devices ordered by judges were actually installed. This is partially due to
some repeat offenders whose vehicles were impounded and could not install a device,
and others who were reassigned to Drug/DWI court, which follows a different
sentencing system. Yet the biggest hindrance to compliance at the time might have
been the lack of a system for ensuring offenders complied with court orders. In
87
response to the problem, probation officers began to consider creating a position

specifically for this purpose (Ramirez, 2003).
New Mexico advanced their program again in April 2005 when they became
the first state to mandate interlocks for all DWI offenders, including first-times.
Under the groundbreaking law, House Bill 292, first-time offenders enroll in the
program for a period of one year, second-offenders for two years, and third-time
offenders for three years. Once an offender reaches their fourth conviction they must
permanently install an interlock device (Baker, 2005).
The law also expanded treatment requirements for DWI offenders. According
to House Bill 292 provisions, first-time offenders must attend DWI school, though
judges retain discretion in assigning treatment programs. Repeat offenders must
attend either a 28-day in-patient or 90-day out-patient facility for a substance abuse
treatment program. All convicted DWI offenders are also required to complete 24
hours of community service for each offense committed. Offenders can access a list
of court-approved treatment programs at the Institute of Public Laws website (The
Institute of Public Law, 2005).
Unlike many other programs, New Mexicos interlock program is jointly run
by the New Mexico Traffic Safety Bureau of the state Department of Transportation,
and by the Institute of Public Law at the University of New Mexico. The Traffic
Safety Bureau monitors participants and vendors in the program from a judicial
standpoint, while the Institute of Public Law provides information and resources to
those involved with the program, including a list of approved vendors and their
locations, and how to apply for an interlock license. Offenders who require an
88
ignition interlock must drive it with a special interlock license, which costs $51.50 to
obtain. After the device is installed, the participants must have the device serviced at a
vendor location every 60 days. It costs $75 for installation, and approximately $960
per year to maintain (The Institute of Public Law, 2005).
In the 2002 TIRF study for the state, judges in New Mexico listed the top five
problems areas they face in DWI sanctioning as sentence monitoring, record-keeping,
evidentiary problems, failure to appear, and motions and continuances. These results
are similar to the nationwide findings.
Judges in the New Mexico report said that an overwhelming number of DWI
cases combined with poor communication between probation officers and the courts
make it extremely difficult to monitor all offenders. They recommended more
interaction between courts and sanctioning programs to minimize the issue. New
Mexico judges also supported implementation of DWI courts to handle the volume of
cases, despite previous miscommunication and disagreements regarding offense
sanctioning.
Inaccurate and unavailable records were also noted as a problem in New
Mexico. Without reviewing complete driving and offense records for each case,
judges find it difficult to issue appropriate sanctions. Again the judges recommended
enhanced communication between the courts and law enforcement, as well as
mandatory alcohol evaluations for DWI offenders to improve sanctioning. Similarly,
evidentiary problems arise from the lack of sufficient records available to judges.
Respondents indicated better training for judges and police officers would best ensure
89
the information collected in a DWI case is appropriate and comprehensive for

sanctioning. A better understanding of alcohol breath testing would also be beneficial.
More DWI cases in New Mexico reach the trial stage than the nationwide
average, yet failures to appear and excessive motions and continuances delay court
rulings and hurt DWI prosecution efforts. Judge shopping is a major factor in the
problem since defendants who search for lenient judges often delay their proceedings
and add to caseload backup. New Mexico judges suggested enacting stricter laws to
limit the number of continuances allowed in DWI cases and streamline the trial
process.
Recently complications between program administrators and vendors have
also negatively impacted New Mexicos interlock program. Some vendors
complained to the Albuquerque Journal in June 2005 that the program officials
referrals to certain vendor locations were detracting from their own business. The
issue was investigated and resolved, yet a Traffic Safety Bureau official said problems
between officials and vendors may persist while the program is relatively new
(Kavanaugh, 2005).
Despite interagency problems, the interlock initiative itself has proven to be
extremely successful. During the first three and a half years of the program,
approximately 2,470 people were ordered to install interlocks and of those only three
percent have been rearrested. In contrast, 12 percent of offenders who did not install
interlocks were rearrested in that same period. Also, in 2004 the Santa Fe New
Mexican estimated that the program had prevented 65,000 incidences of drunk
driving since its inception. New Mexico legislators responded to this success with
90
House Bill 126 in 2004, which proposed device installation for all new vehicles.
However opponents have stressed the need to keep the focus on offenders, and the bill
has yet to pass through the Senate Judiciary Committee (Grammer, 2004).
Regardless of the latest proposal, New Mexicos 2005 interlock laws will
incorporate much larger numbers of participants into the program as it requires even
first-time offenders to install a device. By 2003 the state had fallen from second to
sixth in their ranking for DWI-related deaths, and as a result of the new laws the
reduction in DWI offenses is expected to continue. The state enjoys consistent
support in drink-driving and interlock measures from its Governor Bill Richardson as
well as its legislature, who in addition to advocating interlocks in every vehicle have
pushed to lower the states 0.08 BAC limit (Massey, 2004).
DWI and Interlock System Trends in California

Drink driving is a persistent public safety problem for the state of California
as well. According to the California Highway Patrol, 1,308 people died and 31,806
were injured in alcohol-related car accidents in 2001 (DeYoung, Masten, & Tashima
2004). Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the state undertook a series of initiatives to
reduce the problem, but by the mid-1990s these efforts had stalled and legislators
needed a fresh approach (DeYoung, Masten, & Tashima 2004).
There was still a great lack of information on device effectiveness in 1986
when California became the first state to give judges legal authority to order
interlocks. That pilot program, enacted through the Farr-Davis Safety Act, gave
judges in four counties the discretion to mandate the device for any DUI offender.
The law included a provision to discontinue the devices should they prove ineffective,
91
as well as a requirement that the results of the program be evaluated at its finish
(DeYoung, 2002). A study by the EMT Group in 1990 found that there was no
statistical difference in subsequent DUI convictions for those DUI offenders who
installed the device and those who did not (DeYoung, 2002). Though the study used
statistical and design controls, judicial and self-selection biases may have influenced
these results.
Regardless of the EMT results, the California legislature chose to continue the
use of interlocks for DUI offenders, and in 1990 passed AB 2040 which expanded the
interlock sentencing option statewide. As with the Farr-Davis act, judges were at their
own discretion when mandating the device and could do so for any DUI offender. Yet
many judges were unfamiliar with or had little faith in the ability of the interlock to
reduce DUI recidivism, so few judges actually used the sentence. To circumvent
judicial hesitation and increase interlock sentencing, the legislature passed the followup law AB 2851 in 1993. Unlike the previous discretionary measures, AB 2851
required judges to mandate interlocks for all repeat DUI offenders. Still, judges were
reluctant to enforce the new legislation and fewer than 25 percent of repeat DUI
offenders ever received an interlock mandate under the law (DeYoung, 2002).
Despite persisting judicial reluctance, the California Department of Motor
Vehicles formed a task force in 1998 to study the interlock program in hopes that a
collaborative new law would lead to a thriving program (DeYoung, 2002). The task
force, comprised of interlock vendors, legislators and judges, focused on quelling
many of the judges concerns with interlocks. One of the leading judicial concerns
was the futility of mandating interlocks for repeat DUI offenders while the offenders
92
simultaneously served a two-year hard license suspension period. The judges argued
that assigning interlocks to these individuals indicated that they expected the offender
to disregard suspension and drive anyway (Marques, Roth & Voas 2005). Whatever
forms the new interlock laws took, they would have to coincide with existing statutes
(DeYoung, 2002). The judges also said that the high cost of the devices exceeded
many of the offenders financial constraints, and they questioned the short- and longterm effectiveness of using interlocks to reduce DUI recidivism. As per the task force
recommendations, a third interlock law, AB 762, took effect on July 1, 1999. There
have been several technical changes to the California law since that time, but AB 762
remains the crux of interlock protocol in the state.
Current Law
Under AB 762, judges are required to order interlock installation for anyone
convicted of driving on a DUI-suspended license (DWS-DUI). As such, the new law
addresses a much smaller group of offenders than the previous law. The rationale
behind the change is that these drivers have already proven that they will continue to
drive their vehicles, even when legally suspended. Thus, though their suspensions
remain in effect, the courts can at least ensure they will not violate their sanctions
while intoxicated. In addition to DWS-DUI convictees, judges still have the option
under AB 762 to mandate the device for a DUI first offender with a high bloodalcohol concentration at their arrest, or for any repeat DUI offender. Repeat DUI
offenders may voluntarily opt into the interlock program to reduce their hard license
suspension periods. The law also implemented an income-based payment scale for
device installation and maintenance to account for indigent offenders (Marowitz,
93
1999). Additionally, AB 762 made it illegal to lease or loan a car without an interlock
to an interlock-restricted driver, blow into an interlock for a restricted driver, or
bypass, circumvent, remove, or tamper with a device. To address the concerns over
interlock effectiveness, the Department of Motor Vehicles Research and
Development branch was assigned to evaluate the process and results of Californias
program in a comprehensive study. This study took place in two parts and was
presented in May 2002 and September 2004. In addition to modifying previous laws,
all of which were based on a strictly mandatory judicial approach, AB 762 established
an administrative component of the interlock program. Under the law, DUI offenders
may apply to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) for an interlock and a
restricted license once they have successfully completed half their suspension
sentence and enrolled in a minimum 18-month DUI program (Marowitz, 1999). The
DMV is responsible for issuing the special licenses and for ensuring the devices are
installed and properly maintained by the offender.
Offenders choose from five interlock manufacturers who are certified by the
state to install and maintain the devices at one of 36 installation locations throughout
the state. Installers must provide interlock users with written instructions on caring
for the device, training in operating the device, and a 24-hour number for assistance.
Devices are serviced every 60 days, at which time a record is taken of any failed
attempts or refused rolling retests. Any evidence that the offender has attempted to
circumvent, remove, or tamper with the device is reported to the DMV or the courts
(Marowitz, 1999).
94
Challenges
Though officials developed AB 762 to enhance Californias interlock
program, results in the past ten years have been mired in incompliance, high levels of
recidivism, and a lack of communication between authorities. As a result, many
fundamental problems still exist and the program has yet to truly impact the states
drink driving culture. The DMV studies conducted by David DeYoung under the AB
762 provision revealed numerous flaws in both the mandatory and voluntary
programs.
Extremely low DWS-DUI conviction rates are at the root of interlock
enforcement problems. DeYoung tracked more than 5,000 people who were arrested
for DWS-DUI offenses, and found that only 18 percent (887) received a DWS
conviction. According to AB 762, the judges in all 887 cases were required to order
interlocks for the offenders. However, only nine percent (83) followed the mandate.
Finally, of the 83 ordered to install the devices, only 18 complied. This accounts for
less than 0.4 percent of the 5,000 who were arrested (DeYoung, 2002). Another study
analyzed the sentencing process for any driver convicted of a DWS-DUI offense from
the laws enactment on July 1, 1999, through December 31, 2001. There DeYoung
found that judicial imposition of the interlock mandate steadily increased from just
over five percent at the start to 27 percent (1,121 court orders) at the end of the study.
While these numbers indicate judges have warmed to interlock sanctions, the
mandates should legally have been at 100 percent. Finally, the California Association
of Ignition Interlock Professionals found that an interlock was mandated in only
95
seven of the 1,707 cases they monitored in 2003 where it should have legally been
ordered (Hardcore Drunk Driving Judicial Guide).
In a mail survey distributed as part of DeYoungs study, state district and city
attorneys were asked what could be done to enhance DWS convictions. The leading
response was to improve the proof of notice of license suspension. When an
individuals license is suspended, the DMV often sends notice in the mail. Should the
individual claim in the DWS-DUI hearing they never received the notice, it is
impossible for the prosecution to argue the defendant knowingly drove on a
suspended license and therefore extremely difficult to win a DWS-DUI conviction
(DeYoung, 2002).
The voluntary aspect of the program, in which repeat DUI offenders opt for
enrollment to reduce their hard suspension periods, also suffers from low
participation rates. DeYoungs study found the DMV issued approximately 50 to 60
interlock-restricted licenses each month, yet over 20,000 offenders qualified for the
option. These numbers indicate that the public maintains a strong opposition to
interlock use (DeYoung, 2002).
Furthermore, responses to DeYoungs mail survey showed several old
concerns persist. While 85 percent of attorneys believed interlocks were very or
somewhat effective in reducing DUI and drinking and driving, one third of the
judges surveyed said they thought the devices were not at all effective. In regards to
the barriers to implementing interlock programs, both groups cited the high financial
cost for indigent offenders. They also said that many offenders do not own a vehicle,
and asserted that thoroughly monitoring offenders is difficult and costly (DeYoung,
96
2002). Offenders who had installed the device were also surveyed, and 33 percent
raised concerns over the dangerous distraction the rolling retest created (DeYoung,
2002). Communication between the different monitoring agencies is another weak
spot in Californias program. Court and DMV records on sentencing showed
discrepancies, as did court and installer records on device bypass and sentence
completion. Combined problems with monitoring offenders, and collecting and
reporting data likely led to these discrepancies (DeYoung, 2002). From the data
collected, it is clear that Californias interlock system has not yet been successfully
implemented.
Results measuring the effectiveness of the program did not fare much better.
The second of DeYoungs studies looked at a series of DWS-DUI and DUI offenders
to compare DUI recidivism and subsequent crashes between those who had received a
court-ordered interlock mandate or license restriction, and those who had not. The
study found that the devices were extremely effective when actually installed on
offenders cars but the court order to install made little difference in later DUIs or
crashes.
DWS-DUI and repeat DUI offenders with just an interlock order or restriction
showed no significant decrease in the rate of subsequent DUI offenses compared to
those without an order. DWS-DUI offenders who actually installed a device
demonstrated an 18 percent lower DUI conviction rate. Second offenders who
installed a device did not see a significant difference in DUI conviction, though they
were 41 percent lower in overall DUI incidents, e.g. DUI convictions, alcohol-related
crashes and license suspension due to a DUI arrest (DeYoung, 2004).
97
Statistics on subsequent crashes, an indication of the interlocks effect on

public safety, were more encouraging. The rate of crashes for DWS-DUI offenders
with an interlock order or restriction was 24 percent less than their counterparts.
Second offenders with an interlock order or restriction crashed at a 19 percent lower
rate. A likely explanation for this difference is the careful mentality of a driver on a
restricted license. Evidence indicated the majority of these offenders likely never
installed a device, and therefore took great care to avoid incidents where they might
be caught in violation of a court order. In contrast, both DWS-DUI and DUI offenders
who installed interlock devices exhibited higher rates of crashes following their court
order. DWS-DUI offender rates were 84 percent higher, while second offender rates
were an incredible 130 percent higher (DeYoung, 2004). This difference might be
attributed to the fact that the drivers who did not install interlock devices remained
under license suspension and drove far less (DeYoung, 2004). In the case of first
offenders, the evaluation found no significant difference in DUI convictions or
crashes for those with an interlock order or restriction and those without. The study
recommended that interlock devices not be targeted towards the first offender group,
as the devices only produced marginal change in driving behavior.
Successes
Chief among the successes in Californias interlock program is continued
legislative and administrative support. For nearly two decades the legislature has
pursued the interlock system to prevent drink driving. The laws have become more
refined and focused with each new drafting. The majority of district and city attorneys
and judges believe the devices are at least somewhat effective, and judges have
98
become more compliant with the mandate to order interlocks for DWS-DUI offenders
(DeYoung, 2002). Perhaps the brightest sign for the program is the response from
individuals who have actually installed interlocks in their vehicles. The majority of
these individuals viewed the devices positively and said they prevented drinking and
driving and had helped improve their drinking behavior (DeYoung, 2002). Finally,
while a lack of faith in the product does deter from interlock mandate and installation
rates, a majority of the problems found in the DMV studies are operational and
correctable.
Future
The DMV reports made several main recommendations to improve the
implementation and effectiveness of Californias interlock program.
To strengthen program enforcement, stronger court sanctions such as vehicle
impoundment could be issued for offenders who fail to comply with their interlock
orders (DeYoung, 2004). Such a threat would be a substantial incentive for offenders
to follow court orders to install. Likewise, the DMV could offer shorter periods of
license suspension for repeat DUI offenders who install a device. The DMV studies
showed that a combination of suspension and interlock installation affect a lower rate
of subsequent DUI offenses but currently only a small percentage of those eligible
apply for a restricted license. A shorter license suspension period would likely result
in more offenders taking advantage of the interlock option.
To improve interagency communication, the DMV could place interlock
license restrictions on anyone convicted of a DWS-DUI, regardless of their court
sentence, and devise a new system for tracking offenders arrested for a DWS-DUI
99
who plead down to a lesser charge in court. In addition, an improved monitoring

system must be implemented to ensure successful installation, maintenance and
completion of interlock sentencing is enforced (DeYoung, 2004). Finally, a task force
similar to the one that produced AB 762 should be established to identify and develop
solutions to the barriers to program implementation (DeYoung, 2004).
Still, more difficult problems, such as funding devices for indigent offenders
and addressing offenders who do not own their own vehicles, threaten to block
Californias goal of an interlock program with full judicial and offender compliance.
100
Effectiveness of International Interlock Programs

In addition to identifying the trends and opportunities in four of the most
progressive interlock programs in the U.S., the team examined two international
programs that have been global leaders in interlock legislation and program
development; Australia and Sweden.
DWI and Interlock System Trends in Australia

Southern Australia
In recent years, interlock devices have begun to garner interest on a global
scale. Due to differing federal regulations and national drinking cultures, studies of
international programs provide an interesting comparison with our own.
Southern Australia began their ignition interlock program in July 2001 in an
effort to act upon the State Governments commitment to road safety. When the
program began, an estimated 30 percent of all injury crashes on the road were
alcohol-related. Under interlock law, the state licensing administration heads the
program, and other responsibilities are diffused through the courts, registration and
licensing, health, and transport agencies. Devices are mandated by judges as a means
for offenders to voluntarily reduce their hard suspension time. Each offender who
enrolls in the program is processed through a Registration and Licensing agency.
These agencies also ensure participants satisfy their counseling requirements, monitor
interlock vendors and reinstate licenses at the completion of the program. Meanwhile,
the Southern Australian health department provides alcohol counseling for offenders
(Coxon, 2004).
Under interlock law, DWI offenders have the option of eliminating half of
101
their hard license suspension period by doubling their interlock installation period
(Schonfeld & Sheehan, 2004). Offenders may apply to the program at the completion
of half of their original mandatory hard suspension, which is no longer than one year
in length. However, preliminary alcohol evaluations are completed to determine if the
individual suffers from a medical addiction. Those who do demonstrate an alcohol
addiction are not permitted to enroll in the program. At a minimum, program
participants are required to complete alcohol counseling sessions at the beginning and
end of their enrollment (Coxon, 2004).
Integrating the interlock program into Southern Australias drink-driving
measures has presented several difficulties. The biggest obstacle to full
implementation has been a participation rate that hovers near two percent. Associated
costs, including $55 a month for counseling and $170 a month for device
maintenance, discourage offenders from enrolling in the program. Furthermore, few
qualify for the fee reduction awarded to those who fall below a certain financial level.
In addition, a lack of public education on the interlock program and its provisions has
left many unaware of the option. Participating in the program is also difficult for
drivers who need to use two vehicles because doing so would create twice as great a
cost. Furthermore, the risks of apprehension while driving on a suspended license are
slim, and in many cases offenders have found it easier to endure the longer
suspension period rather than satisfy the interlock programs requirements. As a result
of these factors, low participation rates have persisted. At the programs inception in
2001, 3,000 offenders were eligible for interlock installation, yet in September of
2003 only 107 participants had enrolled (Coxon, 2004).
102
Despite a myriad of setbacks, program officials continue to develop proposals

for increasing participation rates and strengthening the interlock initiative. Thus far,
officials have considered removing the monthly participant fee to address cost
concerns, implementing a media campaign to increase public awareness of the
program, further reducing the license suspension time for offenders who install an
interlock, enacting more stringent penalties for offenders who drive on a suspended
license, and adding a provision to the interlock program that would require
participants to remain on the program until they have completed three consecutive
months without violations (Coxon, 2004). This would ensure participants remain on
the device until they have instituted a change in their drinking behavior.
Victoria
When the Victorian government enacted their ignition interlock program in
May 2002 they already had a long history of attempting to stem drink-driving through
measures such as license revocation, mandatory rehabilitation programs, and
incarceration (Swann, 2003). Yet these measures had proven largely ineffective in
curbing the problem and in 2002 the state government passed legislation to mandate
interlock installation for all repeat DWI offenders and serious first-time offenders.
Government officials expressed hope that their interlock program would prevent
drink-driving in the short-term and over time would encourage all drivers to adopt a
zero tolerance policy toward drinking and driving.
Per the judicial nature of the program, the Victorian courts are responsible for
mandating the devices as well as determining when participants are eligible to leave
the program and apply for license reinstatement. Under the interlock law, judges are
103
required to order the device for all repeat offenders and may do so for serious firsttime offenders at their discretion.
The enrollment period ranges from six months to three years, and conditions
depend on previous offenses and BAC level at the time of arrest. The courts are at
their discretion to order at least six months on the device for any first time offenders
who record a BAC above 0.15 at the time of their arrest. Two-time offenders are
subject to a year-long license suspension followed by sixth months on the interlock.
When the second offense is recorded with a BAC above 0.15, the repeat offender
must complete a 30 month license suspension and three years on the device. An
individual convicted of three or more offenses within 10 years is subject to a yearlong license suspension followed by three years in the interlock program.
Furthermore, any offender who records a BAC above 0.15 is fined an additional
$240-$420. In addition to mandatory installation, the interlock is also available on a
voluntary basis for young drivers and fleet drivers and is marketed to school councils,
unions, and employers (Swann, 2003).
At installation the interlock is set to a BAC level of 0.02; any participant who
registers a BAC above this level is unable to start their vehicle. Zero BAC levels are
set for certain higher risk groups including taxi drivers, probationary and learner
drivers, drivers of large vehicles, and driving instructors. Currently Guardian
Interlock is the only approved vendor for the Victorian program (Coxon, 2004).
Once participants have completed their interlock sentence, they must apply for an
Interlock Condition Removal Order (ICRO) (Swann, 2003). This process might
require offenders to complete a drink-driving education course or an alcohol addiction
104
assessment and subsequent treatment program. The offender must then apply for
license reinstatement, at which time officials will evaluate their files to ensure they
have successfully completed the terms of their sentence. Should the Magistrates
Court deem it necessary, they can refuse the offenders request for reinstatement and
extend their original sentence for a longer period on the interlock.
Officials in Victoria face the same issues of compliance as interlock
administrators in the U.S. To encourage compliance with program provisions,
interlock officials rely on device data reporting, penalties for program violations, and
financial incentives for good behavior. Monthly data reports factor into the
Magistrates Courts decision-making process when evaluating offender requests for
license reinstatement. Records showing multiple failed tests demonstrate a level of
non-compliance that could cost offenders their ICRO request and earn them
additional time in the program. Violating the terms of the program could also translate
into fines reaching $3,000, incarceration for up to four months, or vehicle
impoundment for a year (Swann, 2003). Participants who demonstrate consistent
compliance are rewarded financially as they are only required to service their device,
and pay the associated fees, every two to three months rather than monthly (Swann,
2003).
To address the financial difficulties of indigent participants, the Victorian
government instituted a cost reduction of 50 dollars per month for those who are
eligible for government subsidized healthcare (Swann, 2003). The cost of the fee
reduction is diffused through other participants.
Some program officials are concerned that the length of hard suspension
105
entices participants to ignore their sentence and drive regardless (Schonfeld &
Sheehan, 2004). Although incarceration for repeat offenders would solve this
particular issue of non-compliance, the interlock is a much less costly and socially
disruptive option, and provides an opportunity for driver rehabilitation. As of January
2005, TIRF reported a 79 percent participation rate in the Victoria interlock program,
establishing it as a leader in the field.
DWI and Interlock System Trends in Sweden

By early 1990, spreading interlock use in North America had caught the
attention of Swedish insurance providers who were interested in how the technology
might adapt to their country. That year they met with the National Road Safety
Administration to discuss the advantages of interlock use for Sweden. At the time,
studies on device effectiveness were only just being released and many questioned the
interlocks ability to decrease recidivism (Allo, 2000). Swedish authorities in
particular recognized that the unique conditions of their society would necessitate a
different legislative and enforcement approach to ensure substantial immediate and
long-term effects on recidivism. Interlock supporters decided to propose a pilot
program to the Government of Sweden (Allo, 2000).
Background
Government officials proved supportive of the pilot program, and by 1992
leaders, including the Minister of Roads and Traffic, the Minister of Justice, and the
Chief of Police, had all embraced the proposal and issued a call to Parliament for
legislation to allow interlock use (Allo, 2000). Advocates from the Swedish National
Road Administration requested that any DUI offender have the option to participate
106
and that commercial drivers be included (Bjerre & Laurell, 2000). North American
programs had thus far been directed mainly at prohibiting drinking and driving while
installed and therefore had produced few long-term rehabilitative effects. Swedish
officials recognized that of the approximately 13,000 citizens convicted of a DUI
each year, most belonged to a larger demographic of 300,000 with a medical alcohol
dependency. In turn, their program would be a multifaceted attempt to correct overall
drinking behavior in these individuals (Bjerre & Laurell, 2000). The program was
integrated into an already stringent system of drink driving prevention that includes a
legal BAC limit of 0.02 percent, license revocation for anyone with a BAC higher
than 0.10 percent at their DUI conviction, and medical requirements for licensing that
prohibit a person with a demonstrated physical alcohol dependency from retaining
their license (Bjerre & Laurell, 2000). This was a tremendous difference from the
reaction in North America, where government and highway authorities generally
constituted the only serious support for interlock technology and trial programs
targeted narrow DUI demographics. Such widespread support for the devices, even
before a pilot program had been implemented or results analyzed, demonstrated the
countrys enthusiasm for the program.
Current Law
Swedish Parliament enacted a 5-year pilot program in three of the countrys
21 counties in 1999; by the end of the year, 100 offenders had installed interlocks on
their vehicles. The explicit goal of the program was to determine any repercussions
the devices held for road safety and the extent of their long-term effects (Bjerre &
Laurell, 2000). Participants on the program agreed to install the device for two years
107
and undergo a bimonthly maintenance and in turn were absolved from any suspension
period. The program required a bimonthly maintenance check where vendors
uploaded results from each device onto a secure Internet database that allowed
program administrators to easily track participant records (Allo, 2000). During this
period, participants also underwent mandatory physical examinations every three
months. After a year on the device, they were required to demonstrate a sober lifestyle
through biological markers and Alcohol Use Disorders Inventory questionnaires
(AUDIT). Failure to do so, physical evidence of other drug use, or an excess of failed
attempts on the device resulted in the participants expulsion from the program (Allo,
2000). Three months after completing the program, participants that met the
biological standards for sobriety were issued a full license. A final follow-up survey
two years later was scheduled to evaluate lasting effects (Bjerre & Laurell, 2000).
Pursuant to encouraging preliminary results, a proposal was sent to Parliament
in 2003 to extend the program to all counties and all drivers license categories
(Bjerre, 2003).
Challenges
Swedens interlock program is voluntary and administrative by nature, so
judicial compliance has not played a role in implementation. However, Swedish
authorities do face the challenge other jurisdictions have of attracting participants to
the program of their own free will. DUI penalties in the country are severe, police
officers can perform breath tests on any driver without probable cause, and the legal
BAC level of 0.02 is one-fourth that in the United States. Swedish citizens are
familiar with these strict laws, which help shape the countrys drinking culture
108
(Valenti, 2005). This indicates that those who still choose to drink and drive are most
often those who are physically dependent on alcohol. For these individuals to
willingly participate and succeed in an interlock program that requires frequent
medical check-ups and verification of a sober lifestyle, they must truly be willing to
alter their drinking behavior. As a result, participation rates are low. A seven-year
study in progress by the Swedish National Road Administration found that only 11
percent of eligible DUI offenders, 285 people total, in the three pilot counties chose to
participate in the program during the period studied and that 60 percent of these
individuals were alcohol dependent or alcohol abusers (Bjerre, 2003). Many offenders
who chose not to participate said a major factor in their decision was the programs
high costs, totaling approximately $5,000-6,200 per year, all of which are covered by
the participant. It is also possible some preferred to take the risk of driving on a
suspended license (Bjerre & Laurell, 2000).
Though the programs rigorous medical stipulations did not seem to be a
major deterrent for those who did not enroll, they did have a sizeable impact on the
number of participants who completed the program successfully. During the two-year
period, twenty percent were removed from the program for failure to demonstrate a
sober lifestyle or for repeated failed attempts to start the ignition. Others were
removed for evidence of other drug use or dropped early voluntarily. In all, just 60
people completed the program in its first two years (Bjerre, 2003).
Success
109
These participation and success rates are low but not abysmal for a program in
its earliest stages, and there are many indications that Swedens program will only
continue to grow and thrive as it matures. To begin, the reason given by those who
did not participate, namely the continued costs of the program, bode well for a
program with such high physical demands. Few people listed the medical
requirements or the focus on rehabilitation as a deterrent from enrolling, which likely
derives from the Swedish national attitude towards drinking and driving. Thus, the
main problem with low enrollment was not the nature of the program but the cost, a
tangible factor that can be adjusted or subsidized if desired. Furthermore, while no
data is yet available as to the lasting impact of the devices on participants drinking
behavior and recidivism, all demonstrated significant decreases in their biological
markers and better AUDIT scores throughout the program. This signifies a marked
decrease in alcohol consumption that program administrators hope will be permanent.
Future
Even before comprehensive data on the effectiveness of the pilot program
could be compiled, government and private entities continued to move ahead with
interlock implementation through various initiatives. Soon after the advent of the
program, the Swedish National Road Administration and three private companies
began another two-year test program to evaluate the devices use in trucks, buses and
taxicabs, thereby satisfying one of the administrations original proposals (Allo,
2000).
More recently, the administration sought to integrate an interlock option into
the Swedish Drivers License Act and install the devices for any citizen who
110
demonstrates a medical alcohol dependency regardless of DUI convictions. The Act

mandates that doctors report to the county administrative board any patient who is
physically or mentally unfit to hold a license. The individuals license is then revoked.
Alcohol dependency and abuse is noted as one instance where doctors are to comply
with the mandate, yet a poll showed very few doctors are willing to do so and that
only one out of every 1,000 qualified patients is reported. Sixty-five percent of the
426 doctors surveyed said they have never reported a patient (Bjerre, Heed, & Kers,
2004). Common reasons for non-compliance with the act were the perceived negative
effect on patient relations (61 percent), uncertainty about the alcohol dependency
diagnosis (48 percent), and a discomfort with assuming a police role (34 percent).
The survey sought to evaluate the impact on the reporting rate if the licensing
board allowed eligible patients to install an interlock device before license revocation.
Nearly half of the doctors surveyed (49 percent) said they would report more alcohol
dependent patients if this were an option. As for patients with alcohol problems but
without a concrete dependency, 40 percent of the doctors said they would report more
of these patients with the interlock option. Thus, according to the answers provided,
the overall number of reports made under the Drivers License Act would be 69 times
the current amount if interlock installation was offered as a course of action (Bjerre,
2004). Per these results, the Swedish National Road Administration is currently
working to introduce the interlock option into the acts provisions (Bjerre, 2004). The
integration and the positive attitude doctors demonstrated toward interlock benefits
reflect the technologys continued integration into mainstream Swedish society.
111
Findings
Results of Survey Methodology
Due to extremely low return rates, our survey endeavor proved a far less
useful research method than expected. Several months after delivering the surveys
team representatives contacted each vendor to inquire about survey participation. All
reported a poor response rate and ultimately only two completed surveys were
retrieved from the Draeger location. In subsequent conversations with Draeger
representatives we discovered that even these responses had been influenced by the
way in which the vendor had administered the surveys in an attempt to positively
skew responses.
Following our first unsuccessful attempt at distribution, we posted a similar
survey online using the University of Maryland Office of Information Technology
survey tool. With the assistance of Jane Valenzia at the MVA, we included a
description of the survey and directions to the website in the monthly mailing to
interlock users across the state. Still, only seven participants responded to our survey,
falling far short of a statistically significant sample size.
While the results are not statistically significant, they do help illustrate some
of the themes we uncovered in our research. Regarding program participation,
respondents said warm-up times and false positives made the device inconvenient,
and that the associated initial and monthly costs seemed exorbitant. Although
offender convenience should not be a primary focus for program administrators,
improvements in these areas may increase acceptance of the interlock program and
facilitate its growth. Respondents did not seem to advocate the implementation of any
112
alternative device, but did report that rolling retests were often a distraction and
inconvenience especially in high traffic situations. Yet overall, offenders maintained
that despite its problems, the interlock program is worthwhile and should be
expanded.
How offenders view the interlock program is an important factor in its
integration and deserves further research. Our discouraging survey response rate was
likely due to faulty distribution methods, and we recommend future studies endeavor
to engage in more personal contact with participants. Distributing the surveys
directly, rather than through vendors, would allow researchers to avoid the risk of
compromised results. In addition, offering incentives for survey completion would
increase the response rate.
Expert Interview Results

Drawing on contacts made during the Fourth Annual Ignition Interlock
Symposium, the team conducted a series of short phone interviews with experts in the
field (Appendix 7). Through the interviews, the team sought qualitative information
and opinions regarding the technological and program complications faced by
interlock administrators across the country.
When questioned about the feasibility of implementing a tandem device that
integrates passive sensor and breathalyzer technologies, such as the one tested by our
team, subjects identified possible markets for the interlock. Robert Voas, senior
scientist at PIRE, suggested that parents might be interested in installing the device in
their teenagers vehicles. He said they might be further motivated to do so should
insurance companies provide a cost reduction for young drivers who voluntarily
113
install an interlock (R.Voas, personal communication, October, 2004). David Holt,

Assistant Manager of the Alcohol Highway Safety Program within the Pennsylvania
Department of Transportation, said that a less intrusive device would appeal more to
both offenders and the general public (personal communication, October, 2004). In
theory, the tandem device only requires a breath sample once alcohol particles are
detected in the vehicle, and as such would be fairly less intrusive than current
interlocks. Dr. Kenneth Beck, a professor in the Department of Public and
Community Health at the University of Maryland, said that licensing agencies like the
MVA, DMV, and the courts might be interested in the device, though he does not
think the public would be interested unless the devices were mandated or required
(personal communication, October, 2004).
We then asked how the subjects expected the ignition interlock community,
comprised of offenders, vendors, MVA staff, legislators, and probation officers, might
react to the introduction of a tandem device. Voas felt the community would likely
embrace the new device more quickly than the traditional interlock. Further, an even
more appealing device would be calibrated so as to only detect alcohol consumed by
the driver (personal communication, October, 2004). Experts suggested some vendors
would react positively towards the device if it translated into increased profits, while
others might harbor concern over the increased cost to offenders (D. Holt, I. Marples,
personal communication, October, 2004). Beck noted that further testing and research
would be necessary to validate the reliability of the passive sensors and quell any
fears that the devices were ineffective in preventing drink-driving (personal
communication, October, 2004). Lynda Kerr, director of the Ignition Interlock Quality
114
Assurance Program for the Pennsylvania DUI association, agreed that the general
public would remain wary of the tandem interlock until additional information was
provided on the devices structure and reliability (L. Kerr, personal communication,
October, 2004).
The experts were also asked for their own thoughts on the benefits and
drawbacks inherent in passive sensors. The most significant benefits they noted are
that users are not required to provide a breath sample each time they start their
vehicle, and that the sensors give probation officers an additional measure for
supervising offenders (R. Voas, D. Molloy, personal communication, October, 2004).
The experts also noted critical weaknesses in the passive sensor technology. Because
the sensors detect alcohol from other sources and are sensitive to outside chemicals
such as cigarette smoke, they would quickly deteriorate (R. Voas, personal
communication, October, 2004). Also, passive sensors are more geared towards
detecting the presence of alcohol rather than a users BAC; in this way they are less
aggressive than traditional interlocks in determining the level of driver intoxication
(D.Molloy, I. Marples, personal communication, October 2004). Finally, before
placing tandem devices on the market at all, interlock laws would have to be revised
to incorporate the new technology (L. Kerr, personal communication, October, 2004).
The experts interviewed provided a range of suggestions as to how current
interlocks could be most improved. According to their responses, they believe the
devices should be able to detect who provides each breath sample and should be
altered so that they are more reliable during adverse weather conditions and do not
retain as much moisture (R. Voas, D. Holt, L. Kerr, personal communication, October,
115
2004). Several experts suggested alterations to make the device more appealing to
offenders, such as creating a more aesthetically pleasing model, reducing costs, and
reducing the length of blow time required for a breath sample (M. Scheiner, S. Satya,
L. Kerr, personal communication, October, 2004). With regards to administration and
legislation, experts felt interlock laws and standards should be amended as technology
advances and that data logs should be automated and made easier for officers to
download to determine if an offender requires closer monitoring. (I. Marples, K.
Beck, personal communication, October, 2004).
The interviews also gave insight into how the program aspect of the interlock
system could be made more efficient. To begin, experts agreed better communication
between all agents is crucial to improving offender monitoring. Specifically, interlock
manufacturers and the judicial system must improve their partnership, and
manufacturers and providers should undertake greater efforts to educate the general
public, law enforcement community, and judicial system about interlock devices (D.
Molloy, M. Scheiner, D. Holt, personal communication, October, 2004). As a result,
officers will be more comfortable working with the device and more familiar with
how it operates, and judges will be more aware of the devices benefits and less
hesitant to sentence offenders to the interlock program (D. Molloy, D. Holt, personal
communication, October, 2004). The interviews also revealed a need for increased
support from law enforcement officials to deter device tampering and circumvention
(D. Holt, L. Kerr, personal communication, October, 2004). Voas suggested program
administrators analyze interlock data to predict likely repeat offenders and determine
an appropriate time-length for installation (personal communication, October, 2004).
116
For instance, a participant who repeatedly records high BAC levels is likely to repeat
offend once the interlock is removed from his or her vehicle. In such instances,
administrators can use the data to extend the non-compliant offenders installation
period. Finally, the experts agreed that a manufacturer advocacy group is likely to
form in the near future. They felt such a group would be effective in improving
device standards, publicizing the interlock, and establishing a relationship with
insurance agencies to develop interlock discounts (R. Voas, D. Holt, I. Marples,
personal communication, October, 2004).
Trends in Interlock Programs

After conducting the literature review, the team identified several trends that
indicate the direction of interlock initiatives in the near future. Specifically, major
trends seem to be moving towards achieving broader participation, enhancing
treatment and addiction screening, and increasing the education, training, and
communication of all interlock parties.
Broader Participation
Most of the programs studied here have mandatory interlock sentencing in
place for repeat DWI offenders already and are now moving towards increasing
participation by mandating interlocks for first time offenders or installing devices on
commercial vehicles. Including first offenders in interlock programs was a main
theme of the 2005 International Ignition Interlock Symposium, and New Mexico now
requires all DWI offenders to install interlock devices, regardless of prior offenses
(Baker, 2005). Likewise, serious first time offenders in Victoria, Australia, are also
required to be on the program (2002 Victoria Report 13).
117
Meanwhile, the Swedish National Road Administration and three private

companies began a two-year test program to evaluate the use of interlocks in
commercial vehicles (Allo, 2000). Sweden has also proposed a law to require any
individual who demonstrates an alcohol dependency to install an interlock, which
would broaden participation by including potential offenders even before DWI
conviction (B. Bjerre, B. Heed, & S. Kers, 2004). Programs that are embracing the
trend of expanding interlock mandates are likely to experience higher participation
rates than those programs which remain voluntary.
Still, numerous incentives are being implemented to encourage voluntary
participation. In several of the programs we studied, DWI offenders who opt to enter
an interlock program are rewarded through a reduction in their license suspension
period. In Southern Australia, offenders can shorten their hard suspension time by
half if they choose to double their time in the interlock program (2002 Victoria Report
7). Because the majority of offenders will continue to drive on a suspended license,
these programs see the incentives as the best way to affect an increase in voluntary
participation and reduce the risk of repeat drink-driving.
Enhanced Treatment and Addiction Screening
To combat the high recidivism rates that occur once interlocks are removed,
some states and countries have begun to incorporate addiction screening and
treatment into their interlock programs. In Southern Australia, offenders must
complete alcohol counseling at the beginning and end of their interlock installation
period (Coxon, 2004). In Victoria, Australia, offenders cannot remove their interlocks
until they are granted an Interlock Condition Removal Order, which often requires
118
them to complete a drink-driving education course or undergo addiction assessment

and treatment. Pennsylvania offenders must be evaluated by the Court Reporting
Network to determine what treatment is necessary during the interlock participation
period (Interlock Programs-Pennsylvania, 2005).
Increasing Education, Training, and Communication between Parties
In addition, the programs we studied are developing new methods to address
the lack of education, training, and communication between parties that still exist.
California has recommended improving communication between parties by allowing
the Department of Motor Vehicles to place interlock license restrictions on anyone
convicted of driving while suspended (DeYoung, 2002). Southern Australia has
suggested a media campaign to increase public awareness of the interlock program
(Coxon, 2004). Such endeavors will help increase acceptance of the device and
potentially lead to even greater participation rates.
119
Conclusions
Marylands Ideal Interlock System
Numerous legislative and administrative initiatives have advanced Marylands
ignition interlock program since its inception in 1989. Yet as our research has shown,
there is much left to do to maximize the effectiveness of enforcement, prosecution,
adjudication and sanctioning, and monitoring in the state. Officers, judges, and the
Motor Vehicle Administration are all key players in the interlock system and must
work collaboratively to effect substantial progress in those areas we have identified as
critical to the success the program. Before issuing concrete recommendations for
system improvement, it is necessary to describe Marylands ideal interlock system.
To begin, DWI enforcement officers, judges, and MVA administrators will all
have access to complete and timely information in the ideal system. The existence of
a centralized database which stores complete criminal and administrative information
on each program participant will ensure a free flow of information and easy access for
all parties. Service providers will play a crucial role in maintaining the database as
they will be required to upload the monthly data log for each participant from their
own data loggers, thereby ensuring up-to-date information.
Enhanced communication will be coupled with ongoing educational efforts to
disseminate information among judges and probation officers. Evolving interlock
technology and legislation will continue to significantly alter the interlock program in
the future, and judges and officers must understand the developments in order to
assign and monitor appropriate sanctions. Federal and state changes in legislation are
also likely to impact Marylands program, and again it is vital that all parties are
120
aware of these changes and understand their implications for sentencing. Training
workshops and mentoring programs for the criminal system officials will be critical to
the long term effectiveness of adjudicating, sanctioning, enforcing, and monitoring
offenders.
Because many offenders continue to drive on suspended license, the two-year
mandatory license suspension period is not always effective. Furthermore, individuals
that have grown accustomed to driving while suspended are far less likely to opt into
the interlock program for their second year. To encourage more offenders to enter the
interlock program, legislation will be enacted to remove the suspension condition
from DWI sentencing. In place of the suspension sanction, offenders will be subject
either to vehicle impoundment or immediate interlock installation on all vehicles.
Additional legislation will be enacted to ensure hard-core offenders, offenders who
refuse BAC tests, and offenders who fail to appear in court face harsher penalties and
fines. Furthermore, BAC-aggravated legislation will mandate longer installation
periods for those offenders who record high BAC levels at the time of arrest and are
more likely to recidivate once removed from the program. Test refusal penalties will
be strengthened to ensure repeat offenders receive proportionally harsher sanctions
for refusing a BAC test at arrest. The centralized database will allow judges to
identify and monitor offenders who fail to appear in court, and subject them to stricter
sentences to deter further attempts at circumventing the system.
Treatment programs will be a critical component of Marylands ideal interlock
program and offenders will face tiered consequences depending on their participation
in a series of mandatory treatment sessions. Offenders who actively engage in
121
treatment will be rewarded with shortened installation periods, while those who resist
treatment or fail to comply with program requirements will remain on the program
until they have demonstrated consistent adherence to the requirements and a change
in drinking and driving behavior. To assess the risk of recidivism, each offender
database record will be assessed to identify high BAC violations or repeated failed
starting attempts and rolling retests. These individuals will require more intensive
treatment sessions and extended installation. Conversely, offenders who rarely fail
tests and consistently record low BAC levels will be rewarded with a reduced number
of mandatory treatment sessions and a shortened program participation period.
The underlying tie between all components in the ideal interlock system is full
integration of people and technology. In each part of the system, the centralized
database will be critical in facilitating communication and the transfer of information
between parties. The basic infrastructure of Marylands interlock program is already
in place. From here, officers, judges, MVA administrators, and service providers must
work to build a more comprehensive and informed system that can adapt in a field
marked by continual advancements. As new technologies develop, new legislation is
enacted, and more offenders enter the interlock system, it is imperative that
Marylands interlock system be adequately prepared.
122
Recommendations for Marylands Interlock Program

Information Sharing
Current State
To ensure an effective interlock program for Maryland, it is imperative that all
agents in the process have access to complete and timely information. Cooperation
among these agents guarantees that all 6,000 offenders are accounted for, that they
receive the appropriate sentencing, and that they are unable to violate the terms of
their sentencing without detection.
Unfortunately judges, DWI enforcement officers, and MVA administrators
indicate that this is not the case. Too often the volume of paperwork or poor
communication mean that pertinent information is never recorded or taken into
account during an offenders tenure in the interlock program. MVA administrators
have no system for cataloguing offender history and must search through multiple
databases and scanned documents to find information on participants. In order to
analyze interlock data, they must obtain and comprehend four different reporting
formats from the four different interlock vendors in the state. Lack of communication
between parties is a weakness in the program that could easily be addressed through a
series of initiatives to facilitate more streamlined information-sharing between agents.
Short Term Goals
Within the next 2-5 years, program officials should follow a suggestion made
by Californias program administrators to establish a task force of judges,
enforcement officials, administrators, and legislators. These individuals could
123
collaborate to identify and correct problems in the program and ensure no single
agent faces insurmountable challenges to completing their tasks effectively.
As paperwork has repeatedly been noted as a significant problem by judges
and enforcement officials, the courts and the interlock parole department should
develop standardized reporting forms. This way each DWI case to come before a
judge, regardless of the sentence, and each incident between a parole officer and
offender would be reported in the same manner. There would be far less room for
error, and as officials familiarized themselves with the system, it would ease the
process of submitting forms to the MVA.
While the primary standardized forms will likely be in paper format, all
interlock agents should begin efforts to computerize their procedures. Electronic
reporting forms were suggested in several TIRF studies as a way to further reduce the
amount of time spent on paperwork, and would be extremely helpful in Maryland. In
addition, agents can easily search through these forms for certain information, or
transmit them among agencies.
To improve information-sharing with offenders, the MVA should feature a
page on their official website that is interlock-specific. Already in place in states like
New Mexico, the site should include information on vendors, program requirements,
and frequently asked questions. As of spring 2006, the MVA had created such a web
page and was awaiting final approval to post it online.
Long Term Goals
In the next 8-10 years, Maryland should move towards the development of a
central database that details the history and program progress of every offender on the
124
interlock. Every court clerk, parole officer, and MVA administrator would receive a
login identity and password to enter the system and upload the most current offender
information. The information would be available to all officials in real time, thereby
eliminating much of the need for file and information transfers.
Every piece of information regarding an offenders DWI history, including
any plea bargains, would be available in the database. This would assist the judges
and parole officers in the TIRF report who are unable to access criminal history for
their offenders. A clear and comprehensive record of past offenses would ensure that
DWI offenders are sentenced appropriately. Parole officers could also log each
communication between themselves and their offenders to keep track of who requires
further attention.
MVA administrators would be able to keep a running list of any participant
issues and set up the system to flag offenders who repeatedly violate their terms. They
could also input other general information such as an offenders primary vendor
location, their program entry date, and their projected program termination date. This
database would ensure that all involved in the interlock process can access any
information they need, and that all new information is updated and saved
immediately. The program would require a good deal of inter-agent cooperation,
made easier with the creation of the task force, as well as software development and
training for program officials. Still, the efforts to install and maintain this system
would be far outweighed by the benefit of highly effective program monitoring.
125
Ideal Program
In Marylands ideal interlock program, all parties would operate at the highest
level of efficiency through a rapid and free flow of information. As inter-agency
communication is enhanced, officers, judges, vendors and administrators will be more
prepared and informed to make decisions regarding sentencing and monitoring.
Though all parties will continue to play a unique role in the interlock system,
maximizing communication between the actors would essentially create single unit
capable of effective and comprehensive action.
Training
Current State
Training standards for judges and officers in the DWI system merit serious
attention when considering how to improve Marylands interlock program.
Specifically, providing judges and officers with more training on the collection of
evidence and the interpretation of evidence in the courts, or creating specialized DWI
courts would provide for more effective sanctioning and monitoring.
In the Maryland TIRF study, all judges reported having insufficient
knowledge about retrograde extrapolation or blood partition ratio. In addition, 82
percent of the judges reported that they rely on information from prosecutors in their
sentencing decisions. Eighty-one percent agreed that all professional groups would
benefit from more training (Robertson and Simpson, 2002).
Test refusal continues to pose a significant challenge to officer attempts at
data collection, as the exact BAC of the offender at the time of the offense cannot be
determined without a timely breath test (TIRF: Pennsylvania, 2002). To indicate the
126
severity of the test refusal problem, half of the Pennsylvania judges surveyed by TIRF
feel the issue should be addressed through legislation, and many believe test refusals
should be permissible as evidence (TIRF: Pennsylvania, 2002). Yet until such
legislation is enacted, officers must be better trained in collecting accurate
information on the scene even in the absence of a breath test.
To improve training, Maryland should implement workshops for all judges
and officers who work with ignition interlock programs and sentencing, place greater
emphasis on peer-to-peer training in the field, and establish specialized DWI courts
run by judges who possess a high level of expertise in drink driving issues.
Short Term Recommendations
Within the next two years, Maryland should develop workshops and courses
geared towards training officers in collecting more comprehensive evidence and more
effectively monitoring program participants. Representatives from every facet of the
ignition interlock community should form a committee with experts in evidence
collection and interpretation to create a prototype for the workshops and discuss the
cost and logistics of the endeavor. The workshop curriculum should be developed by
experts who can predict what will best facilitate judicial understanding of the DWI
system. Curriculum and logistical considerations should begin immediately so trial
workshops can be put into place by 2008.
In accordance with views expressed in the TIRF study, retrograde
extrapolation and blood partition ratio, two DWI evidence collection techniques,
should be among the topics in workshop curriculum (TIRF: Pennsylvania, 2002).
Additional education in this technical area will reduce judicial reliance on prosecutors
127
in understanding evidence, and better prepare officers to collect evidence and

determine the level of intoxication in the case of a breath test refusal. Workshops
should be conducted by judges and officers who command a solid expertise in
interlock issues, as well as scientists and other experts who can fully explain the
device technology and correct interpretation of evidence.
To supplement the workshops, group and one-on-one mentoring programs
should be established among judges and officers. With the existence of such a
program, the earliest workshops need only accommodate a small group of leaders in
the court system that can disseminate the training as a mentor. In this way, even those
individuals who are unable to personally attend workshops at first will find support
and training in an experienced mentor. Mentors should have attended a workshop
which included training in peer-to-peer leadership, and should demonstrate a strong
working knowledge of the interlock system. As workshop curriculum is developed,
the inter-agency committee should also solicit volunteers to attend the workshops and
become industry mentors.
As a third short-term goal, Maryland should begin to take steps towards
establishing specialized DWI courts as recommended by judges and officers in the
TIRF study. These courts would run under judges and officers who focus exclusively
on DWI law, thereby eliminating the misinformation and miscommunication that
exists in the current system. Within this system, teams of judges and officers should
be established so that the same individuals consistently collaborate in case
management. These partnerships would allow judges to build a good working
128
relationship with their assigned officers and would eliminate judicial oversight in case
management.
In the next five years, Maryland should work with judges and officers who are
interested in serving on specialized DWI courts. In addition to enrolling in the
aforementioned workshops and serving as mentors, these individuals should undergo
additional training to develop their system expertise. As trial courts are put in place,
administrators should continue to evaluate and fine-tune them and eventually
establish them as the prototypes for additional specialized courts.
Long Term Recommendations
In the next 8-10 years, every judge or officer who works with DWI cases
should have the opportunity to enroll in training workshops. To provide an added
incentive for workshop completion, the state could offer pay bonuses or extra
vacation time for any individual who enrolls. As more officers become experts in
evidence collection, they should provide on-the-job training for new officers to see
the process in action. Additionally, an increase in sober checkpoints, as are popular in
Sweden, will allow officers more practice in administering the breath test and
identifying other signs of intoxication.
With regards to mentoring, a full-scale system should be established within 810 years. Under the system, veteran judges and officers who have completed
workshop and leadership training would be paired with newer officials in a one-onone mentorship. Occasional group mentoring should also take place once every few
months where veteran judges and officers gather to share their experiences and
expertise with their younger colleagues.
129
Also within 8-10 years, Maryland should have a solid system of specialized
DWI courts across the state. In time these courts will be permanently established as
the basis for the specialized DWI justice system.
Ideal Situation
In Marylands ideal system, all judges and officers in the criminal justice
system would be required to complete comprehensive training workshops before
presiding over DWI cases. The enhanced training would eliminate miscommunication
between parties due to a lack of knowledge, facilitate more appropriate sentencing,
and reduce judicial skepticism of the device and offender non-compliance.
Furthermore, once every judge has undergone accurate and detailed training in
evidence interpretation, DWI sentencing will be more standardized which will reduce
the occurrence of judge shopping.
Every judge or officer involved with ignition interlock cases would also be
required to partake in the peer-to-peer mentoring program. Appropriate
compensations would be awarded for this extra time commitment. Mentors would be
selected through an application process to ensure they are the most experienced and
capable of instruction.
Finally, judges and officers who handle DWI cases would be extensively
trained in the field and would operate within the specialized DWI court system. The
system would include ongoing training and workshops to account for developments
in the field. In addition, officers who specialize in interlock case management would
help reduce caseload for non-specialized officers.
130
Technology Integration
Current State
The current system of information transfer between vendors and the MVA in
Marylands interlock system is extremely cumbersome and provides a barrier to
effective case management. Most problematic is the lack of standardization in the
forms and computer systems used by various vendors. Currently each of the four
vendors in the state uploads logging data into their own secure web site accessible to
program administrators. However these websites are all formatted differently and
include slightly different information, which complicates the data retrieval and
analysis process for the MVA staff. In addition, vendor websites are often unreliable
and can leave administrators waiting for hours until service becomes available again.
Administrators must often retrieve additional offender and vehicle information
from the MVA records database and the Digital Imagery Workstation Suite (DIWS)
system. This system contains scanned copies of all documents received by the MVA,
indexed by soundex, which generally is the same as the offenders license number.
Because it is impractical to digitally extract information from scanned documents,
MVA staffers who are searching for data within the DIWS system must take the time
scroll through numerous pages which may or may not contain the information they
need.
Record-keeping is complicated even further by the lack of a central database
available to MVA staff for their own case notes. While they are able to access vendor
sites, they cannot make changes or add notes to the data. Consequently,
131
administrators lose all sense of historical context in case management as each record
check must be done from scratch and does not include prior information.
As a result, interlock case management at the MVA is far less efficient than it
should be. Administrators spend minutes retrieving information from multiple sources
as opposed to the mere seconds it would take to access one centralized database. With
the added inconvenience of frequent vendor website downtime, the information
technology system at the MVA leaves the staff little time to engage in personalized
case management. A more streamlined and efficient system would allow
administrators to handle more cases and spend additional time on specific offenders
when necessary.
Short Term
To address the information technology problem in the short term, our team is
developing a new software program, the Interlock Case Manager, in coordination
with the MVA. This program creates a single centralized database which
administrators can use to access vendor information and track their internal progress
on each case. With the new software, administrators can access a six-month data
history for each offender, which includes information such as the number of high
BAC alerts, number of vehicle starts, and miles driven for each month. They can also
document any MVA actions taken on the case for future reference.
Several challenges must be overcome in the next 2-5 years before the
Interlock Case Manager program can be successfully implemented. First, the MVA's
Office of Information Resources (OIR) must complete the software and integrate it
with the MVA's intranet. Due to privacy issues, the MVA was unable to provide our
132
team with access to the MVA record database or intranet during development. Since
initial development was completed off-site, integration and testing may prove fairly
complex.
Second, all vendors must agree on and adhere to a strict data-upload schedule
to submit client data to the MVA via secure file transfer. Without vendor cooperation
on this point, the system will contain outdated information and be relatively useless to
administrators. All four vendors will need to modify their individual systems to
extract the data required by the Case Manager program in a precise format and devise
a way to automate the data uploads.
Finally, the MVA staff must undergo training before utilizing the Interlock
Case Manager. We have involved the interlock staff throughout the software planning
and development process and compiled a comprehensive users manual to ensure a
smooth transition and user acceptance.
Sweden has already implemented a similar system in its own interlock
program. Each interlock vendor enters the data recorded during monthly service visits
directly into a central secure website. From here, officials can search by offender for
the most up-to-date information. However, because at 900 participants the Swedish
interlock program is much smaller than most US programs, it is unclear how well
their system would scale to a higher-volume program such as Marylands.
Long Term
In the next 8-10 years, Maryland should work towards establishing a single
integrated database system accessible by the courts, probation officers, MVA,
vendors, and perhaps even participants. Such a database would eliminate the barriers
133
to information sharing as information would become available to all parties instantly.

Because the system would be designed to include criminal as well as program history,
the comprehensive offender records would assist courts and administrators in making
more informed case management and sentencing decisions. Though privacy
considerations would restrict some access, each agency would be privy to all
information relevant to their specific decision-making process.
Ideal System
In Marylands ideal interlock system, information transfer would be fully
streamlined and efficient, and program administrators would not lose significant time
during the data retrieval process. The current system allows information to flow freely
from the MVA to law enforcement officials, however the transfer from law
enforcement and vendors to the MVA has been problematic. The ideal interlock
system would eradicate this problem by providing administrators with access to
offender criminal history through the centralized database. Ultimately, all parties
involved in interlock case management would have complete unrestricted access to
the information necessary for effective decision-making.
Penalty and Incentive System

Current State
As Maryland progresses toward a fully compliant interlock system, it is
critical that more emphasis be placed on the use of penalties and incentives to elicit
desired participant behavior. Even in the initial stages of the DWI conviction process,
offenders can take advantage of the relatively harmless penalties associated with
134
breath test refusal and failure to appear in court. In many cases, individuals who do
not appear for their DWI court date are never pursued and evade prosecution entirely.
Repeat offenders are also able to avoid appropriate penalties when viewed by
the courts as first-offenders due to expunged records or plea bargaining. All too often,
these individuals find a way to navigate the system and serve a lesser sentence than
the mandated year-long interlock installation period they should receive.
Offenders who are placed in the program still face few penalties for noncompliance. The worst penalty, removal from the program, is reserved for those
participants who record a high BAC violation, operate a vehicle without an interlock,
miss a service appointment, or tamper with the device. However, there is no
additional punishment, nor is there a foolproof measure for preventing these
individuals from driving on suspended licenses.
In the same vein, program participants who follow requirements receive little
reward for their adherence. As such, there is little incentive for them to continue their
good behavior beyond remaining on the program.
Short Term Goals
Within the next 2-5 years, state officials should take steps towards full
enforcement of existing DWI penalties. Our survey of national and international
interlock programs demonstrated that the key to a successful penalty and fine system
is not only that it contains explicit consequences for various actions, but that they are
effectively implemented and enforced. With the framework for these penalties already
in place in Maryland, it falls to the courts, law enforcement officials, and program
administrators to ensure they are strictly followed.
135
A crucial element of penalty enforcement will be correct identification of prior

offenses in DWI cases. Repeat offenders should not receive penalties for first-time
offenses and should invariably be placed on the interlock program for a period of at
least one year. Additionally, elimination of the probation before judgment ruling
would further ensure that repeat offenders are not escaping with sanctions for firsttime offenders. As judicial education in DWI law increases, it will facilitate this goal
and ensure higher program participation rates of eligible offenders.
Long Term Goals
Once existing penalties are fully enforced, the state should look to introduce
and implement harsher penalties as well as an incentive system within the next 8-10
years. The majority of these penalties will necessitate legislative action and will
strengthen the presence of the interlock program in the state. To begin, failure to
appear in court should not be tolerated in any DUI or DWI case. As New Mexico has
done, Maryland should enact legislation to make breath test refusal a criminal
offense. Individuals who fail to appear in court should be subject to harsher penalties
and fines as defined in the states legislation. Such laws would eliminate the
loopholes in the court process, ensure sentencing, and increase the chance of offender
entry into the interlock program.
DWI sentencing should also follow a clearly defined, escalating penalty
system. Because incarceration serves as such an effective deterrent, as indicated in the
TIRF studies, a mandatory jail sentence prior to interlock installation would deter
individuals from drink driving or repeating offenses. A recent California study
suggested vehicle impoundment during the hard suspension period as a method for
136
ensuring that offenders cannot drive. Vehicle impoundment should be implemented as

a penalty for repeat offenders or offenders convicted of driving while suspended.
Ultimately, any individual convicted of a fourth DWI offense should be placed on the
ignition interlock for life.
Program administrators should also develop a stronger reward and punishment
system for participants during the installation period. As a penalty for noncompliance, removing offenders from the program and placing them back on license
suspension is not a sufficient deterrent. Instead, these individuals should be penalized
with incarceration, increased fines, or vehicle impoundment. Specifically,
incarceration and vehicle impoundment will prevent vehicle operation by noncompliant offenders who might otherwise drive on a suspended license.
Another strategy for dealing with non-compliance would be to extend the
installation period until an offender can demonstrate a compliant record, as has been
done in Australia. Offenders who repeatedly record high BAC levels or refuse retests
would remain on the program indefinitely. Such extension periods would help to
reduce recidivism rates and guarantee a change in drink-driving behavior. Depending
on the circumstances of program violations, administrators should utilize any of these
methods to penalize non-compliant behavior.
On the other hand, compliant participants should be rewarded for their
adherence to program requirements. This incentive system could be enacted by
allowing participants to reduce the frequency of vendor visits for compliant behavior.
Bi-monthly maintenance requirements would save offenders time and money. Once
an offender has proven compliant with less frequent maintenance checks, program
137
administrators should consider them for early removal from the program. A shortened
installation period would be an attractive incentive for compliance and should be
enacted for model participants.
Ideal Program
In short, Marylands ideal program would operate with strong consequences
for both positive and negative behavior. Existing laws and sentencing mandates be
fully enforced, and legislators and program administrators would be aware of
opportunities to enhance the penalty system and further encourage cooperation and
compliance. Marylands ideal interlock system would include sufficient penalties for
enforcing good behavior, as well as incentives to reward those who demonstrate
consistent compliance. In this way it would serve not only as a penalty, but also a
venue for permanently altering drink-driving behavior.
Treatment
Current State
In 1999, Dr. Kenneth Beck conducted a research study on the effects of
ignition interlock license restrictions on drivers with multiple alcohol offenses in
Maryland. The study concluded that recidivism rates fell while interlocks were
installed on offenders vehicles, but that they returned to normal levels once offenders
were released from the program. This indicates that interlock installation does not
significantly alter offenders drink-driving behavior and they are likely to recidivate
once they have completed the program.
Currently, interlock participants in Maryland who were referred by the
Medical Advisory Board (MAB) must actively participate in an alcohol treatment
138
program or have completed a certified alcohol treatment or chemical addiction

program. Treatment program guidelines for each offender are determined in court
based on legislative guidelines and judicial discretion.
Yet Dr. Becks study indicates the treatment requirement in place is not
sufficient to correct all participants drink-driving behavior, largely because it is
limited to MAB referrals. To successfully reduce the occurrence of drink-driving in
Maryland, the interlock program must permanently deter participants from the act.
Improving the treatment component of Marylands interlock program is critical to the
goal of reducing recidivism.
Short Term Goals
Within the next 2-5 years, Maryland should progress towards establishing
more treatment options for ignition interlock participants. As BAC test refusal
continues to be a challenge in the courts, the state should transfer the responsibility of
determining offender treatment requirements to the MAB. The MAB is better trained
than the judicial system in assessing an individuals treatment needs. Every offender
entering the interlock system should undergo an evaluation by the MAB to determine
the severity of his or her alcohol abuse and treatment requirements. This diagnosis
will help the administration to identify those offenders who are most likely to
recidivate. Because some offenders are likely to resist the evaluation, penalties for
failure to cooperate with the MAB should be included in interlock legislation.
Subsequently, offenders should enroll in tailored treatment programs modeled
after the Support for Interlock Planning (SIP) program discussed at the 2004
International Ignition Interlock Symposium (D. Timken, International Ignition
139
Interlock Symposium, 2004). Specifically, offenders should attend group and

individual treatment sessions at least twice a month, and receive a manual with
information on the interlock program, the dangers of drinking and driving, and the
recommended courses of action for changing drinking-driving behaviors. Along with
the manual, offenders should receive workbooks to help track their progress through
treatment and monitor their behaviors once they leave the interlock program.
Mandating treatment for all offenders and providing offenders with information and
support to eliminate their drinking-driving behavior are important first steps towards
improving the treatment system.
Long Term Goals
In the next 8-10 years, Maryland should strive for the zero-tolerance approach
to drink-driving modeled by Swedens 0.02 legal BAC limit. This approach will
require significant support from all interlock parties and will include legislation to
reduce the BAC, stricter sentencing for repeat offenders, and provisions which
mandate installation extensions for offenders who violate the programs requirements
or recidivate once released. The last factor is necessary to ensure that hard core
offenders remain in the interlock program long enough to rehabilitate and change
their drinking driving behaviors.
Maryland should also implement a system to flag participants who record
BAC levels above 0.02 while on the device. It has been noted that a positive BAC test
of 0.02 or greater is a better predictor of recidivism than prior DWI offenses, moving
violations, or demographics. Therefore, offenders with a certain number of tests
above 0.02 should be subject to an increased interlock period. This recommendation
140
will require new legislation that gives the MVA the authority to base offenders
interlock program requirements on the BAC levels they record during their
installation periods.
To ensure changes in alcohol abuse behavior, the state should also consider
implementing some of the medical requirements used in Swedens program. By
evaluating key biological markers, administrators can detect whether offenders have
changed their alcohol habits. Those who have not should remain in the interlock
period until they can demonstrate a change in behavior. While Sweden has identified
specific biological markers for this purpose, researchers in the U.S. have thus far been
unable to do so.
Finally, Maryland should implement an after-care program to verify that
offenders are receiving effective treatment and do not recidivate when released from
the program. Follow-up requirements can be used to verify success and make
adjustments to the treatment requirements as needed. The overall goal in treatment
efforts should be a permanent alteration in negative alcohol abuse behavior.
Ideal Program
It is important to note that typically offenders are only on the interlock
program in Maryland for a period of one year. In terms of treatment efforts, one year
is not a significant amount of time to permanently alter an individuals drinkingdriving tendencies. Therefore, ideally participants would engage in a less-intensive
program, such as Alcoholics Anonymous, following their interlock period. In this way
the changes made during the interlock period will be internalized and reinforced
through their continued involvement with a support program.
141
When discussing treatment recommendations, it is important to consider the

ethical issues regarding the governments right to alter an individuals personal habits.
Alcohol use is both legal and common and offenders in the interlock program may
resist treatment if they do not view their drinking behavior in a negative manner.
However, the combination of drinking and driving is illegal and endangers others.
Therefore, interlock treatment programs that focus on socially conscious drinking
behavior are necessary to enhance the public safety aspect of the system.
Ultimately, Maryland should strive for a comprehensive treatment program
that meets the individual needs of each offender and guarantees that no participant is
removed from the interlock program until they have demonstrated a positive change
in drink-driving behavior.
Legislation
Current State
At the start of each interlock initiative, the state must pass legislation to
establish the program specifics. This legislation is the backbone of the program and
theoretically guides the actions of all involved. Clear, well-stated regulations can
greatly increase judicial and offender compliance and effect a successful interlock
program.
Currently, Marylands interlock laws require repeat offenders those
convicted of two or more serious alcohol convictions within a five year period to
complete a year-long license suspension period before enrolling in the interlock
program. A tiered penalty system, based on the number of previous offenses and the
severity of the violation, denotes the installation period for each offender. In 2005,
142
new laws passed that require interlock installation for all repeat offenders, however
judges are at their own discretion in assigning interlock installation for first time
offenders. The duration of time spent on the interlock is determined by the judge on a
case by case basis. Should a program participant record numerous failed breath tests
or receive an additional conviction while enrolled in the program, the length of their
sentence may be extended.
Though these laws officially govern the interlock system in Maryland, in
practice they lack the teeth to ensure compliance and are frequently ignored by judges
and offenders. Ambiguous language in the law allows for this disregard without
consequence. As new legislative action is considered per our previous
recommendations, the state must also take steps to reinforce existing laws and
increase sanctions for non-compliance with interlock statutes. They must also be
aware of additional areas where legislation could be enacted to eradicate barriers to
program effectiveness.
Short Term Goals
Though passing legislation is generally a tedious and drawn-out endeavor, the
state should begin the process of establishing a new legal framework for the interlock
system within the next 2-5 years. The first step toward the goal will be to establish a
lobbying group in the interlock community that can work with legislators to develop
guidelines for a more effective program. This lobbying group could conceivably be
derived from the inter-agency committee recommended to complete the training
recommendations. Establishing an interlock presence in the state legislature will be
the first crucial step towards passing initiatives.
143
Also during this period, legislators should work with the interlock community
to amend existing laws so they are stronger and harder to circumvent. With regards to
judicial compliance, the state should pass legislation to suspend any judge who
ignores interlock mandates. To increase transparency of judicial actions and pressure
from the public, additional legislation should require judges to publish their decisions.
In an effort to enhance the effectiveness of the DWI court system, BAC test
refusal, failure to appear, and allowance of continuances and motions should be
addressed through legislation. Legislators should criminalize BAC test refusal, or at
the very least permit it as evidence during trial as many respondents in the TIRF study
suggested. In addition, a warrant for arrest should be issued for any DWI defendant
who fails to appear in court or adhere to an interlock sentence in order to deter
individuals from capitalizing on oversight in these areas. Legislators should also
consider limiting the number of continuances and motions allowed in DWI cases to
prevent delays and caseload backup. To address offender non-compliance while
enrolled in the program, the state should pass additional sanctions, such as
incarceration and vehicle impoundment, for anyone who violates the interlock
program requirements.
During this time period, legislators should enact any initiatives necessitated by
the recommendations previously made in the areas of communication, training,
technology integration, penalties and fines, and treatment. They should also order a
study to assess the state of Marylands program and necessary steps for improvement,
much like the study completed in California (DeYoung, 2002).
144
Long Term Goals

Once existing interlock laws have been enforced, the state should direct its
attention to creating a more effective stricter program through new unambiguous
legislation within the next 8-10 years. A law mandating the interlock condition for all
DWI offenders would follow the lead of New Mexico in broadening participation.
The state should also consider a suggestion raised in Sweden to mandate the device
for any individual who demonstrates a medical alcohol dependency, regardless of
DWI conviction.
Maryland should avoid laws that remove non-compliant offenders from the
program, as they appear to be counterproductive. In fact, they should consider the
opposite, program extension, for offenders who violate the requirements to enhance
the corrective nature of the device.
The Maryland program currently struggles with tracking participants through
their program enrollment because of varying sentence lengths and extensions.
Legislators should mandate standard penalty lengths based on an offenders prior
offenses or specific transgression to ensure better monitoring.
Ideal Program
At its core, Marylands interlock program should be marked by clear and
comprehensive statutes that delineate the specific roles of officers, judges,
administrators and participants. In addition to setting guidelines for the program,
these laws should be enforceable and carry penalties for non-compliance. Legislators
should be aware of ignition interlock program development across the globe and
propose new legislation in accordance with emerging trends. Throughout the process,
145
the presence of the interlock community in the state legislature will add a sense of
urgency to program development initiatives and keep the interlock system in the
foreground of drink-driving debates.
Logistical Considerations for Interlock Program Recommendations

Several factors could pose significant barriers to Marylands establishment of
the ideal interlock system in the future. To begin, advancing the interlock program
will necessitate increased funding on a state or federal level. Treatment endeavors and
caseload reduction will prove particularly costly as they must account for additional
offender services and the creation of new judicial and law enforcement positions.
Likewise, workshop activities for judges and officers, and software and database
development will cost the state in materials and staff hours.
In many cases, legislation will be needed to provide this funding. Since TEA21, the federal government has enacted some legislation to ensure states have
adequate funding to reduce drink-driving. Still, more initiatives must pass to provide
Maryland with the funding necessary to implement our recommendations.
Until an interlock indigent fund is created to cover all individuals who qualify
for financial assistance, the costs of obtaining and servicing ignition interlock devices
will continue to prevent some offenders from entry into the program. Such an
indigent fund will first require the state to devise and pass a correlating budgetary
provision, a process which can take years to accomplish. Barring full implementation
of the indigent fund, program participation will be maximized only when a new
interlock technology is implemented which significantly decreases the cost of the
system.
146
Furthermore, the majority of our recommendations require a great deal of

initiative on the part of all key parties in the interlock system. Judges, officers,
administrators, and service providers must rededicate themselves to increased efforts
that will ensure offenders are properly adjudicated, sanctioned, and monitored in the
program. While a centralized database will facilitate communication, it will fall to
each party to provide training in the system, regularly utilize the database, update
information regularly, and ensure pertinent data is transferred in the correct format.
As the system will require service providers not only to learn a new system but to
depart from their current ones, the implementation of the centralized database will
hinge on their full cooperation.
Finally, these recommendations, especially the treatment requirements,
constitute a significant shift in Marylands view of the interlock and drink-driving
system. While the change will likely be supported by many law enforcement officials,
judges, and legislators, it is possible the general public will reject the stricter
requirements. In order to enact the ideal system, the state must endeavor to spread a
zero-tolerance attitude toward drink-driving.
Limitations of Study
As interlocks continue to be one of the most debated methods of reducing
drink-driving, our team was aware we would be unable to fully address all facets of
the topic and all related literature in our three years. While we chose to center our
efforts around the topics of device improvement, program development and
information technology integration in Marylands interlock program, there are
countless other aspects of the interlock system that merit attention in future research
147
endeavors. Even in our focused research, we chose to evaluate only five other
interlock programs due to time constraints. These programs were selected based on
their innovative requirements or their relative similarity to Maryland and were
believed to provide the best basis for comparison. Our research leaves untouched
dozens of other interlock programs throughout the world, all of which should be
assessed to determine which interlock practices are most effective.
Our method of first-hand data collection from individuals involved in the
interlock program introduced an element of bias into our study. Each expert interview
reflected the subjects personal views and experiences within the system. Also, our
survey results were impacted by the vendors who were responsible for actually
advertising and distributing them to customers. Their apprehension about the survey
content or questions might have led them to downplay circulation or influence
customer answers. Vendor involvement in the survey process likely affected the rate
of return, therefore limiting the statistical significance of the data, and may have
deterred participants from responding freely.
Finally, our study is limited by the rapidly evolving nature of interlock laws.
Even as we publish our findings, new studies may be completed and new laws
enacted which would outdate some of our analysis or recommendations.
Limitations of Information Technology Development

Though conception of the Interlock Case Manager was simple and
straightforward, our team encountered a variety of obstacles throughout the planning
and development process which have delayed the softwares integration into the MVA
system. Our main challenge was in gaining support from the MDOT Office of
148
Information Resources (OIR) as an outside entity aiming to develop an internal

system. Because we lacked contacts inside OIR, many of our requests were met with
vague responses. These results are typical of any project where an outside group
attempts to navigate and address the inner workings of another organization and
should not be considered a negative reflection upon OIR.
Furthermore, the distance of OIRs offices made it impractical to meet with
staff members face-to-face on a regular basis. Consequently we relied on e-mail and
occasional phone communication. Without proximity to our project or a clear
understanding of its goals, the OIR staff understandably gave a low priority to
assisting in our efforts.
Software development was also hindered by the fact that only two team
members possessed the programming skills necessary to design and create the
Interlock Case Manager program. In addition to their information technology
research, both were concurrently fulfilling various other duties, both on and off the
team.
Despite these limitations, we were able to successfully design a database
layout to store all required interlock information and a working interface for
performing customer searches within this database. We have also completed a partial
mock-up of the interface which displays interlock information, and created a users
manual to explain the softwares role in the duties of program administrators. We
delivered our code, user manual, and all results of our research and application
planning to OIR in the spring of 2006 so the staff can finish and fully integrate the
Interlock Case Manager. In order to ensure a smooth handover, we held regular
149
teleconferences with Jim Hergenhahn, our contact at OIR. We predict the biggest
challenge OIR will face in implementing the system is getting all four approved
vendors in Maryland to provide their data electronically to the MVA in the format
required by Interlock Case Manager.
Once we have transferred the project management to OIR, a series of steps
must still be taken before the software can be fully integrated into the MVA system.
First, OIR staff must write the remaining parts of the program, which we were unable
to implement due to time limitations and organizational access difficulties. The staff
must also establish a secure file upload location so vendors can provide logging data
directly to the MVA. All vendors must conform to a single data format for their
submissions which is compatible with the Case Manager program. Finally, they must
commit to a strict upload schedule to ensure the MVA database is always up-to-date.
Full software integration will require considerable coordination between the MVA
and the four Maryland vendors in adhering to a new standardized data format.
Because OIR prioritizes those projects which are mandated by legislation, it is
possible that the Interlock Case Manager will take several years to complete.
However the OIR staff has been wholly supportive of the project thus far and we are
confident that they will continue their efforts to fully implement the Interlock Case
Manager system.
Publishing Our Findings

We have presented the findings of our study to many prominent individuals in
the ignition interlock field, and have been encouraged and enlightened by their
insightful feedback. Most importantly, we have found these individuals to be
150
extremely receptive to our recommendations for program improvement in the state of

Maryland. In the area of training, the MVA has already filmed a training video
designed to better educate police officers on the components of the interlock system.
As mentioned, a web page that provides the public with information on the interlock
system has been designed and is awaiting final approval. In addition, MVA
administrators intend to keep a copy of this document in their office to serve as a
reference for interlock information. The Interlock Case Manager planning and
development materials have been turned over to the information technology officials
at the MVA, and they have voiced their commitment to completing the project.
In the winter of 2006 we delivered a poster presentation at the Miller Senate
Office Building in Annapolis, Md. As part of the Council of University System
Faculty Student Research Day. During this event we had the opportunity to speak
with several influential policymakers, including Maryland Attorney General Joseph
Curran, and discuss the aims of our project. Our poster was displayed for an
additional week in the office of the Maryland House of Delegates Judiciary
Committee. All laws regarding interlock sanctions in the state of Maryland must pass
through this committee. Our findings were again displayed in poster format at the first
annual Atlantic Coast Conference schools Meeting of the Minds conference in
Clemson, S.C. in the spring of 2006. By sharing our research in a variety of venues
we aimed to spread the knowledge gained through this project, and further the
campaign for ignition interlock acceptance and integration.
151
The Feasibility of Passive Alcohol

Detection in Motor Vehicles
152
Introduction
Our final research question deals with technology. We would like to discover
how the in-vehicle alcohol detection concept can be improved with new and existing
technologies. These improvements may prove an important step toward mainstream
acceptance of ignition interlocks. In considering this research question, we weighed
heavily on the inconvenient characteristics of ignition interlock technology. Program
evaluations reveal consistently that interlock program participants are unhappy with
their ignition interlock testing procedures. Among many hassles of interlock testing is
the rolling retest. A fundamental flaw of active alcohol detection in a motor vehicle is
that it requires the driver to distract himself by providing breath samples directly into
a mouthpiece. A system that is able to test whether a driver has consumed alcohol
without an active breath sample would mitigate the retest issue altogether. Passive
alcohol detection is just this sort of process where the driver is tested for alcohol
consumption either at random or continuously throughout his drive without ever
being disturbed by the test. There are a great many emerging technologies that could
provide the basis for a passive alcohol detection device for a vehicle.
153
Literature Review
Electroencephalography
The effect of alcohol on the human brain is another physical observable that
scientists believe may prove useful in testing an individuals sobriety. Alcohol has
various effects on the brain that have been studied but are not yet completely
understood (Eckardt, File, Gessas, Grant, Guerri, Hoffman, Kalant, Koob, Li &
Tabakoff, 1998). Electroencephalography is a modern approach to studying brain
activity. Electrical signals are measured through the electrodes on a persons scalp
using an instrument called an electroencephalograph (EEG). EEGs amplify these
signals and output a series of waves. These waves vary in frequency and are
associated with different cognitive processes. There are five classifications of waves
based on frequency: delta (0.5 3 Hz), theta (3.5 7.5 Hz), alpha (8 -11.5 Hz), beta
(12 28 Hz), and gamma (28.5 50 Hz). When a person is resting, brain waves are
often random. However, if a person reacts to a particular event, specific brain waves
are emphasized depending on the stimulus (Porjesz, 2003).
One study attempted to determine whether there was an existing correlation
between the immediate effects of alcohol consumption and EEG frequencies (Lukas,
Mendelson, Benedikt & Jones, 1986). The experiment examined the effect of alcohol
on 18 men between the ages of 21 and 35. To control external variables, all subjects
were social drinkers and none had a history of alcohol abuse.
The Lukas study tested a placebo group against a small alcohol-dosage control
group; the alcohol was administered via double blind conditions. The placebo
contained a small amount of alcohol, but the effect of the alcohol on the subjects
154
blood alcohol content was extremely low. Following each treatment of alcohol,
subjects were continuously monitored by an EEG. The results of the study indeed
indicated a measurable brain wave difference between a person who is sober and who
is intoxicated. Measurements showed that, as subjects became more intoxicated, the
alpha frequency in their brains intensified (Lukas, 1986).
Over time, EEG technology and analysis has become more sophisticated. In
2002, a novel method for EEG analysis was able to reliably differentiate the effects of
alcohol from those of other drugs. Four electrodes were surgically implanted in the
brains of six rats for EEG readings, and trial drugs used included saline, ethanol,
heroin, and methamphetamine. Only three channels were used for the EEG, which is
far less than the traditional number of channels used to analyze brain activity in
humans. Implementing a signal processing strategy known as event resolution
imaging (ERI), the authors were able to accurately distinguish between the control,
saline, and the other potent substances. ERI analysis quickly detected the central
nervous system effects of all drugs within 10 seconds of injection and was able to
discriminate the brain waves caused by alcohol from some select trials. These
findings indicate that ERI could potentially be used to detect significant alcohol
intoxication in humans (Steffensen, 2002). However, because the researchers used
animal subjects instead of humans, additional studies of ERI must be conducted
before this method could be useful.
Another study aimed to determine the effect of alcohol on the mediofrontal
cortex in the human brain (Ridderinkhof, de Vlugt, Bramlage, Spaan, Elton, Snel &
Band, 2002). Subjects were asked to complete a simple task after receiving either a
155
placebo, or a small or higher dosage of alcohol, depending on the control group they
were assigned to. While the placebo in this experiment contained no alcohol, subjects
in the small dosage control group received enough alcohol to reach a BAC of 0.04
and subjects in the higher dosage control group received enough alcohol to reach a
BAC of 0.10. After receiving the appropriate substance, subjects were presented with
a flanker task. The task was to identify the direction of a pointing arrow, while
ignoring other arrows pointing in various directions. While the subjects were
completing this task, researchers observed their error-related negativity (ERN), and
event-related brain potential (ERP). ERN reflects the activity of a preconscious
action-monitoring system in the brain (Riddernekoff et al, pp 2210, 2002). The ERN
can be examined to determine that whether the brain is conscious of errors in
processing during certain tasks. The findings of this experiment indicated that there is
a correlation between the amount of alcohol a person has consumed and the
amplitude of their ERN. This finding may also provide an insight into why alcohol
consumption leads to inadequate performance in tasks such as driving a car.
The concept of using EEGs to determine intoxication provides an interesting
avenue for the ignition interlock device. The primary goal of an ignition interlock
device is to quantitatively measure a driver's level of intoxication and prevent that
person from starting the vehicle if necessary. Secondary factors in IIDs, such as
invasiveness and cost, are areas that leave much room for improvement. The EEG and
ERN studies provide evidence that an individuals sobriety can be measured via their
brainwaves (Lukas et al., 1986 & Ridderinkhof et al., 2002). EEGs provide a possible
alternative to the current breath alcohol analysis systems, however the shortcomings
156
of an EEG based IID is that it may not be any less invasive than existing devices. If
the technology must be physically attached to a persons head, then it is likely more
invasive than having to blow into a tube. If a novel method of EEG measurement did
not require significant contact with the subject, this technology would have potential.
The issue of cost efficiency must also be considered in product design. An
EEG-based device may not be any more cost effective than current technologies.
Such a system would require extensive maintenance and calibration. In this aspect, an
EEG may not have any advantages over existing systems. Some groups have
demonstrated a way to build an EEG for less than $200, but these devices do not live
up to the safety and accuracy standards of commercial products (The ModularEEG,
2001). Another commercially available EEG known as HAL-4 comes as a kit for
$279. This device is provided with four channels for EEG measurements, which will
not be significant in human response research (Creative Control Concepts, 2000). In
contrast, popular and standardized EEGs require 32 or more channels and can cost
tens of thousands of dollars. This ensures safety and accuracy for many researchers.
Another shortcoming of EEGs is that they do not tell an individuals exact
BAC; in the eyes of the law, this is an important distinction and more extensive
testing could be done to determine how accurate an EEG is in determining a persons
impairment. Such a test, to provide more useful information than that which is
currently available, would require a larger test sample as well as a larger range of
BACs. For our teams purposes, EEGs were available throughout the University of
Maryland campus for experimental research. There is not a large amount of
information on how alcohol affects the brain, though EEGs provide an interesting
157
option for a new IID design (Eckhardt et al., 1998). However, to create a reliable
device that uses an EEG as a method of measuring sobriety would require a good deal
of experimental research.
An additional deterrent to this direction was research that showed the
variability of human EEG patterns. The Steffensen study revealed that various drugs
cause significant changes in brain waves and it is not always possible to differentiate
the effects of alcohol from those other drugs. Therefore, a major challenge would
have been to prove that some EEG patterns were a direct response to alcohol.
Some researchers have found that alcoholics and non-alcoholics have different
EEG responses to doses of alcohol. This knowledge has been used to determine how
likely alcoholism is in some people (Porjesz, 2003). Thus, we know that there is no
one specific human reaction to alcohol that could be determined. However, if a
general pattern was found that indicated poor coordination or impairment, then an IID
that is non-specific to alcohol could be implemented.
There are also factors unrelated to drugs which affect EEG patterns. A recent
study published in 2005 reported difference in brain waves patterns in people who
have depression. Subjects suffering from depression had significantly more delta
wave activity. Researchers also found significant variations in subjects' EEG patterns
based on health, age, and gender (Morgan, 2005). This strongly suggests that various
factors unrelated to drug use can change the brain waves of any individual, so it may
be very difficult to prove that a specific trend of waves is directly related to drug use.
Transdermal
158
Alcohol is removed from the body in one of two ways. It is either

metabolized, in which case it is oxidized and broken down into carbon dioxide and
water, or it is excreted unchanged wherever water is removed from the body
including breath, urine, perspiration, and saliva.
Henrys law states: When a volatile chemical is dissolved in a liquid and is
brought into contact with a closed air space, equilibrium is rapidly formed and there
exists a fixed ratio between the concentration of the volatile compound in air and its
concentration in the liquid, at a given temperature. However, because the body is not
a closed system, the lungs are constantly changing pressure and pressure, Henrys law
only provides an approximation of the ratio of alcohol in the breath to alcohol in the
blood. Extensive experimentation has shown that 2100mL of breath contain the same
amount of alcohol as 1mL of blood. Because this ratio is so well established it is used
as a basing point to calculate the ratio of alcohol in sweat to blood. Testing showed
that ratio to be approximately 14,595:1 (Zettl, 2002).
Transdermal sensors measure the amount of alcohol in a persons sweat. It has
been shown that there is a strong correlation between the alcohol measured in a
persons sweat and their breath alcohol content. The largest difference between this
and breath-based detection is the time it takes for the alcohol to show up. Because the
alcohol is measured on a persons epidermis and the epidermis has a relatively low
water content compared to other bodily organs, including the lungs, it takes anywhere
from half an hour to an hour longer for alcohol to be measurable on transdermal
sensors than it takes for breathalyzers.
159
Vestibular
Another approach we investigated as a potential noninvasive method for
detecting impairment in a driver was the human vestibular system. The vestibular
system gives a person their sense of balance, which is one of the many functions that
become impaired when a person becomes intoxicated. Scientific studies suggest that
the reason for this loss of balance during intoxication is a change in specific gravity
of the endolymph causing positional alcohol nystagmus, which has an effect like
vertigo (Brandt, 1991). The alcohol absorbs and diffuses differently through the
endolymph and cupula, which creates a differential between the two. Alcohol intake
reduces the density of the endolymph causing the abnormal differential between the
endolymph and the cupula fluid causing unusual floating dynamics and thus the
nystagmus (Brandt, 1991). An additional benefit that would come with measuring a
disturbance in the vestibular system is that impairment in general would be tested. If
for any reason a persons vestibular system was awry that person would be unfit to
drive a vehicle, so a system that dealt with vestibular dysfunction would safe guard
against more than just alcohol intoxication.
Unfortunately, measuring the specific gravity of the endolymph is not easy to
do in a timely, cheap, and noninvasive manner, which is a necessary component to the
technology that will fit with our teams mission. We had to reject this possible
approach to measuring impairment because the logistics of the technology were
inappropriate, not because the theory was unfounded.
Motor Skills
160
Alcohol consumption is widely known to retard a persons coordination and

reaction time. In intoxicated persons, this reaction time delay is often a foremost
cause of many traffic accidents. Scores of studies have taken simple reaction tests and
attempted to correlate them with ones level of intoxication. Prior to Gustafsons
experiment in 1986, studies done to explore the effects of alcohol on observation
tasks yielded inconsistent results. Studies of visual stimulus particularly lacked results
which corroborate the significant effects alcohol has on peripheral detection. Visual
reaction time experiments found that the subject is required to perform two tasks
simultaneously in order to illustrate any significant change. These types of problems
and their consequential inconsistencies led to a heightened complexity necessary in
both types of experiments in order to generate more consistency and reliability.
In an effort to improve on previous studies, Gustafson attempted to conduct
experiments with reduced complexity and increased consistency. Gustafson (1986)
performed two separate but similar experiments to test the effect alcohol has on
reaction times with both a visual and auditory stimulus. His auditory study, unlike
previous experiments, eliminated the use of a search, detection, evaluation, and
decision process. Gustafson designed the visual experiment to determine if the lack
of results in previous studies was due to the sensitivity of tasks used in the
experiments. Gustafson hypothesized that in both experiments, a small dosage of
alcohol would quickly result in a significant increase in simple reaction time which
would last for a considerable period of time.
Gustafsons (1986) auditory and visual experiments both had the same basic
elements and were performed with subjects between the ages of 20 and 28 who were
161
categorized as moderate social drinkers. The experiments had three control groups:
one group received a placebo, one a small alcohol dosage (.33mL), and one a large
alcohol dosage (1.00mL). Subjects were prohibited from eating and drinking for the
three hours prior to the experiment and were prohibited from ingesting any drugs 24
hours prior to the experiment. After 15 minutes of consuming whichever substance
they were assigned, subjects were seated and given a hand switch. They were then
instructed to respond as quickly as possible, using the switch, after either a tone was
produced (auditory stimulus) or the light bulb lit (visual stimulus). The experiment
used a mean reaction time of 3.75 seconds, allowing for +-1.25 second error. Each
experiment lasted 30 minutes and presented 480 signals with a 10 signal warm-up
period.
In Gustafsons (1986) auditory experiment, results showed that all treatments
ultimately increased the subjects reaction times. For the placebo and small dosage,
there was a small but considerable change. In the large dosage, the change was
obvious and significant. It is important to note that the alcohol did not affect the
subjects reactions time for the first five minutes; in fact, there was no obvious change
until 15 minutes later. Since the effects of alcohol were only apparent over a
prolonged period of time, the results demonstrate the importance of continuously
tracking the effects of alcohol on reaction time.
Conversely, Gustafsons (1986) visual experiment results showed no
significant effect on the overall mean of subject reaction time. While the group who
received high dosage treatment showed an obvious increase in reaction times, both
the placebo and small dosage treatments induced no significant change in subjects. As
162
in auditory test, the first five minutes following the treatment yielded no quantifiable
change in reaction time. The decreased sensitivity in visual as compared to auditory
organs might be used to explain the problems in this particular experiment, however,
this theory seems highly unlikely to Gustafson. Visual stimulus tests are also less
rigorous for subjects to perform under the influence of alcohol, which may be another
factor in the experimental problems. Furthermore, blinking may have an effect on the
subject of a visual test that it would obviously not have on the subject of an auditory
stimulus test. Ultimately, Gustafsons study was unable to give a consistent overall
change in reaction times over an extended period of time.
Research has also been conducted in the area of behavioral parameters, as
measured by changes in vehicle parameters, to measure the effects of alcohol
consumption. In order to correlate the results to intoxication, physiological
parameters were simultaneously measured in the forms of brain wave and
cardiovascular measurements calculated with electroencephalographs (EEGs) and
electrocardiographs (ECGs) (Brookhuis & De Waard, 1993). An earlier study by
Dingus, Lenora, and Wierwille used a simulator to concurrently examine eyelid
closure, lane position, yaw deviation, heart rate, and simulated lateral acceleration.
This experiment, which implemented control groups for ensured validity, tested the
effects of intoxication and drowsiness in much the same way the as later study by
Brookhuis and De Waard. Brookhuis and De Waard conducted an experiment that
included twenty paid male volunteers with drivers licenses and a specified amount of
driving experience. Exclusion criteria, such as a history of alcohol or drug abuse, use
of medication, and relevant diseases and disorders, were also used for safety and
163
ethical reasons. The tests were performed in a tailored Volvo 245 GLD that had
structural modifications and custom devices installed for parameter measurement.
The structural modifications encompassed additional safety features, such as controls
which allow a front-seat passenger to take control of the vehicle should a test subject
became a driving hazard.
The actual experimental procedure of Brookhuis and DeWaard (1993) began
with a dress rehearsal to familiarize subjects with the procedure before their results
were recorded. The experiment included days which tested subjects without alcohol
as well as days which incorporated the alcohol factor into tests. A simple breathalyzer
was used to measure subject BAC, which was never permitted to exceed legal limit,
0.05 at the time, in The Netherlands where the experiment was performed. The
driving tests were performed on quiet but open highways where the subject in the test
car was instructed to follow a lead car. Data was recorded by the EEG, ECG, and
monitoring devices describing the subjects following accuracy and such vehicle
parameters as lateral position in the driving lanes, and steering wheel movements.
The study showed that a driver-monitoring device based on vehicle parameters alone
is realistic and feasible; the EEG measurements were proven to be efficient predictors
of behavioral changes. While reservations remained as to whether alcohol was the
sole source of the behavioral and vehicle parameters changes, the data largely
supports the correlation.
Fuel Cells
In the field of breath-alcohol analysis, the most widely accepted method for
portable measurements is electrochemical oxidation. Also called fuel cell technology,
164
electrochemical oxidation is a secondary application from the development of fuel

cells as power sources. Over the past two decades, this method has been used for
various purposes in alcohol detection.
In general, a fuel cell is an electromechanical device that continuously
converts a fuel and an oxidant into direct electric current. Typically, a cell consists of
two or more conductor electrodes displaced by an ion-conducting electrolyte layer,
with components to move fuel and oxidant into the cell and reaction elements out of
the cell. When fuel alcohol concentrations are measured, acid electrolyte and
platinum-plated electrodes are used with oxygen as an oxidant and alcohol as a fuel
(National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 1991).
Ethanol is oxidized into carbon dioxide and water while simultaneously
releasing electrons. The number of electrons is approximately proportional to the
amount of alcohol, thereby allowing the fuel cell to act as a linear sensing device. The
accuracy of measurement depends on the method of acquisition. Passive alcohol
sensors, preliminary breath tests, and some evidentiary breath tests use fuel cell
technology. Fuel cells are currently the standard technology for IIDs as well. Often
passive alcohol sensors will use a pump or fan to take in a sample for analysis. This is
a fairly inaccurate method, so passive alcohol sensors are generally used for
qualitative measurements of the presence of alcohol in the air.
Preliminary breath tests are more precise in measuring alcohol concentrations
because they require user cooperation to obtain a sample. Participants are instructed
to provide a deep lung sample of air by heavily blowing into a mouthpiece. Since the
operator of the device is usually trained, proper usage of a breathalyzer can determine
165
the blood alcohol concentration of the participant within a reasonable range.

Evidentiary breath tests that use electrochemical oxidation are usually in climate
controlled rooms with very careful settings to provide the most accurate measurement
possible (Wisconsin Department of Transportation [WisDOT], 2002).
Solid state (Semiconductor) sensing is another method of alcohol detection.
The only significant semiconductor is the Taguchi sensor, a small porous conductive
element which was originally patented in the U.S. in 1973. As the Taguchi sensor is
exposed to more alcohol vapors, its surface adsorption causes its electrical
conductivity to increase proportionately. The major reason why this technology was
developed was its similar response to combustible gases and vapors, so it is generally
a nonspecific detecting element (National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism,
1991).
The major benefit of fuel cell technology is sensitivity. Early alcohol sensors
based on semiconductors were sensitive to a variety of chemicals such as gasoline,
methyl alcohol, and carbon monoxide. In the 1970s, the Honda Motor Company
produced a passive sensor based on this method, and it was determined to be
inappropriate for law enforcement given its limitations. Then, in 1984, the Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety worked with companies to develop a passive sensor
based on fuel cell technology. Fuel cells are insensitive to non-alcohol based
substances, so it is much more reliable than semiconductors (Lestina, 1992).
The feasibility of embedding fuels cells in small portable devices such as
flashlights and clipboards adds to its appeal. Other more accurate technologies such
as infrared spectroscopy cannot currently be embedded as passive sensors. Given the
166
capabilities of fuel cells in passive sensors, this technology is a benchmark in portable

breath-alcohol analysis. Therefore, we chose to use passive alcohol sensors with fuel
cells instead of semiconductors.
Effectiveness of Passive Sensors

Passive alcohol sensing technology has been most noticeably applied in
devices used by law enforcement professionals nationwide. The increased usage of
passive sensors in sobriety checkpoints and routine traffic stops suggests that these
devices possess a substantial amount of reliability and accuracy in open-air settings.
Researchers have conducted many laboratory tests to examine the performance
characteristics of the passive alcohol sensor. Overall, studies have found that passive
alcohol sensing technology is viable in its law enforcement applications but neither
sufficiently accurate nor reliable to replace evidentiary-quality detectors as a basis for
arrest and prosecution.
An early laboratory evaluation of two passive alcohol sensors finds that the
sensors could be used to detect only at certain high thresholds of blood alcohol
concentration (BAC) (Lestina & Lund, 1992, p. 328). Researchers at the Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety tested two passive alcohol sensors, the NPAS alcohol
sensor and the Life-Loc PBA 2000, on accuracy and reliability parameters. Their
study found that the ability of both passive sensors to correctly detect the presence of
alcohol was inversely related to their distance from the breath sample. More
specifically, in ideal circumstances, the NPAS passive alcohol sensor could be
expected to correctly detect 80% of subjects with BACs of 0.10 and 99% of those
with BACs of 0.15 or higher. Under the same conditions, this device gave positive
167
readings in one out of eight trials where no alcohol was present. The Life-Loc sensor
was capable of correctly detecting alcohol in 75% of subjects whose BACs are 0.10
and 97% of those with BACs of 0.15 or higher; it registered positives in one out of
every five case where no alcohol is present.
It is hard to take much from this data because the study was conducted many
years ago and the fuel cell sensor technology has since been updated. However, both
devices operate on the same principles as those manufactured today. As such, one can
extrapolate that there is at the very least a potential for passive alcohol sensing to be
applied in any situation where high BACs are extremely hazardous. While operating
an automobile is such a situation, most states place the legal limit of BAC while one
is operating a vehicle at or below 0.10.
In another laboratory study of passive alcohol sensors (Fiorentino, 1997, p.
539) three separate devices were tested under controlled laboratory conditions. Fortyeight human subjects provided breath samples on the three devices. The study used a
separate group design. Researchers assigned subjects to a device through a random
procedure. Researchers tested devices at their recommended sampling ranges. One
instrument recommended measurements be taken at the 5-7.5 inch range. The other
two allowed for measurements to be taken at variable ranges with the expectation of
different accuracies. For these two devices, researchers performed the experiment at
the 6 and 8 inch ranges. The study tested samples of breath containing 0.00, 0.04, and
0.08 alcohol concentrations. During the experiment, researchers took readings from
the passive sensors and then compared those with the readings given by an alcohol
measurement device that requires an active breath sample, an Intoxilyzer model
168
breathalyzer.
The sensors generally produced lower and more variable readings than the
Intoxilyzer. Throughout the trials, no sensor produced a false positive reading. From
these data, there is no strong argument for the expanded use of passive alcohol
sensors as a replacement for current technology that relies on active breath samples.
However, findings from the study do support the use of passive alcohol sensors in
conjunction with other alcohol detection techniques and devices such as the standard
field sobriety test or the Intoxilyzer that was used in the study. The author of this
study, Mr. Dary Fiorentino, does lend his support to such uses in his conclusions
(540). The fact that there were no false positive readings from the passive instrument
in this study is particularly encouraging.
Chemists hired by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation conducted
rigorous assessments of six passive alcohol sensors (Wisconsin Department of
Transportation [WisDOT], 2002, p.44). The sensors in this study though
manufactured by different companies all operated with the same fuel cell technology.
Researchers used a breath simulator to create appropriate ambient air conditions for
their experiments. The devices were tested at six different breath alcohol
concentrations: 0.0, 0.02, 0.04, 0.08, 0.10, and 0.20g/210L. Five of the six units
accurately detected the presence of alcohol in all of the trials at a range of 6 inches or
less (WisDOT, p. 45). The 6th unit accurately detected the presence of alcohol in
about 80% of the trials. Three of the units were able to accurately detect the presence
of alcohol at least 80% of the time at a distance of 18 inches. None of the
manufacturers of the units tested recommended that the devices be used at distances
169
of over 10 inches. Five out of six devices correctly detected no alcohol when no
alcohol was presented in the breath sample. One device, the PASIII, presented
numerous falsely positive readings.
Despite mixed laboratory reviews, many interlock experts believe that passive
alcohol sensing is a valuable tool for sobriety checkpoints and any other occasion
when an officer is forced to make a decision as to the sobriety of a person based on a
small number observable cues (Williams, Voas, & Ferguson, 2000, A-2). Passive
alcohol sensors are particularly helpful in situations where there is a zero tolerance
policy in effect, such as with underage drivers or people who are restricted from
alcohol consumption altogether by virtue of probation or parole.
Perhaps passive fuel cell sensors have an unrealized potential to be applied in
the automobile setting. For example, a tandem system that incorporated a current
breathalyzer ignition interlock device with a passive alcohol sensor addition could be
more convenient than current technology. In order to alleviate some of the hassle of
blowing into a breathalyzer, the device that incorporates a PAS could continuously
monitor the air around the driver. If traces of alcohol were detected, the PAS could
trigger a response that prompts the driver to perform a breathalyzer test.
Our group decided to focus on the possibility of using passive alcohol sensors
to detect the presence of alcohol on drivers in their vehicles. We made this decision
based on the relative inexpensiveness, ease of acquisition, and recognized reliability
of the technology among the alternative technologies we identified. In our
estimations, these three qualities would make passive sensors attractive to automobile
makers and interlock companies who might consider adopting new technologies to
170
market. We designed experiments to test the performance characteristics of the fuel

cell based passive alcohol sensor. The purpose of these experiments was to determine
the feasibility of using a passive alcohol sensor in tandem with a traditional ignition
interlock device to prevent impaired driving without a rolling retest.
171
Progressive Experimentation: Setup, Procedures, and Findings

Before conducting any experiments to test our passive sensors, the team
decided on an experimental design to guide the research. The design included
performance measures, experimental goals, range of operability considerations,
design parameters, and both a baseline and advanced experimental models (See
Appendix 8).
The first step to creating our experimental design was to determine how to
measure a sensors performance. The team decided on measuring the sensors
sensitivity, response time, and clear time. We measured sensitivity through the
sensors ability to detect the presence of alcohol sources of various concentrations.
The response time was the time between the initiation of the breath simulator and the
first voltage output from the sensor. Thirdly, we defined clear time as the time from
the end of the sensors peak response until the sensor was no longer producing a
voltage.
Once we decided on how to measure a sensors performance we decided on
our experimental goals. For each of the three performance measures we established a
minimal and an optimal goal. For sensitivity purposes the optimal goal was detection
of a 0.01 BAC sample while the minimal goal was the legal limit of 0.08. An optimal
response time was determined to be less than 5 seconds, and the minimal response
time was 30 seconds, which was determined as compromise between the optimal
immediate response and a time that becomes inconvenient for a user. The third
measure, clear time, was given an optimal maximum time of 2 minutes and a minimal
requirement of less than 5 minutes.
172
We designed our experiment with what we termed range of operability

considerations. The purpose of these considerations was to determine the point at
which these factors would prevent the passive alcohol sensor from functioning as we
intended. As a team, we brainstormed possible variables that could arise from a use in
an automobile environment. One such issue was window configuration. Whether or
not a vehicles windows are down is an obvious factor when considering a passive
sensors performance in an automobile. Unfortunately, considering windows in our
experiment would have complicated things to a level that was beyond the scope of
our project. We decided that the issue of windows would be addressed, time
permitting, but it was not a priority for these experiments. An automobiles speed is
another factor that the team hypothesized could possibly influence the passive sensor.
Accounting for the speed of a vehicle seemed possible and necessary because in a
practical setting a car will have to be driven at some velocity. The operation of a
vehicles fans was another aspect that could potentially affect a passive sensors
performance since a fan changes the airflow in the vehicle. Yet another consideration
was the model of automobile. We hypothesized that vehicles of varying size and
shape could easily affect the passive sensor and that the vehicle model given the
different cabin sizes in todays automobile market. Finally, we chose ambient
temperature as a factor to consider during our experiment because one of the
criticisms of the current technology is that a warm-up time is required during cold
weather before the ignition interlock device can be used reliably.
The design parameters devised by the team included factors that we could
control concerning the sensor that could lead to improved results. One such parameter
173
was the position of the sensor. We hypothesized that there is an optimal placement of
a passive sensor within a vehicle to produce the best results. Some possibilities for
sensor placement were the steering wheel, above the window well, the center console,
and around the neck. Another parameter is the number of sensors used. In conjunction
with varying placement of the sensor, the team proposed using multiple sensors in
different locations to minimize the distance from the alcohol source and a sensor. The
gains on the operational amplifier could also be adjusted and so this became our third
parameter. Again, the team hypothesized that there is an optimal gain that would
allow for the most sensitivity without producing noise in the data. A final possible
parameter to consider was the temperature of the sensor. We considered the idea that
very cold or hot temperatures could potentially affect the rate of the chemical reaction
in the fuel cell passive sensors.
Considering the aforementioned design criterion two models were developed,
one baseline and one advanced. The baseline models purpose was to incorporate all
of the minimal requirements and most basic setup. This model called for a vehicle
speed of 0mph, fans off, and a temperature of approximately 25 C or room
temperature. The baseline would allow us to draw conclusions about the feasibility of
high performance by a passive sensor. If the sensor failed under these circumstances
then it would be unnecessary to proceed to the advanced model. Given the scope of
the project, the team determined the advanced model to include a speed of 30 to
55mph, a high fan setting, and temperatures of 5 C and 40 C. Both models would be
used in a sedan style and SUV style of vehicle. Assuming success from the advanced
174
model, the next step would be to incorporate variations from the proposed design
parameters. We would determine those parameters if the situation arose.
PHASE 1: Sensor Sensitivity

Phase 1(a): In-lab Trials
Phase 1(a) comprised of testing the passive sensor for sensitivity and
performing preliminary analysis of the sensors capabilities. These tests took place in
the laboratory in order to control undesired variables. Phase 1(a) used the PAS
Systems International fuel cell passive sensor (see Fig. 6). The sensor has an inlet
hole exposing the electrode to the air sample and an outlet hole allowing the sample
to pass through the sensor.
Figure 6: PAS Systems International Fuel Cell Passive Sensor
175
A Fluke 175 TRUE RMS multi-meter measured the voltage output from the sensor. A
breath simulator from Guth Laboratories (model 34C calibrated on October 27th 2004)
(see Fig. 7) generated breath samples of known BrAC.
Figure 7: Guth Laboratories Breath Simulator

This simulator effectively takes a clean breath sample and infuses it with
alcohol vapor created from heating and stirring an alcohol solution, resulting in a
breath sample with calibrated alcohol content. To create a breath sample with
corresponding BAC of 0.08, we used a 500-mL alcohol reference solution certified by
Guth laboratories. Phase 1(a) also incorporated a Draeger active sensor and a tape
measure.
176
First, the reference alcohol solution was placed in the breath simulator, and
then blown into the Draeger active sensor to ensure the simulator functioned properly.
Once determining proper functioning, the passive sensor was connected to the multimeter and placed 21 inches from the breath simulator. The 21-inch trial distance was
an estimation from a persons mouth to a steering wheel when that person is sitting in
the drivers seat of a vehicle. We activated the sensor and noted the sensor response
for each trial. An example setup is shown below in Figure 8.
Our in-lab procedure for testing the sensitivity and performance capabilities of
the passive sensor maintained the following procedure:
1.
Blower provides a constant breath into the simulator for 15 seconds
2.
Wait for sensor voltage to fall to 0mV
3.
Repeat steps 1 and 2 for each trial

2
1. Breath simulator
2. Sensor
3. Multi-meter
4. Reference alcohol
solution
3
Figure 8: Phase 1(a) experimental setup

Phase 1(b): In-vehicle Trials
177
After conducting preliminary trials in the lab, the next step, Phase 1(b), was to
test the PAS Systems International fuel cell passive sensor (see Fig. 13 #6)
capabilities in a car. All of the same materials used in Phase 1(a) were included in the
car experiment; however, the setup needed to be adapted to a real-life system. Some
aspects remained the same; for example, the Fluke 175 TRUE RMS multi-meter was
still directly connected to the passive sensor reading the output voltage.
The team decided that the car experiment would imitate an intoxicated driver
on the passenger side of the car. Three participants were required to conduct the
experiment in the car; one in the drivers seat to watch the multi-meter and two in the
back seat, one serving as recorder and time keeper and the other as a blower to
breathe into the Guth model 34C breath simulator (see Fig. 13 #2). The breath
simulator was filled with the same 500mL of alcohol solution as in Phase 1(a) (see
Fig. 13 #10). In order to reproduce the realistic set-up in a car, new materials were
needed. The new materials included a sensor stand (see Fig. 13 #8), breath simulator
holder (#5), restraints (#9), and Xantrex micro inverter 400. The Xantrex inverter was
used to provide power to the breath simulator, which required 75W.
The sensor stand, shown in Figure 4 below, was necessary to hold the passive
sensor in the proper position. The teams idea was to construct a stand in which the
sensor would be positioned as if it was placed on the steering wheel on the drivers
side. It was placed on the floor in front of the passenger seat with the sensor facing
towards the passenger seat. The stand was 28 inches high, which was determined to
be a comparable height of the steering wheel from the floor.
178
Figure 9: Sensor Stand with Sensor and Multi-meter

The breath simulator needed to be positioned at the proper head level in the
passenger seat to simulate an intoxicated driver's body position. We designed a holder
to grip the simulator in the proper head position. Figure 5, provided below, shows the
basic construction of the holder with the breath simulator sitting inside a PVC tube
that rests on top of a metal stand. Restraints were used to clasp the holder securely so
that one restraint was used across the lap of the seat and another was used around the
back of the seat. The breath simulator was held securely at the top of the passenger
seat with the outlet tube of the simulator facing forward (see Fig. 13 #4, #9). The inlet
mouthpiece was accessible to the blower in the back seat (see Fig. 13 #3). In addition,
we positioned the passenger seat to the most upright angle. The average distance from
179
a drivers mouth to the steering wheel is approximately 21 inches; therefore, the

passenger seat is positioned so the outlet tube of the breath simulator is 21 inches
from the sensor.
Figure 10: Breath Simulator Holder in with Multi-meter and Up Close with
Breath Simulator
The breath simulator requires a power source in order to heat the alcohol
solution to the proper temperature. To use the breath simulator in the car, an inverter
was used so the breath simulator could draw the necessary power from the car itself.
Two cars, a sedan style automobile and a sports utility vehicle, were used to conduct
the experiments. Even though these two cars are very different styles, the same basic
setup was used in both cars. Our procedure was as follows:
1.
Blower provides a constant breath into the simulator for 15 seconds while
recorder writes down voltage levels in 5 second intervals
2.
Driver clears the air out of the vehicle by driving for at least two minutes
with windows down and turning vehicle's fans on high
180
3.
Driver raises windows up completely and turns off fan system
4.
Wait for sensor voltage to fall to 0mV
5.
Repeat steps 1 - 4 for each trial

Phase 1(b) trials displayed minimal increases in voltage which were below 0.1
mV. We were unable to detect these voltage changes with the initial experimental
setup.
PHASE 2: Circuit Amplification

After the problems encountered during Phase 1(b), the experiment was
rethought and the experimental setup was redesigned. This new experimental stage,
Phase 2(a) called to amplify the voltage output from the sensor so that the multi-meter
could read smaller amounts of alcohol in the car.
Below is a diagram of the new circuit (see Fig. 11) in which a basic
amplifying system was added. An amplifier requiring a 15-volt power source was
used. To provide the necessary power for the amplifier a 12-volt battery power supply
was used in conjunction with a power converter in the circuit to create the required 15
volts (see Fig. 12). Also, a 10-ohm resistor and 1-kohm resistor were used in the
system thereby increasing the output voltage of the sensor by 100 times. The
reconstructed stand is shown in Figure 12.
181
Figure 11: Amplification Circuit
Breadboard holding
Amplifying Circuitry
Power Converter
Figure 12: Reconstructed Sensor Stand with Power Converter and Amplifying
Circuitry
The same experimental setup was used as in Phase 1(a) with the breath
simulator positioned approximately 21 inches away from the sensor. Preliminary
182
sensitivity tests were conducted to see how the sensor reacted in the new amplifying
system before the experiment was taken in to the field scenario.
Upon adding the operational amplifier to the experimental setup, we needed to
account for a voltage offset generated during trials. Therefore, we determined a base
voltage to be the maximum allowable level before a trial could begin. This base
voltage served as a reference point for a set of trials, and was chosen after turning on
the operational amplifier in an alcohol-free environment. An instantaneous jump in
voltage was observed by turning on the amplifier which then decreased rapidly until
reaching a relatively low level around 5 40 mV. This low level was chosen as the
base voltage. Using this new setup for in-lab trials, our procedure was:
1.
Determine the base voltage after observing the instantaneous jump and rapid
decline in voltage after turning on the operational amplifier
2.
Blower provides a constant breath into the simulator for 15 seconds
3.
Participants wait for voltage level to reach or fall below the base voltage
4.
Repeat steps 2-3 for each trial
Phase 2(b): In-vehicle Trials

After completing the lab tests of the amplified system, the system next moved
back into the real-life scenario, Phase 2(b). The same setup and materials as before
were used, and the placement of all the materials was the same as in Phase 1(b).
However, some modifications were necessary in order to incorporate the new
amplifying system. A diagram is provided below illustrating the basic setup (see Fig.
13).
183
2
6
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
10
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
7
5
8
12
12.
12 Volt DC Power Supply Battery

Guth Model 34C Breath Simulator
Breath Simulator Inlet Mouthpiece
Breath Simulator Outlet Tube
Breath Simulator Holder
PAS Systems International
Passive Sensor
Breadboard holding Amplification
Circuitry
Sensor Stand
Restraints
500mL Alcohol Solution
Steel in Car used to ground
Circuitry
12V to 15V Voltage Converter
1
9
11
Figure 13: Phase 2(b) in Car Setup with Amplifying Circuitry

The sensor stand was modified, adding a breadboard (see Fig. 13 #7) to hold
the circuitry of the amplifying circuit. In addition, a 12 volt DC power supply battery
was used to provide the required power for the amplifier, and the battery was placed
on the floor in front of the passenger seat (see Fig. 13 #1). In order to provide the
required 15 voltages to the amplifier in the car a power converter (see Fig. 13 #12)
was added to the sensor stand. The power converter takes the power from the battery
and regulates it properly over the amplifier. An important key to the setup was
grounding the circuit properly. The circuit was grounded to any exposed metal in the
car for which the usual place was the steel found under the passenger seat (see Fig. 13
#11).
For these in-vehicle trials, we used the follow procedures:
1.
Determine the base voltage after observing the instantaneous jump and rapid
decline in voltage after turning on the operational amplifier
2.
Recorder writes down base voltage
184
3.
Blower provides a constant breath into the simulator for 15 seconds while
recorder writes down voltage levels in 5 second intervals for 60 seconds
4.
Driver clears the air out of the vehicle by turning the vehicle's fans on high
with windows down
5.
Participants wait for voltage level to approach the base voltage
6.
Driver raises windows up completely and turns off vehicle's fan system
7.
8.

Figure 14 gives the results of 20 trials for the Phase 2(b) experimental setup.
Recall that this setup included an operational amplifier and directed air samples of
0.08 alcohol concentration. Of all 20 trials, 15 displayed immediate increases in
voltage and peaks within 60 seconds. The peaks of these 15 trials were at least twice
the voltage of the base voltage we chose for testing (25mV). The highest increase in
voltage was six times the initial base voltage. Five of the trials resulted in small
increases and one overall decrease in voltage. Similar trials using undirected air
samples resulted in no voltage changes.
185
Fig. 14: Phase 2(b) Trials - Using directed air samples with .08 alcohol concentration,
the amplified signal of the sensor revealed a significant increase in voltage and peak
within 60 seconds. In this figure, each trial is represented by a different color line.
After attempting the baseline model during Phase 2(b) it became evident that
our original design was overly ambitious. Our difficulties in finding success for the
baseline tests ruled out the possibilities of proceeding to the advanced design model
or considering any of the numerous combinations of the design parameters. However,
instead of immediately ruling our efforts as a failure we redesigned the experimental
setup once more with the addition of an air pump. The purpose of the air pump was to
increase the response time and clear time to the minimal goal levels as well as
potentially increase the sensitivity by greatly increasing the amount of alcohol vapor
passing through the sensor.
186
PHASE 3: Air Pump

Phase 3(a) involved the addition of a fan mechanism to the sensor that acted
as an air pump to draw air into the sensor. This portion of the testing conducted in the
laboratory to investigate the effects of the added fan with and without the presence of
alcohol vapor. The air pump mechanism was constructed out of 1 foot of flexible
plastic tubing attached to an 8-in section ridged PVC pipe. A small computer fan was
added to the exposed end of the PVC pipe to draw air through the tube from the open
end of the construction to the fan end. A slit cut 4 inches from the open end of the
structure held half of the passive sensor inside of the tube (see Fig. 15). The inserted
half contained the inlet hole for the sensor while the outlet hole remained exposed to
the outside of the contraption. Two 9-V batteries powered the fan. Plastic wire
directed the breath simulator either towards the sensor or in an indirect fashion.
Besides the addition of the fan mechanism all other portions of the experiment
remained the same as in Phase 2(a).
Phase 3(a) trials required an operator and a blower to carry out the following
procedure:
1.
Determine the base voltage (see Phase 2(a) Step 1)
2.
Simultaneously, the operator initiates the air pump and blower provides a
constant breath into the simulator for 15 seconds
3.
Participants wait for voltage increase to peak and begin decreasing
4.
Operator cuts power to the air pump
5.
Wait for voltage to fall below the base voltage
187
6.
Figure 14: Diagram of the Air Pump Mechanism Used in Phases 3(a), (b), and (c)
Phase 3(b): Absolute Control Trials
Phase 3(b) was conducted in an open field away from any anthropogenic
interference to determine if the added fan mechanism had an effect on the sensor
without the presence of alcohol. We used a setup similar to that of Phase 3(a) except
that the environment was a field and the breath simulator was not used. The air pump
mechanism with the sensor inside was positioned in the field and attached to the
amplified circuit.
Only two team members were required to conduct the absolute control trials
outdoors away from any air contaminants. One member operated the air pump while
the other records voltage levels. The team used the following procedure:
188
1.
2.
Recorder writes down initial voltage
3.
Operator initiates the air pump
4.
Participants wait for voltage increase to peak and begin decreasing
5.
Recorder notes the peak level and the time to peak
6.
Operator cuts power to the air pump
7.
Wait for voltage to fall below the base voltage
8.

Each control trial resulted in a voltage increase which would peak near 60
seconds. A maximum base voltage of 20mV was required to begin a trial, and peak
voltages ranged from 36 to 70mV. (see Fig. 16) Over the period of conducting
experiments, we saw a decrease in peak voltage levels, yet the smallest peak voltage
is still 36mV from an initial base voltage of 7.9mV.
189
Fig. 16: Phase 3 - Even in an alcohol and pollutant free environment, the motion of
air due to the external air pump causes the sensor's voltage to increase rapidly.
Phase 3(c): In-vehicle Trials
Phase 3(c) took the setup from Phase 3(a) and moved it into the test vehicles
to perform the experiment in a field setting. The air pump mechanism lay upon the
dashboard so that the inlet side faced the passenger seat. The sensor connected to the
circuit board, resting on the old sensor stand. The breath simulator outlet tube pointed
downward at a 45 angle in order to produce an indirect breath sample. The rest of the
experiment setup remained the same as in Phase 2(b). Figures 17 and 18 show the
experiment set up in a vehicle.
190
Figure 15: Air Pump Mechanism

1
4
1. Breath simulator
2
2. Sensor stand
w/amplification
circuitry
3. Multimeter
4. Fan inlet
Figure 16: Phase 3(c) Setup
191
Control Trials
Performing experiments inside of a vehicle with the Phase 3 setup required the
driver to take an additional task of powering the air pump. For the in-vehicle control
trials we performed the following steps:
1.
2.
3.
Driver initiates the air pump
4.
Recorder writes down voltage levels in 5 second intervals for at least 300
seconds
5.
Driver turns off the air pump
6.
7.
Repeat steps 2-6 for each trials
Experimental Trials
For the in-vehicle trials using alcohol-based breath samples, our procedure
sought a best possible scenario for a breath sample from 21 inches away. The breath
simulator was directed toward the mouth of the external air pump, and we initiated
the air pump and breath sample simultaneously. Though this was not a realistic
environment for the passive application, it provided a threshold that the setup must
pass in order for any chance of feasibility. We conducted these experiments as
follows:
1.
2.
192
3.
Simultaneously with Step 2, driver turns on air pump and blower provides a
constant breath into the simulator for 15 seconds while recorder writes down
voltage levels in 5 second intervals for at least 300 seconds
4.
Driver turns off air pump
5.
Driver clears the air out of the vehicle by turning the vehicle's fans on high
with windows down
6.
Participants wait for voltage level to approach the base voltage
7.
Driver raises windows up completely and turns off vehicle's fan system
8.
9.
Repeat steps 2-8 for each trial.

Results from in-vehicle control trials showed increases in voltage higher than
the absolute control trials. We conducted four experiments in an Isuzu Rodeo SUV
and an Infinity sedan. In the sedan, the sensor had an immediate voltage increase
followed by a slow decline. This increase halted at approximately 60 seconds, and the
peak voltage was more than double the base voltage chosen to begin the trials. This
decline continued past 9 minutes and fell below the initial base voltage.
In the SUV, the sensor's voltage increased consistently over an 8 minute
period, after which we halted recording. By the end of the 8 minute period, the
voltages had increased to over three times the initial base level of 40mV. (see Fig. 19)
Qualitative experimentation revealed that the passive alcohol sensor's voltage was
increasing not only due to the air movement from the external pump, but also from
combusting gases in the vehicle. Additional qualitative testing revealed that the fuel
cell was also sensitive to smoke.
193
Figure 17: In-vehicle control trials within the cabin of vehicles showed large
increases in voltage. Depending on the testing vehicle, these increases ranged
from 45 seconds to over 8 minutes.
We performed Phase 3(c) experiments using directed air samples of 0.04 and
0.08 alcohol breath concentrations. For both alcohol concentrations, the sensor
voltage increased to more than double the initial base voltage (50mV). Most voltage
increases were not larger than those in the in-vehicle control trials.
Considering the trials using the 0.04 alcohol air sample, there is a varying rate
of voltage increase over the first 60 seconds. One trial reached a voltage of 106mV at
the end of the first minute. However, after the initial increase, the voltages appear to
converge to approximately 105mV. (see Fig. 20)
194
Figure 18: Using 0.04 alcohol concentrated air samples, we recorded voltage
increase similar to some of the in-vehicle control trials.
Considering the trials using the 0.08 alcohol air sample, the rate of increase is
similar for all trials. There is a severe decrease in voltage at the beginning of the
trials, followed by a steep increase which reaches our base voltage within the first 100
seconds. The trials all consistently increase to double the base voltage within the first
200 seconds, and three times the base voltage within the first 400 seconds. (see Fig.
21) These higher voltages levels are still not larger than some of the in-vehicle
control trials. There are virtually no distinct differences between the in-vehicle
control trials and the alcohol based trials.
195
Figure 19: Using 0.08 alcohol concentrated air samples, we recorded voltage
increases which were indistinguishable from the in-vehicle control trials.
196
Analysis and Conclusions

Results from the trials were inconsistent across experimental phases. We
anticipated some inconsistency to the extent that different experimental setups should
produce different results. The initial unresponsiveness of the sensor led to
experimental redesigns to amplify the sensors voltage output and force equivalent
amounts alcohol across the sensor at a faster rate. These design modifications did not
help to detect alcohol but instead caused the sensor to produce a voltage when alcohol
was not present. Yet, even with the differences in performance of the sensor in the
presence and absence of voltage amplification, one characteristic of the sensor
persisted throughout all of the phases:
There was no consistent and detectable difference in the sensors reaction in the
control trials and the experimental trials.
The passive alcohol sensor was not able to reliably isolate and react to the
presence of alcohol in any of our experimental setups. The first experimental design
consisted of only the passive sensor set up twenty-one inches away from the
breathing apparatus. Early control tests went as expected with no voltage recorded on
the voltmeter in lab and car trials. We then conducted several tests with a 0.08
solution in a vehicle, but the results were unexpected. When we used directed breath
samples of 0.08 breath alcohol content, the sensor failed to produce a voltage of
0.01mV in one minute. Because the sensor did not perform satisfactorily in any
category relevant to our experiment, we altered the experimental setup to include a
197
voltage amplifier. Our hypothesis was that the sensor was producing voltage changes
below 0.01mV in the presence of alcohol that were going undetected by the
multimeter. Voltage amplification would magnify these minute changes several times
over, thus enabling the multimeter to detect them.
Control trials with the new setup went as expected. The sensor produced no
voltage in the absence of an alcohol solution, but trials with an alcohol solution again
met problems. At first, these trials seemed to be successful with a voltage registering
on the multimeter. However, the sensor under amplification produced erratic voltages.
The voltage readouts in the presence of alcohol seemed to follow a pattern, but the
amount of voltage the sensor produced did not seem to be at all related to the amount
of alcohol in each breath sample, which remained constant.
We decided that the operational amplifier was causing a noisy voltage
reading on the multimeter. Magnifying the voltage output of the sensor allowed us to
observe many other minute voltage responses from the sensor that were unrelated to
the alcohol content of the breath sample. The sensor thus produced inconsistent
voltage increases in the presence of alcohol. Voltage amplification also prevents the
sensor from settling at a base voltage. We encountered further difficulties in testing
because it took up to five minutes for the sensor to clear itself of alcohol. We also
found this troubling because the design specifications reported the clearing time to be
no more than ninety seconds.
Taking these new complications into account, we reasoned that the sensor
could produce a consistently large voltage increase in a given interval, if more of the
alcoholic air moved across its fuel cell. Rapidly moving air across the sensor would
198
cause more alcohol molecules to accumulate on the sensor at once which would in
turn cause greater peaks in voltage. Moving more air directly across the sensor would
solve the clearing problem by forcing clean air into the intake and accelerating the
burning off process for the alcohol. With these ideas in mind, we again altered our
experimental setup.
The third setup consisted of an air pump to force air into the sensor in addition
to the previous amplification. Laboratory trials introduced new challenges. In this
setup, a control solution of plain water would now produce a voltage. Further trials
with .08 and .04 solutions produced the same inconsistent results. The sensor would
not settle at a base voltage, and in addition the presence of alcohol did not seem to
produce significantly different results from plain air moving over the sensor. Car trials
had a tendency to higher voltages but alcohol solutions seemed to have no significant
affect beyond that of the control solution or the ambient air. Our best hypothesis for
this result was that the fan modification caused the sensor to react to the presence of
non-alcoholic particles like combustible gasoline and automobile exhaust fumes.
Additional qualitative testing revealed that the fuel cell was also sensitive to smoke.
The addition of the air pump seemed to magnify the sensors reaction to these and
possibly other particles in ambient air.
These results suggest that the use of a passive sensor so far out of its designed
operating parameters is not feasible. In order for passive alcohol sensors to eliminate
the need for the rolling retest, the sensor would have to be able to respond quickly,
consistently, and discernibly in the presence of alcohol in an automobile cabin. The
passive alcohol sensor fails to meet these qualifications for three reasons:
199
1) Alone, the sensor is not sensitive enough to detect the necessary

concentrations of alcohol within a reasonable amount of time to prevent impaired
drivers from endangering others.
2) Amplified, the sensor fails to settle to a base voltage or register consistent
voltage changes.
3) With the air flow modification, the sensor loses its alcohol detection
specificity and produces a voltage even in the absence of alcohol.
200
Limitations of the Study

Our experiment suffered from a few key limitations in our testing equipment.
First we did not have access to extremely sensitive voltage reading equipment. The
voltmeter function on the multimeters we used was unable to detect voltages below
0.1mV. Had we been able to detect smaller voltages, we would have had no need for
the operational amplifier that became so troublesome in our experiment. There is also
the possibility that having a more sensitive voltmeter would have merely given us
voltage readings like the ones observed while the amplifier was connected. Noisy
and inconsistent readings from a sensitive voltmeter would be as useful as the noisy
and inconsistent amplified readings for our purposes. Perhaps, if nothing else, a more
sensitive voltmeter would have saved the team time spent on the operational amplifier
addition to our setup. Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing whether a sensitive
voltmeter would have helped us in any other way as we were never able to locate one.
A major limitation (and impetus for change in our experimental setup) was the
passive sensor we used. The problem we experienced was that the sensor was not
sensitive enough. Our program budget eliminated our ability to purchase top-of-theline passive alcohol sensors. It is possible that a different sensor would have allowed
the experiment to be successful at the Phase 1. In considering our experimental
difficulties, we considered this possibility and decided it was less likely. We thought
of the passive alcohol sensors on the market as fairly homogenous for our purposes.
We did rely on more than one brand of sensor to conduct our experiments in an effort
to control for any design flaws in any one sensor.
201
For a brief period in our experimenting, we attempted to collect data using a

computer program called Labview. This program, had it been sensitive enough to
detect the voltage changes occurring in the amplified circuit, would have given us the
ability to collect a lot more data in the same number of trials. Labview is capable of
reading and recording voltages at much smaller time intervals then can a human. Had
we been able to use this program to our convenience we would have had many more
data points to analyze. It is reasonable to speculate that a different trend in the voltage
produced by the sensor would have emerged.
In addition to these equipment limitations, we were limited in the environment in
which we conducted the experiments. We had access to a laboratory and two
automobiles in which the environments were not very controlled. The laboratory we
used was not intended to be an air-flow chamber. It had become a warehouse for old
dissertation projects and engineering equipment. The automobiles used in this
experiment were used regularly for transportation by their owners during the course
of the experiment. Any number of contaminants could have affected the performance
of the passive sensor in these two environments. The other position on the cleanliness
and control of our test environments is that it adds an element of realism to our
experimentation. Both of these points are valid and worthy of consideration.
202
Recommendations
Over the past 20 years, ignition interlocks have used alcohol sensors to
determine a driver's BAC. While fuel cell sensors have improved accuracy over
semiconductors, there has been little advancement in portable detection methods.
Inconveniences such as the time it takes to start the vehicle, costs, monthly
calibration, and rolling retests make the device less attractive to users and judges.
Ignition interlock technology significantly inhibits adoption by our society, and if a
major improvement in detection is achieved, these devices may be able to gain
widespread usage.
Passive Alcohol Sensors

Our team concludes that commercial passive alcohol sensors are not capable
of providing the sensitivity necessary to detect trace amounts of alcohol in a vehicle.
They simply are not designed for long distance detection. However, we believe it may
be possible to design a new fuel cell sensitive enough to meet the high level of
sensitivity needed for a passive device. For researchers interested in pursuing this
avenue, we recommend avoiding all commercial sensors currently used in portable
alcohol detection systems.
If one is to design a passive sensor specifically for use in tandem with an
interlock, we would recommend the following:
Provide the sensor with a consistent sample of air from the area around the
driver
The sensor must be able to tolerate a steady stream of air without significant
noise
203
The sensor must remain alcohol specific with considerable amplification
The time to detection must be below 60 seconds
Advanced Research Programs

In 2001, the NIAAA announced a Request for Proposals for the development
of an alcohol biosensor capable of continuously measuring blood alcohol levels. In
the request, the NIAAA discussed current technologies and their deficiencies. Some
of the technologies described were: self-reporting, breath sensors, and transdermal
(skin) sensors. According to the request, the proposed research program is aimed at
the development of an innovative alcohol biosensor providing a revolutionary
advance in the ability to obtain valid and reliable dynamic information on the
circumstances related to an individuals consumption of alcohol in daily life. . . The
anticipated result of this program is the capability to gather and analyze data at the
required resolution and finesse for a great variety of experimental and analytic studies
of alcohol-related phenomena, such as sensitization, acute tolerance, chronic
tolerance, dependence, withdrawal, craving, and relapse (NIAAA Advanced
2004).
Requirements for the sensor included:
Links between an alcohol-sensing device and a data-sensing system so that large

quantities of data could be analyzed quickly
Devices comfortably wearable by the users (or animals) monitored
Measurements of BAC at least every 1 to 5 minutes
Detections of alcohol within a broad range of 5 to 500 milligrams per deciliter

so that the social drinker as well as the binge drinker can be monitored
204
Devices designed to be tamper-proof and accurate through all normal physical

activity
The program awarded 2-year contracts in the fall of 2002. Contracts were
granted to Indiana and Duke Universities, and three awards were made to Brown
University, SpectRx, and Science and Engineering Systems Incorporated (SESI).
Each institution is working on a different potential technology. Some technologies
currently being assessed include implantable biosensors and minimally invasive
lasers to determine an individuals BAC (NIAAA Minutes 2003).
We believe that programs such as the Advanced Alcohol Research Program at
NIAAA will be able significantly improve upon the inconveniences associated with
currently alcohol detection methods. Therefore, we recommend that the NIAAA and
other government programs pursuing alcohol detection research do the following:
Increase funding for the Advanced Research Program biosensor project or for
comparable programs. Since the NIAAA funds about 90% of all alcohol-related
research in the United States, it is pivotal for this organization to lead
technological research.
Continually look for ways to make current ignition interlock technology less
intrusive. NHTSA will need to lead the standardization of novel technologies by
creating new regulations for ignition interlocks. Though most ideas will not lead
to national implementation, general participation among DUI and DWI
offenders will help to decrease alcohol-related accidents. Recall that only 10%
of DUI offenders have the device installed in their vehicles (Beirness, 2005).
205
Work with insurance companies to determine potential benefits once a

technology has been developed that could make ignition interlocks a widely
used device by non-offenders.
206
Thesis Conclusions
Ignition interlock technology has progressed much in the past thirty years, but
many strides have yet to be made. This technology has the potential to save many
more lives and it only needs to be applied in many more vehicles. Informed people
are gathering around this issue and adding knowledge to this field of research.
Passionate advocates of impaired driver prevention have rallied behind governmental
attempts to employ this technology for public safety. In summer 2005, New Mexico
began to mandate that all first time DUI offenders have ignition interlocks installed in
their cars (El Nasser, 2005). Many considered this a bold move, but New Mexico was
not even the first state to enact such legislation. In fact, Washington State mandates
first time offenders with BACs of over 0.15 use the interlock. Forty-four states and
the District of Columbia now have interlock legislation. There are an estimated
80,000 interlock devices in use in the United States and that number is expected to
more than double in the next 5 years.
Amidst this growth, however, there will be challenges to technological growth
and programmatic improvement. The challenges that face impaired driver detection
and prevention are three-fold. There must be a concerted effort on the part of law
makers, members of the academic community, and practitioners alike to:
1) improve information sharing networks between case managers and data
collectors
2) build trust in interlock technology and programs
3) spur technological developments
207
Whatever strides are made in any of these arenas be it technological or administrative,

it is important that it be complementary to another aspect of interlock.
An example of a complementary advance is a situation where more sensitive
devices and better information sharing allow more detailed and contemporaneous
information to be sent to a case manager. The case managers will thusly be able to
respond to their clients with quicker and more certain penalties for infractions. The
improvement of case management ability would lead to a greater capacity to handle
clients. If this improvement in efficiency were recognized by lawmakers, impaired
driver prevention would ascend on the legislative agenda. Government interest in the
breath alcohol analysis could then lead to greater investment in the technology.
Eventually, public acceptance may be such that the ignition interlock is used
to the same degree as the seatbelt and the airbag. The environment from which these
two technologies arose is not all that different from what exists now with the ignition
interlock. In order for society to accept the interlock in the same vein as these other
life-saving devices, all agencies in the drink-driving prevention field must continue to
work tirelessly in their efforts to advance the ignition interlock.
208
Bibliography
(2001). The Modular EEG [Online]. Available: http://openeeg.sourceforge.net/doc/
modeeg/modeeg.html [2003, September 13].
(2003). Move to .08 in state laws affords treatment opportunities. Alcoholism and
Drug Abuse Weekly, 15(49), 1-5.
(2005, December 22). Ignition Interlock [Online]. Available: http://www.padui.org/
ignition.htm [2005, April 4].
Allo, B. (2000). Ignition Interlocks in Sweden. Alkolas Skandinavien AB. Available:
http://www.icadts.org/proceedings/2000/icadts2000-176.pdf.
Baker, D (2005, April 6). Governor Signs Interlock Bill. The Associated Press State
& Local Wire, pp. State and Regional.
Bannan, K. J. (2000, June 15). Device Helps Keep D.W.I. Offenders and Others Safe.
The New York Times, pp. G14.
Beck, K. H., Rauch, W. J., Baker, E. A., & Williams, A. F. (1999). Effects of Ignition
Interlock License Restrictions on Drivers With Multiple Alcohol Offenses: A
Randomized Trial in Maryland. American Journal of Public Health, 89(11), 16961700.
Beirness, D. (2001, April 1). Best Practices for the Ignition Interlock [Online].
Available: http://www.trafficinjuryresearch.com/publications/PDF_publications/
BestPracticesReport.pdf [2003, October 8].
Beirness, D.J., & Marques, P.R. (2003). The Impact of Mandatory Versus Voluntary
Participation in the Alberta Ignition Interlock Program. ArticleFirst, 3, 195-198.
Beirness, D.J., & Robertson, R.D. (2005). Alcohol Interlock Programs: Enhancing
Acceptance, Participation, and Compliance. Ottawa, Ontario: Traffic Injury Research
Foundation.
Bjerre, B. (2003). An Evaluation of the Swedish Ignition Interlock Program. Traffic
Injury Prevention, 2003; 4:98-104.
Bjerre, B., & Laurell, H. (2000). The Swedish Alcohol Ignition Interlock Programme.
Traffic Medicine Advisory Board, Swedish National Administration. Available:
http://www.icadts.org/proceedings/2000/icadts2000-178.pdf.
Bjerre, B., Heed, B., & Kers, S. (2004). Is it Time to Introduce Ignition Interlock
Programmes for Patients with Alcohol Problems Before They Drink-drive? Traffic
Medicine Advisory Board, Swedish National Administration.
209
Brandt, T. (1991). Man in Motion Historical and Clinical Aspects of Vestibular

Function A Review. Brain, 114, 2159-2174.
Brookhuis, K. A., & De Waard, D. (1993). The use of psychophysiology to assess
driver status. Ergonomics, 36, 1099-1110.
California Department of Motor Vehicles, , Licensing Operations Division, Research
and Development.. (2004). An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Ignition Interlock in
California (ed.). Sacramento, CA: California Department of Motor Vehicles,
Licensing Operations Division.
California Department of Motor Vehicles, Licensing Operations Division, Research
and Development.. (2002). An Evaluation of the Implementation of Ignition Interlock
in California (ed.). Sacramento, CA: California Department of Motor Vehicles,
Licensing Operations Division.
California, Department of Motor Vehicles, Licensing Operations Division, Research
and Development. (1999). Evaluating the Efficacy of Ignition Interlock in California
(ed.). Sacramento, CA: California, Department of Motor Vehicles, Licensing
Operations Division.
Clayton, A. & Beirness, D. Sixth Annual Ignition Interlock Symposium (2005).
Annecy, France: TIRF.
Coben, J. H., & Larkin, G. L. (1999). Effectiveness of Ignition Interlock Devices in
Reducing Drunk Driving Recidivism. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 16,
81-87.
Cohen, H. L., Porjesz, B., & Chorlian, D. B. (1995). Measuring Electrical Activity of
the Brain: ERP Mapping in Alcohol Research. Alcohol Health & Research World,
19(4), 315-320.
Constable, A (2000, October 8). Advocates: Ignition Interlocks Reducing DWIs.
Santa Fe New Mexican, pp. B-5.
Coxon, C. (2004). Fifth Annual Ignition Interlock Symposium. Phoenix, Arizona:
Traffic Injury Research Foundation.
Creative Control Concept. (2000, August 3). Hal-4 Brain Wave Analyzer [Online].
Available: http://www.cc-concepts.com/products/hal4/ [2003, September 29].
DeYoung, D.J. (2002). An Evaluation of the Implementation of Ignition Interlock in
California. Sacramento, CA: Department of Motor Vehicles, Licensing Operations
Division, Research and Development.
DeYoung, D.J., Masten, S.V., & Tashima, H.N. (2004). An Evaluation of the
Effectiveness of Ignition Interlock in California. Sacramento, CA: Department of
Motor Vehicles, Licensing Operations Division, Research and Development.
210
Dingus, T. A., Lenora Hardee, H., & Wierwille, W. W. (1987). Development of

models for on-board detection of driver impairment. Accid Anal. Prev., 19, 271-283.
Eckhardt, MJ, File, SE, Gessa, GL, Grant, KA, Guerri, C, Hoffman, PL, Kalant, H,
Koob, GF, Li, TK, & Tabakoff, B (1998). Effects of moderate alcohol consumption
on the central nervous system. Alcoholism-Clinical and Experimental Research, 22,
998-1040.
Eisenberg, D (2003). Evaluating the Effectiveness of Policies Related to Drunk
Driving. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 22(2), 249-274.
El Nasser, H (2005, June 24). States turn on to idea of ignition locks. USA TODAY,
pp. 3A.
El Nasser, H. (2005, June 23). States turn on to idea of ignition interlocks. USA
Today, Nation. [online] Available: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-0623-drunk-driving_x.htm [2006, March 1].
Fiorentino, D. (1997). A laboratory study of passive alcohol sensors. Proceedings of
the 14th International Conference on Alcohol, Drugs, and Traffic Safety (ed. MercierGuyon, C.), 539-545. Annecy, France: Centre dEtudes et de Recherches en Mdecine
du Trafic (CERMT).
Frank, J. (2004). Fifth Annual Ignition Interlock Symposium. Phoenix, Arizona:
Freudenrich, C.C.. (0, 0). How Breathalyzers Work [Online]. Available:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/breathalyzer.htm/printable [2003, October 21].
Fry Communications, Inc. (2004). The Pennsylvania Code. Available:
http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/067/chapter88/s88.2.html.
Fulkerson, J. (2003). Blow and Go: The Breath-Analyzed Ignition Interlock Device as
a Technological Response to DWI. American Journal of Drug & Alcohol Abuse,
29(1), 219-236.
Gallant, L. (2004). Fifth Annual Ignition Interlock Symposium. Phoenix, Arizona:
Grammer, G (2004, February 18). Records Show Success of Ignition Interlocks.
Santa Fe New Mexican, pp. A-8.
Greenberg, M. D. (2005). Behavioral controls may prevent drunk driving in high-risk
sample. The Brown University Digest of Addiction Theory & Application (DATA),
24(1), 2-3.
211
Groezinger, J. (2004). Fifth Annual Ignition Interlock Symposium. Phoenix, Arizona:

Gustafson, R (1986). Effects of small doses of alcohol on simple visual reaction time.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 62, 951-955.
Hardcore Drunk Driving Judicial Guide: A Resource Outlining Judicial Challenges,
Effective Strategies, and Model Programs. National Association of State Judicial
Educators and The Century Council.
Hawkins, A. (2003). Ignition Interlock System Order Must Come From Trial Court.
The Legal Intelligencer, 229, 1.
Kavanaugh, D (2005, June 13). Interlock List Ignites Furor. Albuquerque Journal, pp.
1.
Kavanaugh, D. (2005, June 13). Interlock List Ignites Furor. Albuquerque Journal,
pg. 1.
Lestina, D. C., & Lund, A. K. (1992). Laboratory Evaluation of Two Passive Alcohol
Sensors. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 53(4), 324-328.
Lukas, S. E., Mendelson, J. H., Benedikt, R. A., & Jones, B. (1986). EEG Alpha
Activity Increases During Transient Episodes of Ethanol-Induced Euphoria.
Pharmacology Biochemistry & Behavior, 25, 889-895.
Lukas, S. E., Mendelson, J. H., Woods, B. T., Mello, N. K., & Teoh, S. K. (1989).
Topographic Distribution of EEG Alpha Activity during Ethanol-Induced Intoxication
in Women. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 50(2), 176-185.
Marcotte, P. M. (1987). On Drunk Drivers: California program tests ignition-locking
devices on cars. American Bar Association Journal, 73(21).
Marowitz, L. (1999). Evaluating the Efficacy of Ignition Interlock in California.
Sacramento, CA: Department of Motor Vehicles, Licensing Operations Division,
Research and Development.
Marques, P, Voas, R, & Timken, D. (2004). Preliminary Outcomes from a Texas
Manual-Based Group Motivational Intervention Supplement For Court-Stipulated
Interlock DUI Offenders. Calverton, MD: Pacific Institute for Research and
Evaluation.
Marques, P. & Voas, R. Sixth Annual Ignition Interlock Symposium (2005). Annecy,
France: TIRF.
Marques, P. R., Voas, R. B., Tippetts, A. S., & Beirness, D. J. (1999). Behavioral
monitoring of DUI offenders with the Alcohol Ignition Interlock Recorder. Addiction,
212
94(12), 1861 - 1870.

Marques, P.R., Roth, R., & Voas, R.B. (2005). The Barriers to Interlock Effectiveness.
Charlotte, NC: 2005 Lifesavers Conference.
Maryland General Assembly (2005). House Bill 732 - Vehicle Laws - Drunk Driving Second or Subsequent Offense Mandatory Ignition Interlock 2005. Available:
http://mlis.state.md.us/2005rs/bills/hb/hb0732f.pdf.
Maryland General Assembly (2005). House Bill 815 - Vehicle Laws - Drunk Driving High Alcohol Concentration - Mandatory Ignition Interlock 2005. Available:
http://mlis.state.md.us/2005rs/bills/hb/hb0815f.pdf.
Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration (2004). Maryland Ignition Interlock
Program On-Site Inspection. Provided by Jane Valenzia, Manager Ignition Interlock
Program (2004).
Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration (2004). Maryland Vehicle Law 27-107
(1989). Provided by Jane Valenzia, Manager Ignition Interlock Program.
Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration (2004). Service Provider Participation
Agreement. Provided by Jane Valenzia, Manager Ignition Interlock Program.
Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration (2004). Title 11: Department of
Transportation: MVA: Vehicle Equipment (1989). Provided by Jane Valenzia,
Manager Ignition Interlock Program.
Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration, . (2005, February 22). Medical Advisory
Board Referral [Online]. Available: http://mva.state.md.us/AboutMVA/INFO/2620003T.htm [2005, November 19].
Massey, B. (1999, March 19). Johnson approves local firework bans, DWI ignition
locks. Associated Press: Albuquerque Tribune (New Mexico). p. A4.
Massey, B. (2004, September 29). Governor to Propose Expanding Ignition
Interlocks. The Associated Press State & Local Wire, p. State and Regional.
Massey, B. (2005, March 3). House approves ignition interlocks for first-time DWI
offenders. Associated Press, p. A1.
Miller, N. S., & Gold, M. S. (1991). Drugs of Abuse, Vol. 2: Alcohol. New York:
Plenum Medical Book Company.
Monitoring the Future of Maryland: A Survey of Highway Safety Issues (2005).
Department of Public and Community Health, University of Maryland. Provided by
Dr. Kenneth Beck.
213
Morgan, M. L., Witte, E. A., Cook, I. A., Leuchter, A. F., Abrams, M., & Siegman, B.
(2005). Influence of Age, Gender, Health Status, and Depression on Quantitative
EEG. Neuropsychobiology, 52, 71-76.
Morris, J (1995, September 26). In-Car Test Could Cut DWI's Here, Too, Advocates
Say. Albuquerque Tribune, pp. A1.
Moskowitz, H., & Fiorentino, D. (2000). A Review of the Literature on the Effects of
Low Doses of Alcohol on Driving-Related Skills. Springfield, Virginia: National
Technical Information Service.
Nash, K. (2003). Anti-DWI Ignition Lock Access Improves. Albuquerque Journal
(New Mexico), B3.
National Association of State Judicial Educators and The Century Council. (2002).
Hardcore Drunk Driving Judicial Guide: A Resource Outlining Judicial Challenges,
Effective Strategies, and Model Programs. National Association of State Judicial
Educators and The Century Council.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2002). Maryland - Toll of Motor
Vehicle Crashes, 2001 [Online]. Available: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/STSI/
State_Info.cfm?Year=2001&State=MD [2003, October 15].
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2000). Driving Characteristics and
Impairment at Various BAC. Available: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2003). The Highway Safety Desk
Book (Online ed.). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: Department of Transportation
(1998). Minimum penalties for repeat offenders for DWI. Available:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/nhtsa/whatsup/tea21/tea21programs.
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. (1991). The Technology of
Breath-alcohol Analysis (1st ed.). Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and
Human Performance.
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. (1991). The Technology of
Breath-Alcohol Analysis (1st ed.). Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services.
NHTSA (1992). Model Specifications for Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock Devices.
Federal Register: NHTSA.
NHTSA. (2002). Maryland - Toll Of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2001 [Online].
Available: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/STSI/State_Info.cfm?Year=2001&State=MD
[2003, October 15].
214
Nixon, N.J. (1995). Assessing Cognitive Impairment. Alcohol Health and Research
World, 19(2), 97-103.
Nochajski, T. (2004). Fifth Annual Ignition Interlock Symposium. Phoenix, Arizona:
O'Brien, D (2002, August 14). New tools to fight DWI; Law requires suspension of
driver's license, car locks for repeat offenders; Goes into effect Sept. 30; Ignition
devices require drivers to breathe into tube to start their cars. The Sun, pp. 1B.
Porjesz, B., & Begleiter, H. (2003). Alcoholism and Human Electrophysiology.
Alcohol Research and Health, 27(2), 153-160.
Ramirez, C (2003, November 21). DWI Interlock Business Slow. Albuquerque
Journal, pp. A1.
Rauch, W. Sixth Annual Ignition Interlock Symposium (2005). Annecy, France: TIRF.
Ridderinkhof, K.R., de Vlugt, Y., Bramlage, A, Spaan, M., Elton, M., Snel, J., &
Band, G.P.H. (2002). Alcohol Consumption Impairs Detection of Performance Errors
in Mediofrontal Cortex. Science, 298, 2209-2211.
Robertson, R. and Simpson, H. (2002). DWI System Improvements for Dealing with
Hard Core Drinking Drivers: Adjudication - Judges Survey Results: Maryland.
Ottawa, Canada: TIRF.
Robertson, R. and Simpson, H. (2003). DWI System Improvements for Dealing with
Hard Core Drinking Drivers: Adjudication - Probation Survey Results: Maryland.
Ottawa, Canada: TIRF.
Roth, R., Marques, P., & Voas, R. Sixth Annual Ignition Interlock Symposium (2005).
Annecy, France: TIRF.
Rubel, W (2005, November 13). First in a Series: Richardson on Crime. The
Farmington Daily Times, pp. Local News.
Sandoval, M. (2004). Fifth Annual Ignition Interlock Symposium. Phoenix, Arizona:
Sapsford, R (1999). Survey Research. London: Sage Publications.
Schonfeld, C.C., & Sheehan, M.C. (2004). Critical Overview of Alcohol Ignition
Interlock Programs in Australia. Center for Accident Research and Road SafetyQueensland.
Silverans, P. Sixth Annual Ignition Interlock Symposium (2005). Annecy, France:
TIRF.
215
Simpson, H. M., & Robertson, R. D. (2003). DWI System Improvements for Dealing
with Hard Core Drinking Drivers: Monitoring. Ottawa, Ontario: Traffic Injury
Research Foundation.
Sprattler, K. (2004). Fifth Annual Ignition Interlock Symposium. Phoenix, Arizona:
Squires, K.C., Chu, N.S., & Starr, A (1978). Acute Effects of Alcohol on Auditory
Brainstem Potentials in Humans. Science, 201, 174-176.
Steffensen, S.C., Lee, R., Henriksen, S. J., Pack, T. L., & Cook, D. R. (2002). A
Novel Electroencephalographic Analysis Method Discriminates Alcohol Effects from
Those of Other Sedative/Hypnotics. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 115, 145-156.
Sturgis, S. P., & Mortimer, R. (1973). Effects of Practice and Alcohol on Selected
Implications for an Automobile Alcohol Ignition Interlock. Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 37, 267-274.
Surgenor, D. (2004). Fifth Annual Ignition Interlock Symposium. Phoenix, Arizona:
Swann, P. (2003). Victoria (Australia) Alcohol Interlock Program. Victoria Road
Safety Department.
Sweedler, B. Sixth Annual Ignition Interlock Symposium (2005). Annecy, France:
TIRF.
Taylor, D., Miller, T., & Cox, K. L. (2002). Impaired Driving in the United States
[Online]. Available: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/alcohol/impaired_
driving_pg2/US.htm [2004, October 17].
TEA-21: Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998). Federal Highway
Administration: Department of Transportation [Online]. Available:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea21/.
Teesson, M, Baillie, A, & Lynskey, M (2006). Substance use, dependence and
treatment seeking in the United States and Australia: A cross-national comparison.
Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 81, pp. 149-155.
The Institute of Public Law, University of New Mexico. Traffic Safety Law Center
[Online]. Available: http://ipl.unm.edu/traf/ [2005, February 16].
The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) (2004). Advanced
Research Program Request for Position Statements [Online]. Available:
http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/extramural/advanced.htm [2004, November 28].
216
The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) (2003). Minutes
of the 103rd Meeting of the National Advisory Council on Alcohol Abuse and
Alcoholism [Online]. Available: http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/about/council6-03.htm
[2004, October 5].
Timken, Ph.D., D. (2004). Fifth Annual Ignition Interlock Symposium. Phoenix,
Arizona: Traffic Injury Research Foundation.
Tiplady, B., Faineteau, H., Loganathan, A., Spiegelberg, M., Taylor, Z., & Wright, P.
(1998). Effects of ethanol and temazepam on performance in memory and
psychomotor tasks: a dose-response comparison. Human Psychopharmacology:
Clinical and Experimental, 13(4), 285-291.
Torres, A. (2003, June 24). DWI Ignition Interlock Law Starts Up. Albuquerque
Tribune, pp. A3.
Traffic Industry Research Foundation. (2002). DWI System Improvements for Dealing
with Hard Core Drinking Drivers: Sanctioning. Ottawa, ON Canada.
with Hard Core Drinking Drivers: Prosecution. Ottawa, ON Canada.
with Hard Core Drinking Drivers: Monitoring. Ottawa, ON Canada.
Traffic Injury Research Foundation. (2002). DWI System Improvements for Dealing
with Hard Core Drinking Drivers: Adjudication. Judges Survey Results:
Pennsylvania. Ottawa, ON Canada: TIRF.
Traffic Injury Research Foundation. (2005). International Inventory of Interlock
Programs.
Traffic Injury Research Foundation. (2005). Sixth Annual Ignition Interlock
Symposium Presentations. Annecy, France.
Traffic Injury Research Foundation. (2001). DWI Systems Improvements for Dealing
with Hard Core Drinking Drivers: Enforcement. Ottawa, Ontario: Traffic Injury
Research Foundation.
with Hard Core Drinking Drivers: Adjudication - Judges Survey Results: New
Mexico. Ottawa, Canada: TIRF.
with Hard Core Drinking Drivers: Sanctioning. Ottawa, Canada: TIRF.
217
Traffic Injury Research Foundation. (2005, November 16). International Inventory of

Interlock Programs [Online]. Available:
http://www.trafficinjuryresearch.com/interlock/interlock.cfm [2005, November 19].
Tzambazis, K, & Stough, C (2000). Alcohol Impairs Speed Of Information
Processing and Simple and Choice Reaction Time and Differentially Impairs HigherOrder Cognitive Abilities. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 35, 197-201.
U.S. Dept. of Transportation, NHTSA, NIAAA. (1996). A guide to sentencing DUI
offenders (1st ed.). Washington D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Transportation, NHTSA, NIAAA.
U.S. Dept. of Transportation, NHTSA, NIAAA. (1999). Sentencing and dispositions
of youth DUI and other alcohol offenses : a guide for judges and prosecutors (1st
ed.). Washington D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Transportation, NHTSA, NIAAA.
Valenti, J. (2005, July 13). On the Roads; U.S. Lags Others in DWI Toughness.
Newsday.
Voas, Dr., R. (2004). Fifth Annual Ignition Interlock Symposium. Phoenix, Arizona:
Voas, R. B. (1988). Emerging Technologies for Controlling the Drunk Driver. In
(Eds.), Social Control of the Drinking Driver (pp. 321-370). Chicago: The University
of Chicago Press.
Voas, R. B. (2002). Evaluation of a program to motivate impaired driving offenders to
install ignition interlocks. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 34-4, p. 449.
Weinrath, M. (1997). The interlock program for drunk drivers: A multivariate test.
Crime and Delinquency, 43, p. 18.
Wickham, S.K. (2003, June 29). Short Circuit on Ignition Interlock?. The Union
Leader, pp. A1.
Williams, A. F., Voas, R. B., & Ferguson, S. (2000). Issues and methods in the
detection of alcohol and other drugs. Transportation Research E-Circular. A-2.
Wisconsin Department of Transportation. (2002). Passive Alcohol Sensors: A Study
Focusing on their Use, Performance, Effectiveness, and Policy Implications for
Traffic Enforcement [Online]. Available: http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/
library/publications/topic/safety.htm [2004, October 20].
Yu, J (2000). Punishment and alcohol problems: Recidivism among drinking-driving
offenders. Journal of Criminal Justice, 28, 261-270.
Zettl, J. R. (2002, July). The Determination of Blood Alcohol Concentration by
218
Transdermal Measurement [Online]. Available:

http://www.alcoholmonitoring.com/pdf/TransdermalWhitePaper.pdf [2004, February
24].
219
Appendices
220
Appendix 1
IRB Proposal
1. Abstract
Ignition interlock devices (IDD) prevent intoxicated drivers from driving.
These devices are administered to DUI and DWI offenders through state programs.
The purpose of this research is to identify how ignition interlock programs could
improve with regard to their technology, offender services, and internal operations. In
order to find this information, the team will (1) interview ignition interlock program
staff and experts in and (2) survey offenders in the ignition interlock program.
(1) The team will conduct interviews with interlock staff and experts in person
and over the telephone. Staff interviews will allow the team to examine the problems
that ignition interlock program staff experience in the course of their duties. Expert
interviews will allow the team to identify the structural and institutional strengths and
weaknesses of interlock programs.
(2) Offenders will complete surveys on paper and over the internet. Their
surveys will show how the interlock programs and technology could be of greater
mutual benefit to the offender and society. With offender surveys, strict
confidentiality will be maintained throughout selection of participants, administration
of surveys, and analysis of responses. Neither the team nor the parties being evaluated
in the survey will have identifying information from the survey participants.
2. Subject Selection:
a. The subjects, all adults ages 18 or older, will be selected from the following groups
of people: Motor Vehicle Administration administrators, interlock vendors, drunken
driving offenders and independent experts in fields related to our research. We will
find the names of MVA administrators on the internet, as their names are listed as
public information. We will enlist the participation of interlock vendors and
independent experts by contacting them ourselves and requesting their compliance
after finding their contact information either on the internet or from the MVA
administrators. We will contact these three groups of people either by phone or
through written letters. The drunken driving offenders will be notified by Jane
Valenzia, Research Associate for Driver Safety Research at the MVA, that we need
participants for our study and will either be given our contact information or will give
permission to Ms. Valenzia for us to contact them regarding any studies. All
participation in our study will be fully voluntary, as we will not use any type of
coercion.
b. The only criterion we will use to select participants is that they fit into one of the
four categories listed above and that they are of age 18 or older.
221
c. The selection will be made based on only this criterion because there are no other
factors that will influence the information we are trying to gather.
3. Procedures
IID Vendors:
IID vendors who agree to be questioned will be interviewed by a member from the
team. Questions will be delivered orally to the interviewee and responses will be
recorded on paper by the interviewer. Only questions pertinent to IID vendors will be
asked. Interviews will be conducted in person at a prearranged time and place as
decided by the vendor and the team. The interview will only be made available to the
team. Interviews should take no longer than 20 minutes.
MVA Administration:
MVA administration members who agree to be questioned will be interviewed by a
member from the team. Questions will be delivered orally to the interviewee and
responses will be recorded on paper by the interviewer. Only questions pertinent to
MVA administration will be asked. Interviews will be conducted in person at a
prearranged time and place as decided by the MVA administration member and the
team. The interview will only be made available to the team. Interviews should take
no longer than 20 minutes.
Experts:
Experts who agree to be questioned will be interviewed by a member from the team.
Questions will be delivered orally to the interviewee and responses will be recorded
on paper by the interviewer. Only questions pertinent experts will be asked.
Interviews will be conducted in person at a prearranged time and place as decided by
the expert and the team. The interview will only be made available to the team.
Interviews should take no longer than 20 minutes.
Offenders:
For the sake of convenience, offenders will be given the option of taking the survey in
three different ways. Surveys will be made available via mail, the internet, and at
participating IID service stations. Offender names will not be attached for all forms of
the survey.
Offenders that choose to take the survey through the mail will be mailed the survey
and all accompanying forms with a return envelope that will include postage.
Offenders will be asked to complete the survey and mail them back to the group.
222
Offenders choosing to take the survey in an online format will be directed to a secure
internet website that will contain the survey and provide the participant with all
information regarding confidentiality and consent. Offenders will be asked if they
accept the terms by clicking on a button. Offenders will not be asked for any
identifying information. Survey results will securely be sent to the team. To ensure
anonymity, IP addresses will not be logged.
With the cooperation of participating vendors, surveys may be made available to
offenders at IID service stations. Service stations will be selected and contacted with
assistance from the MVA. Offenders may choose to take the survey while waiting for
his/her IID to be serviced. Surveys questions and all accompanying forms will be
sealed within an envelope and delivered to participating IID vendors. A sign will be
posted within the service station informing offenders of the survey and to ask the
vendor for a survey if they would like to take it. Offenders may then take the survey.
A secure drop box for the surveys will be made available. Consent and privacy forms
will be detached from the rest of the survey, making survey answers anonymous. At
an agreed upon time between the vendor and the team, completed surveys will be
picked up in person from the service station by a member of the team.
4. Risks and Benefits
Offenders
Our survey poses no more than a minimal risk to participants. None of the questions
will evoke emotional responses in a reasonable personthey are strictly fact- and
opinion-based. The identity of participants will be fully protected, as they will detach
their surveys from the signed consent forms before submitting them to us. The survey
itself will contain no form of identifying information.
There are no direct benefits to participants in our survey. Based on answers we
receive, we may make changes in the overall process that will end up benefiting the
individuals who participate in it, but we do not have the intent of benefiting any
specific people.
MVA Administrators
Our interview process poses no more than a minimal risk to participants. None of the
questions will evoke emotional responses in a reasonable personthey are strictly
fact- and opinion-based. There may be minimal risk involved since we will be asking
several questions relating to the effectiveness of the participants departments.
Participants should be aware that any information they give us may be used and
attributed to them in your thesis, and their employers may read it.
There are no direct benefits to participants in our interview process. Based on answers
we receive, we may make changes in the overall process that will end up benefiting
223
the individuals who participate in it, but we do not have the intent of benefiting any
specific people.
Vendors
fact- and opinion-based. There may be minimal risk involved since we will be asking
several questions relating to the effectiveness of the participants
departments/companies. Participants should be aware that any information they give
us may be used and attributed to them in your thesis, and their employers may read it.
specific people.
Experts
fact- and opinion-based. We will also be asking experts questions relating to the
effectiveness of the overall interlock administration system, but these individuals are
researchers and independent experts, and their employers would not have a direct
stake in any particular company or department involved in the process.
specific people.
5. Confidentiality
In this section, any reference to the team shall include all 14 members of the team,
consisting of Katie Butt, Rachel Clark, Will Collins, Andrew Czisny, Adam
Hong, Daniel Ramsbrock, Mike Sandler, Grace Snodgrass, Matt Stair, Dan
Tasch, Samantha Tenenbaum, Katie Walsh, James White, and Pearce Wroe; it
shall also include our faculty mentor, Dr. Dimitris Hristu.
Offenders
Throughout the survey process, the information we receive from offenders will be
held in strict confidence. The surveys will not contain any form of identifying
information, only general demographics. Once the surveys are completed, the
participants will detach the consent form, which contains their name and signature,
from the rest of the survey. They will then immediately place their consent forms in
224
one drop box and the survey in a separate one, ensuring that no connection can be
made between these two documents. Only the team has legitimate access to these
boxes, and we will be the ones taking the surveys from there and entering the results
into the computer.
The data entry will be done on a password-secured web server, and the data will be
stored in a secure database on that server. Once the data is entered, the paper surveys
will be kept on file in the office of Dr. Dimitris Hristu, our faculty mentor, until the
completion of the project (which is planned for May 2006). The data will be digitally
archived and remain available to the team indefinitely, but only for strictly academic
purposes. All of the paper surveys will be destroyed by means of a shredder at the
conclusion of the project.
We will utilize the services of the University of Maryland Office of Information
Technology (OIT) in order to implement the option of taking the survey online. If the
participant elects to do so, they will be presented with the same consent form as the
other participants, only in electronic form. Instead of having participants physically
sign a form, the web site will contain wording to the effect of By clicking the button
below, you agree that you have read and understood this consent form and to be
legally bound by its terms. We will preserve anonymity of the online participants by
the simple fact that we will not have access to the logs of the OIT web servers on
which the surveys were taken and will therefore not even be able to connect surveys
to Internet Protocol (IP) addresses. The information received from the online surveys
will be treated in the same manner as the information that has been entered from the
paper surveys, and will in fact be combined with this information to produce
aggregate results.
MVA Administrators
All information obtained from these individuals is subject to publication, and they
will be informed of this fact in the consent form we will provide them at the
beginning of our interview. We will cite both their names and positions in our paper,
both in the context of facts and direct quotes. We will also acknowledge the
cooperation of their organization in our paper, and will give them access to any of our
research which indicates improvements that could make their organization a more
effective component of the overall system.
On the consent form, there will also be a special section where the participants can
initial in order to give consent for us to audio-record the entire interview. They can
choose to withhold this consent without affecting the interview process.
Information collected in these interviews may be typed up in either summary or
transcript form and will be stored first on the personal computers of the interviewers
and then uploaded to our secure file server. The interviewers will take all reasonable
precautions to ensure that no one outside the team has access to the data while it is
225
stored on their computers since this information is not intended to become public
knowledge until the publication of our thesis.
Vendors
Experts
226
6. Information and Consent Forms

Participants in the program will received a letter mailed through the MVA stating
what the Advancing Ignition Interlock team is, that it is part of the Gemstone Program
at the University of Maryland and that they are being asked to aid in the research.
They are also provided with contact information for the team should they desire more
information. There will be no deceptive information included in the letter. The
following consent form will be used as means for obtaining the participants informed
consent.
Study participants that are of the other three categories, vendors, MVA officials, and
independent experts will have the participation directly solicited. Again, there will be
no deceptive information included.
227
Consent Form for Ignition Interlock Program Participants

Title
Statement of age
of Subject
Purpose
Procedures
Confidentiality
Risks
Benefits, Freedom
to Withdraw,
&Ability to Ask
Questions
Medical Care
Contact
information of
Investigators
Contact
Information of
Institutional
Review Board
Advancing Ignition Interlock

I state that I am over 18 years of age, in good physical health,
and wish to participate in a survey of research being conducted
by Dr. Hristu Team of the Gemstone Program through the
College of Engineering at the University of Maryland, College
Park.
The purpose of this research is to determine ways in which the
Ignition Interlock program in Maryland and related technologies
could be improved.
The procedure involves a 15 minute survey that is designed to
indicate potential areas of improvement with the program in
which the team may be able to assist. The data gathered will be
kept strictly confidential, thus protecting the privacy of human
subjects.
All information collected in this study is confidential to the
extent permitted by law. I understand that the data I provide will
be grouped with data others provide for reporting and
presentation and that my name will not be used. I understand
that my participation in this survey will not affect my role in the
ignition interlock program.
There are no known risks associated with the completion of a
survey.
The experiment is not designed to help me personally, but to
help the investigator learn how to improve the Ignition Interlock
program for all program participants. I am free to ask questions
or withdraw from participation at any time without penalty.
The University of Maryland does not provide any medical or
hospitalization insurance for participants in this research study,
nor will the University of Maryland provide any compensation
for any injury sustained as a result of participation in this
research study, except as required by law.
If you have any questions about your rights as a research
participant or wish to report a research-related injury, please
contact: Dr. D. Hristu 2176 Martin Hall
University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742; (phone) 301405-5283; (e-mail) Hristu@eng.umd.edu
If you have questions about your rights as a research subject or
wish to report a research-related injury, please Contact:
Institutional Review Board Office, University of Maryland,
College Park, Maryland, 20742; (e-mail)
irb@deans.umd.edu; (telephone) 301-405-4212
NAME OF SUBJECT
___________________________
228
SIGNATURE OF SUBJECT ___________________________

DATE
___________________________
Consent Form for Motor Vehicle Administration administrators
Title
Statement of age
of Subject
Purpose
Procedures
Confidentiality
Risks
Benefits, Freedom
to Withdraw,
&Ability to Ask
Questions
Medical Care
Contact
information of
Investigators
Contact
Information of
Institutional
Review Board

Park.
could be improved.
The procedure involves a 15-30 minute interview that is
designed to indicate potential areas of improvement with the
program in which the team may be able to assist. The data
gathered will be kept strictly confidential, thus protecting the
privacy of human subjects.
There are no known risks associated with the completion of an
interview.
program. I am free to ask questions or withdraw from
participation at any time without penalty.
229

NAME OF SUBJECT
___________________________

DATE
___________________________
Consent Form for Ignition Interlock Vendors
Title
Statement of age
of Subject
Purpose
Procedures
Confidentiality
Risks
Benefits, Freedom
to Withdraw,
&Ability to Ask
Questions
Medical Care
Contact
information of
Investigators

Park.
could be improved.
subjects.
survey.
230
Contact
Information of
Institutional
Review Board

NAME OF SUBJECT
___________________________

DATE
___________________________
Consent Form for Ignition Interlock Field Experts
Title
Statement of age
of Subject
Purpose
Procedures
Confidentiality
Risks
Benefits, Freedom
to Withdraw,
&Ability to Ask
Questions
Medical Care
Contact
information of

Park.
could be improved.
subjects.
survey.
231
Investigators
Contact
Information of
Institutional
Review Board

NAME OF SUBJECT
___________________________

DATE
___________________________
232
7. Potential conflicts of interest

Offenders
Offenders will want to get off of the ignition interlock program as soon as possible.
The length of time they are mandated to stay on the program is affected by their
performance and compliance as measured by the MVA. Therefore, offenders might be
concerned that the MVA would use any information the offenders volunteered against
them. The offenders want to satisfy the MVA and might not share negative thoughts if
they think the MVA might be privy to the information. If the MVA were to receive
information on the opinions of the offenders, theoretically the MVA could use this
information against them, although not legally. It will be important for us to maintain
confidentiality when distributing and collecting surveys and when conducting the
case studies. The MVA will not be allowed to have access to the surveys. In addition,
if surveys are distributed at the vendor locations, it will be important that the vendors
do not see the surveys either. The responses might influence them to take unfair
courses of action against the offenders.
Vendors
Vendors are mainly concerned with marketing their product, so a conflict of interest
might arise if we ask vendors questions about their business. They may not want to
respond honestly if their responses will make them look poor. Vendors are in the
business of selling devices, so they may be unwilling to discuss negative aspects of
the devices and/or the program. They may be unwilling to discuss offender
compliance at the risk of losing business. Again, their responses will need to be kept
confidential so that no responses can be used against them by the MVA or offenders.
MVA
The MVA created the ignition interlock program currently in place and may not want
to admit to defects in the program. They may worry that discussing imperfections
would deface their program. This is unlikely to be a problem because the MVA has
already agreed to work with us, but the team must still work to ensure that all
information is used to better the existing program, not to publicly expose its faults.
Experts
The team will be surveying experts on various topics regarding the ignition interlock
devices and programs. If the experts have relationships with other constituencies,
their responses might be persuaded by these relationships. Depending on their
job/status, they might worry that their responses will damage their career or
reputation with the MVA, vendors, or other parties involved. Again, all information
will be kept confidential so that these conflicts can be avoided.
8. HIPAA
Since the team will not be asking for medical information from the survey
participants, HIPAA does not pertain to this research.
233
May 2004
Ignition interlock program participants:
We are a research team called Advancing Ignition Interlock (AII) from the University
of Maryland in College Park. Over the next two years, AII will be working to
improve both the technologies and the administration of ignition interlock devices. To
make significant improvements in these areas, AII needs input from youthe ignition
interlock users. Your views about the ignition interlock program in Maryland are
extremely valuable to AII and will aid the team in developing a comprehensive
system that is less costly, more convenient, and more effective for all participants in
the program.
If you would like to help advance the ignition interlock program in Maryland, please
complete the teams survey either online at _______________________ or look for
the survey at your vendor location the next time you take your automobile in to be
serviced. All of your input is strictly confidential and will not be available to anyone
but AII for research purposes only.
If you choose to complete the survey, please be sure to read and sign the consent form
on the last page. If you do not complete this, AII will not be able to use your data in
its research.
Please visit the AII website at http://teams.gemstone.umd.edu/~aii/ for more
information about the team and its mission. If you have any questions, please email
AII at
aii-gemstone@umd.edu.
Thank you in advance for your time and consideration. Your valuable input will
facilitate the teams efforts to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the ignition
interlock program in Maryland.
Team Advancing Ignition Interlock

University of Maryland
Gemstone Program
Email: aii-gemstone@umd.edu
Web: http://teams.gemstone.umd.edu/~aii/
234
Advancing Ignition Interlock-Field Expert Survey

Directions: Please mark accordingly:
(1)
(2)
strongly
disagree
disagree
applicable
(3)
neutral
(4)
agree
(5)
strongly
agree
N/A
not
1. Which public market might show the most interest in medium- to low-cost
IIDs that are mostly passive and only require a breathalyzer test when
alcohol vapors are detected in the car? Please explain.
The general public would be interested in medium- to low-cost ignition
interlock devices that are mostly passive and only require a
breathalyzer test when alcohol vapors are detected in the car.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
N/A
2. How would the ignition interlock community react to the introduction of a

tandem interlock system that incorporates a passive alcohol sensor
with a standard breathalyzer? Please explain.
A tandem system that incorporates passive alcohol sensors with the standard
breathalyzer would be supported by the ignition interlock community.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
N/A
3. Have you studied passive alcohol sensors? If so, what are their strengths
and weaknesses? How effective have you found them to be overall?
Passive alcohol sensors are effective in detecting drunkenness.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
N/A
4. What in the current ignition interlock devices could most be improved, and
how?
5. What in the current ignition interlock programs could most be improved,
and how?
235
6. What are the chances of ignition interlock manufacturers forming an

industry advocacy group? Please explain.
7. What type of devices do you work with/ study?
8. Aside from breathalyzers, what technologies have you studied, or are
aware of that have been adapted as ignition interlock devices?
236
Advancing Ignition Interlock Motor Vehicle Administration Officials Survey

(1)
(2)
strongly
disagree
disagree
applicable
(3)
neutral
(4)
agree
(5)
strongly
agree
N/A
not
1. How well do you feel your department is able to manage the number of
people in the
program? Please explain.
Our department is adequately equipped to handle the number of the people
in the program.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
N/A
2. How does your department track the lasting effects of the program?
We are able to track the lasting results of the program effectively.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
N/A
3. What action does the MVA take against participants who tamper with the
device, or drives a different vehicle during their mandated interlock
period?
4. What other ignition interlock programs have been studied in comparison
with the Maryland program? Have any practices from these other
programs been adopted in our state?
5. How have you seen the program progressed through the years?
6. How long do you think a participant should remain in the program to best
minimize recidivism?
The duration of the program is
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
N/A
much
somewhat appropriate somewhat much
shorter than shorter than
longer than longer than
necessary necessary
necessary necessary
237
7. If a computer software program was developed that would analyze

participant data logs and alert any incidents requiring closer
examination, what would be the characteristics of those incidents? Do
you think this would greatly reduce the amount of human time spent on
analyzing case logs?
A computerized system designed to analyze data logs would increase the
efficiency with which I can complete my tasks.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
N/A
8. How important is communication between administrators, suppliers, and

participants to the programs success? Please explain.\
Communication between the government, program administrators, and
constituents is vital to the programs success.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
N/A
9. How might the MVA best increase knowledge about the ignition interlock
program amongst lawmakers and enforcers?
10. What areas of the overall program could be most improved? Please
explain.
11. What changes might be made in your department to make your own job
easier or less burdensome? Please explain.
12. How would the program improve if drivers were more satisfied with
ignition interlock technology? What might make them more satisfied
with the devices?
238
Advancing Ignition Interlock National Highway Traffic and Safety

Administration Officials Survey
(1)
(2)
strongly
disagree
disagree
applicable
(3)
neutral
(4)
agree
(5)
strongly
agree
N/A
not
1. What impact do you think a national standard for approving ignition

interlock devices would have on how smoothly the programs run on a
nationwide basis? Please explain.
2. Where do you think the most difficulties would arise if the federal
government attempted to standardize ignition interlock devices?
Please explain.
3. How feasible is it to suggest NHTSA test ignition interlock devices across
the nation exclusively? Please explain.
4. If NHTSA were to test ignition interlock devices exclusively who would
provide the funding (i.e. federal government, suppliers, etc.)?
4. What, if any, are the national standards in place for ignition interlock
devices?
5. How significant a role do you feel ignition interlock devices play in
cultivating a safe driving environment nationally? Please explain.
239
Advancing Ignition Interlock-Interlock Program Participants Survey

(1)
(2)
strongly
disagree
disagree
applicable
(3)
neutral
(4)
agree
(5)
strongly
agree
N/A
not
1. I voluntarily chose to enter the ignition interlock program.

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
N/A
Please briefly explain your decision:

2. Rolling retests are a distraction while driving and are difficult to perform.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
N/A
(4)
(5)
N/A
3. I have refused a rolling retest.

(1)
(2)
(3)
Please provide the reason for your refusal:

4. The ignition interlock in its current form is an intrusive device.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
N/A
(5)
N/A
5. The use of ignition interlocks is embarrassing.

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
6. I would prefer/ feel more comfortable using an ignition interlock device

based on passive sensors in the car that constantly check for alcohol
vapors, so a breathalyzer test is only necessary if the sensor picks up
traces of alcohol?
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
N/A
7. I have experienced morning failures due to non-alcohol related items (i.e.

mouthwash).
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
240
(5)
N/A
8. The ignition interlock program is expensive for me.

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
N/A
(5)
N/A
(5)
N/A
9. The ignition interlock device is easy to use.

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
10. The ignition interlock device is frustrating to use.

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Please explain:
11. Ignition interlock devices provide accurate readings.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
N/A
12. What areas of the ignition interlock program could be most improved?
13. How could ignition interlocks be made more user-friendly?
14. What is the maximum monthly amount you would be willing to pay for an
ignition interlock device?
241
Advancing Ignition Interlock-Interlock Device Suppliers Survey

(1)
(2)
strongly
disagree
disagree
applicable
(3)
neutral
(4)
agree
(5)
strongly
agree
N/A
not
1. What specific standards must your ignition interlock devices meet before
they are sold?
2. What other technologies (if any) have been adapted to your ignition
interlock devices? How?
3. How do you extract data logs from the devices?
4. How are customers trained to ensure proper use of the devices?
5. How does your particular device operate?
6. How many customers do you serve and from which area do they primarily
come?
7. How often are customers required to visit your store for data log extraction
and maintenance? How long do these appointments generally last?
8. Which states accept your particular device under their state regulations?
9. Which factors of maintaining the device contribute most to its costs (i.e.
labor, technology)? Please explain.
10. What are most significant problems you encounter with customers (i.e.
financial constraints, misuse, etc.)? Please explain.
11. Which aspects of the devices do customers complain about most? Please
explain.
13. What was the biggest obstacle to designing the device? Please explain.
14. What improvement(s) would best enhance the effects of the ignition
interlock devices? Please explain.
15. What would you say is currently the most serious problem with ignition
interlock devices? Please explain.
242
Appendix 2
Consent Form for Ignition Interlock Program Participants
I state that I am over 18 years of age, in good physical health, and wish to participate
in a survey of research being conducted by Dr. Hristu Team of the Gemstone Program
through the College of Engineering at the University of Maryland, College Park.
The purpose of this research is to determine ways in which the Ignition Interlock
program in Maryland and related technologies could be improved.
The procedure involves a 15 minute survey that is designed to indicate potential areas
of improvement with the program in which the team may be able to assist. The data
gathered will be kept strictly confidential, thus protecting the privacy of human
subjects.
All information collected in this study is confidential to the extent permitted by law. I
understand that the data I provide will be grouped with data others provide for
reporting and presentation and that my name will not be used. I understand that my
participation in this survey will not affect my role in the ignition interlock program.
There are no known risks associated with the completion of a survey.
The experiment is not designed to help me personally, but to help the investigator
learn how to improve the Ignition Interlock program for all program participants. I am
free to ask questions or withdraw from participation at any time without penalty.
The University of Maryland does not provide any medical or hospitalization
insurance for participants in this research study, nor will the University of Maryland
provide any compensation for any injury sustained as a result of participation in this
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant or wish to report
a research-related injury, please contact: Dr. D. Hristu 2176 Martin Hall
University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742; (phone) 301-405-5283; (e-mail)
Hristu@eng.umd.edu
NAME OF SUBJECT
___________________________

DATE
___________________________
243
Appendix 3
Participant Survey First Version
Proposed List of IRB Questions
Response Scale
(1)
(2)
strongly
disagree
disagree
applicable
(3)
neutral
(4)
agree
(5)
strongly
agree
N/A
not
Interlock Program Participants

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
N/A

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
N/A
(4)
(5)
N/A

(1)
(2)
(3)

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
N/A
(5)
N/A

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

traces of alcohol?
244
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
N/A

mouthwash).
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
N/A
(5)
N/A
(5)
N/A
(5)
N/A

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Please explain:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
N/A
245
Appendix 4
Participant Survey Second Version (w/Addendum)
Response Scale
(1)
(2)
strongly
disagree
disagree
applicable
(3)
neutral
(4)
agree
(5)
strongly
agree
N/A
not

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
N/A

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
N/A
(4)
(5)
N/A

(1)
(2)
(3)

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
N/A
(5)
N/A

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

traces of alcohol?
246
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
N/A

mouthwash).
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
N/A
(5)
N/A
(5)
N/A
(5)
N/A

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Please explain:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
N/A
15. Do you have access to the internet?
(Yes)
(No)
16. Have you searched for information about ignition interlocks online?
(Yes)
(No)
17. It would be convenient for me to access information about my status in

the ignition interlock program online.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
247
(5)
N/A
18. What other information regarding the ignition interlock program would you
like to be able to access on the web (if any)?
19. Have you tried contacting the MVA with questions on the ignition interlock
program?
(Yes)
(No)
20. It was easy to get in contact with the MVA regarding information about the
ignition interlock program and/or my status.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
N/A
21. My questions to the MVA regarding the ignition interlock program were
adequately answered.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
248
(5)
N/A
Appendix 5
Participant Survey Third Version
Revised at program subgroup meeting on Oct. 5, 2004
1. Please give your overall opinion of the ignition interlock program:
1b. What has been your overall experience with the ignition interlock
device?
2. Rate your experience with rolling retests
Difficult to perform Occasionally distracting
problem
Rarely a problem
Never a
3. I have refused rolling retest(s)

Never
Once
Occasionally
Frequently
What was the main reason for your refusal? __________________________________

4. Which aspects of the program would you most like to see improved?
Please explain how briefly after each item.
_____ Rolling retests: ____________________________________________________
_____ Start/warm-up time:________________________________________________
_____ Non-alcohol related failures: _________________________________________
_____ Device accuracy: __________________________________________________
_____ Monthly maintenance cost: __________________________________________
_____ Initial installation cost: ______________________________________________
_____ Communication with MVA: ___________________________________________
_____ Communication with vendors: ________________________________________
_____ Other: __________________________________________________________
249
6. I would prefer an ignition interlock device based on passive sensors

that constantly check for alcohol vapors in the car, so that a
breathalyzer test is only necessary if the sensor picks up traces of
alcohol.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
N/A
7. I have experienced morning failures due to non-alcohol related items

(i.e. mouthwash).
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
N/A

(Yes)
(No)
(Yes)
(No)
17. It would be convenient for me to access information about my status

in the ignition interlock program online.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
N/A
18. What other information regarding the ignition interlock program

would you like to be able to access on the web (if any)?
19. Have you tried contacting the MVA with questions on the ignition
interlock program?
(Yes)
(No)
20. It was easy to get in contact with the MVA regarding information
about the ignition interlock program and/or my status.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
N/A
21. My questions to the MVA regarding the ignition interlock program

were adequately answered.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
250
(5)
N/A
Appendix 6
Participant Survey Final Version
GEMSTONE Program University of Maryland, College Park
Questionnaire for Interlock Program Participants
1. Please give your opinion of the ignition interlock program overall:
1b. Describe your overall experience with your ignition interlock device.
2. Please rank the following aspects of the program which you would
most like to see improved. Please explain how after each item that you
have marked as needing improvement. Select up to 5 items (with #1 =
aspect you most want to see improved, #2=second most important
aspect, etc).
_____ No significant improvements needed.__________________________________
_____ Rolling retests: ____________________________________________________
_____ Start/warm-up time:________________________________________________
_____ Non-alcohol related failures: _________________________________________
_____ Device accuracy: __________________________________________________
_____ Monthly maintenance cost: __________________________________________
_____ Initial installation cost: ______________________________________________
_____ Communication with MVA: ___________________________________________
_____ Communication with vendors: ________________________________________
_____ Other: __________________________________________________________
3. Would you prefer an alternative ignition interlock device that

constantly checks for alcohol vapors in the car, so that a breathalyzer
test is only necessary if the sensor picks up traces of alcohol? Please
indicate your preference for such a device below:
251
Strong preference
Slight preference
against
Strongly against
Dont care/Dont know
Slightly
4. Have you experienced morning failures due to non-alcohol related

items (e.g. mouthwash)?
Often(more than 2 per week)
per week)
Never
Sometimes(1-2 per week)
Rarely(less than 1
5. Rate your experience with rolling retests

Never a problem
Difficult to perform
Rarely a problem
Occasionally distracting
6. I have refused rolling retest(s)

Never
Once
Occasionally
Frequently
What was the main reason(s) for your refusal? ________________________________


(Yes)
(No)
(Yes)
(No)
10. It would be convenient for me to access information about my status

in the ignition interlock program online.
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
252
Strongly
Disagree
N/A
11. What other information regarding the ignition interlock program

would you like to be able to access on the web (if any)?
12. Have you tried contacting the MVA with questions on the ignition
interlock program?
(Yes)
(No)
13. It was easy to get in contact with the MVA regarding information
about the ignition interlock program and/or my status.
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
N/A
14. My questions to the MVA regarding the ignition interlock program

were adequately answered.
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
253
Strongly
Disagree
N/A
Appendix 7
Expert Interviews
Response Scale
(1)
(2)
strongly
disagree
disagree
applicable
(3)
neutral
(4)
agree
(5)
strongly
agree
N/A
not
Independent Experts in the Field

1. Which public market might show the most interest in medium- to low-cost
IIDs that are mostly passive and only require a breathalyzer test when
alcohol vapors are detected in the car? Please explain.
The general public would be interested in medium- to low-cost ignition
interlock devices that are mostly passive and only require a
breathalyzer test when alcohol vapors are detected in the car.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
N/A
2. How would the ignition interlock community react to the introduction of a

tandem interlock system that incorporates a passive alcohol sensor
with a standard breathalyzer? Please explain.
A tandem system that incorporates passive alcohol sensors with the standard
breathalyzer would be supported by the ignition interlock community.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
N/A
3. Have you studied passive alcohol sensors? If so, what are their strengths
and weaknesses? How effective have you found them to be overall?
Passive alcohol sensors are effective in detecting drunkenness.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
254
(5)
N/A
4. What in the current ignition interlock devices could most be improved, and
how?
5. What in the current ignition interlock programs could most be improved,
and how?
6. What are the chances of ignition interlock manufacturers forming an
industry advocacy group? Please explain.
7. What type of devices do you work with/ study?
8. Aside from breathalyzers, what technologies have you studied, or are
aware of that have been adapted as ignition interlock devices?
255
Appendix 8: Experimental Design Chart

Experimental Design
Performance Measures
Range of Operability
Sensitivity
Response
Time
Clear Time
Speed
Fan Operation
Car Model
Temperature
Goals
Goals
Goals
Models
Models
Models
Models
Optimum
= 0.01%
Minimum
= 0.08%
Optimum
< 5-sec
Minimum
< 30-sec
Optimum
< 2-min
Minimum
< 5-min
Baseline
0-mph
256
Advanced
30 to 55-mph
Baseline
off
Advanced
on
Baseline
sedan/SUV
Advanced
sedan/SUV
Baseline
25 C
Advanced
5 C, 40 C
257

Advancing Ignition Interlock

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Advancing Ignition Interlock

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

ABSTRACT

ADVANCING IGNITION INTERLOCK: THE STATE

Thesis directed by:

Major Jay Gruber

ADVANCING IGNITION INTERLOCK: THE STATE OF INTERLOCKS IN

A Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the

Probation Officers: Areas for Improvement....................................................75

Advanced Research Programs...........................................................................205

Origin and Development of Thesis Project

Focusing Our Research

implementation problems, including judicial compliance and lack of inter-agency

Developing Research Questions

An International Survey of Interlock

The History of Ignition Interlock Devices

developers needed to address several problems with the new equipment.

Background on the Ignition Interlock Program in Maryland

Marylands Impaired Driving System

Regardless of their BAC at arrest, first-time offenders generally plead to a B

Figure 1: Maryland Criminal Penalties

Figure 2: Maryland Administrative Drivers License Sanctions

The Interlock Component of Marylands Impaired Driving System

is to drive on a suspended license. Installing an interlocks in an offenders vehicle

Figure 3: Process through which Drink-Driving Offender Enters Interlock

The service provider participation agreement created by the MVA stipulates

the survey in September 2004 to include seven additional questions relating to

Information Technology Program Development

2003 Ignition Interlock Symposium

Regardless of the nature of the underlying system, there is a general lack of

interlock is installed. To encourage voluntary enrollment among alcohol abusers who

2004 Ignition Interlock Symposium

conviction an offender will be subject to court-imposed driving prohibition and

Several vehicle manufacturers, including Volvo and Scania, allow customers to

2005 Ignition Interlock Symposium

DWI and Interlock System Effectiveness Nationwide

Enforcement in the DWI System

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2002). Consequently, habitual drink-drivers

existing resources are needed to ensure an acceptable level of quality enforcement is

Prosecution in the DWI System

surveyed identified ten main problems that impede successful prosecution:

Prosecutors also cited motions and continuances as significant problems.

Adjudication and Sanctioning in the DWI System

Monitoring in the DWI System

Officers recommended that each offenders records be maintained for a mandatory

Effectiveness of Individual State Interlock Programs

DWI and Interlock System Trends in Maryland

Judges: Areas for Improvement

information to judges regarding interlock effectiveness is therefore paramount to the

offender recidivism, while 38 percent said treatment was. A majority of judges

Research by the Department of Public and Community Health at the

DWI and Interlock System Trends in Pennsylvania

Act 24 established the Pennsylvania Department of Transportations

fine of $300-$1,000 and up to 90 days in prison (Interlock Programs-Pennsylvania ,

A solid 80 percent of Pennsylvania judges felt compulsory alcohol evaluations

DWI and Interlock System Trends in New Mexico

response to the problem, probation officers began to consider creating a position

the information collected in a DWI case is appropriate and comprehensive for

DWI and Interlock System Trends in California

Statistics on subsequent crashes, an indication of the interlocks effect on

who plead down to a lesser charge in court. In addition, an improved monitoring

Effectiveness of International Interlock Programs

DWI and Interlock System Trends in Australia

Despite a myriad of setbacks, program officials continue to develop proposals

DWI and Interlock System Trends in Sweden

demonstrates a medical alcohol dependency regardless of DUI convictions. The Act