Ignition Interlock Would Be Mandated on First DUI Conviction in South Carolina

July 01, 2012

A bill has been introduced in South Carolina's legislature that would force those convicted of a first-time DUI offense to install an ignition interlock system on their cars. Current law in South Carolina requires the use of ignition interlocks for drivers upon their second DUI conviction.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving recently sponsored a rally at the South Carolina Capitol to urge passage of the bill. MADD points to statistics that show drunken driving deaths have been reduced in the 16 states that require ignition interlocks for all offenders convicted of DUIs.

The interlocks would be required for any driver convicted of a DUI and had their license reinstated. Some states require interlock for multiple convictions or for higher BAC levels.

Refusal, but No Conviction

One aspect of the proposed law that is troubling is the imposition of an ignition interlock where the driver refuses to submit to a breath test (Breathalyzer). In this case, the suspension is an administrative procedure, and there is no court trial and no conviction, yet the punishment is the same.

Many states that do require the use of an ignition interlock device, only apply the requirement for significant Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) measurements. The problem with setting the mandate so low is the expense of the punishment makes it more likely that alleged offenders will find it cost effective to challenge the charges.

Expensive and Invasive

In addition to the initial cost of installation, there is a monthly "service fee" to maintain the interlock. South Carolina appears to be unusual in also requiring a camera installation in the passenger compartment of the vehicle.

The purpose appears to be to ensure that the person who provides the breath sample is actually the driver. This seems to be a classic example of a solution in search of a problem; other states do not report significant problems with drivers "faking" breath samples.

The reason may be due to the fact that the ignition interlocks require additional breath samples to be provided by the driver at random intervals while they are driving. Even if an intoxicated driver convinced a sober bystander to provide a breath sample, it seems unlikely that they would risk riding with an intoxicated driver merely to facilitate providing the additional samples.

Given the intense lobbying effort, even if it fails in this legislative session, it will probably be back next year and passage will become even more likely. Nonetheless, the legislature needs to examine whether the provisions will effectively work to reduce drunk driving or merely burden offenders with additional expenses and judges with more cases to clog their dockets.

Article provided by Carroll Law Firm
Visit us at www.carrolllawfirm.net