A potential Kansas DUI law amendment has come into question for the way it offers a "loophole" for offenders, according to opponents of the amendment.
Among those opponents is Laura Dean-Mooney, president of the outspoken DUI law advocacy group MADD. Dean-Mooney presented before a house judiciary committee to argue for the amendment to be removed and the original law to remain as is. The question surrounds whether a DUI offender who is ordered to use an ignition interlock machine should have to prove it has been installed in order to fulfill the requirement.
The amendment was introduced when Mary Pilcher-Cook, R-Shawnee, realized the law, as written, would discriminate against drivers who did not own a vehicle. Those drivers, though they were required to use the ignition interlock machine, could not install it since they did not have a personal vehicle. The amendment, then, simply removed this "prove it" part of the bill.
The same question ultimately arose in many minds: why would a person pay to have the ignition interlock device installed if he or she did not have to prove it was there? Wouldn't it be wiser to just forego the requirement and hope you were never pulled over?
This question carries with it some problems. First, it is not easy to simply pretend you do not own a vehicle when you indeed do. State registration of your car will confirm you are the lawful owner. Changing the registration is possible, though costly, and may present further challenges to the new "owner's" taxes and other implications.
It is unknown how many people would simply ignore a judge's mandate for an ignition device if the law passed. There are several ways around the issue, however, for those who actually do not own cars. First, an ignition interlock device does not operate in a bubble. It works by connecting to a central database to record any error code. This allows a court system to follow up with individuals who are using the devices and punish them where necessary or reward them where possible.
This recording system, which is paid for by the $70 a month fee, can be used in conjunction with the state database of registered vehicles. This simple change will likely be introduced, according to some lawmakers, when the bill is considered this month. It could allow the bill to meet its intended consequence of not placing an undue burden on an individual with no personal vehicle.
Even with the change, though, the question remains of how the requirement would be fulfilled in order for a driver to receive a license reinstatement. One of the key intentions of using the ignition lock instead of just suspending a license is to modify behavior, making a person ready to accept the responsibility of driving in the future. The requirement is in place for a given amount of time, such as 6 months, when a person must show a successful record of no errors prior to receiving a license back.
In effect, the law and the proposed solutions it offers are greatly skewed toward a specific demographic of DUI driver: those that own a car and can afford the system. Those who do not have these luxuries will have a line of questions to ask if they receive a court order to use the system.
