Kenneth Vercammen is a Middlesex County Trial Attorney who has published 130 articles in national and New Jersey publications on Criminal Law, Probate, Estate and litigation topics.

He was awarded the NJ State State Bar Municipal Court Practitioner of the Year.

He lectures and handles criminal cases, Municipal Court, DWI, traffic and other litigation matters.

To schedule a confidential consultation, call us or New clients email us evenings and weekends via contact box www.njlaws.com.

Kenneth Vercammen & Associates, P.C,

2053 Woodbridge Avenue,

Edison, NJ 08817,

(732) 572-0500

Monday, October 17, 2011

Riccis Law Increases Ignition interlock Device Requirements for Certain Drunk Driving Offenders

Riccis Law Increases Ignition interlock Device Requirements for Certain Drunk Driving Offenders

Assembly Bill No. 3073(2R), entitled “Ricci’s Law,” provides that all persons convicted of first, second, and third offenses of drunk driving would be required to install an ignition interlock device in any motor vehicle that they own, lease or operate. Current law imposes driver’s license suspensions on all persons convicted of drunk driving and allows the court the option to order the installation of an ignition interlock device after the license suspension period is over and the license is returned to the person. Under the law, the interlock device would be mandatory in all cases and, in addition, would also be required to be in effect during the period of time that the license is suspended.


These Assembly amendments provide that persons who are convicted of refusing the breath test also would be required to install an ignition interlock device. They are subject to the same requirements imposed on convicted drunk drivers under the law, except that all first offenders of the refusal statute would be required to install the device. The amendments also clarify that offenders for offenses other than drunk driving or refusal to submit to the breath test would not be subject to the provisions of the ignition interlock statute. The amendments also provide that the device would be installed only on the vehicle principally operated by the offender.

The amendments also provide for reduced fees for certain persons required to install the device. If the person’s family income does not exceed 100% of the federal poverty level, the monthly leasing fee would be 50% of the cost established by regulation. If the person’s family income does not exceed 149% of the federal poverty level, the monthly leasing fee would be 75% of the cost established by regulation. Persons who qualify for a reduced fee would not be required to pay the installation fee, the fee for monitoring of the device, or any fees for calibration or removal of the device.

Posted by at