Proposed DWI law to require car interlock device but permit driving scheduled
for vote on February 5, 2015
SENATE, No. 385
with committee amendments
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
The Senate Budget and
Appropriations Committee reports favorably, Senate Bill No. 385 (SCS), with
committee amendments.
As amended,
this bill revises the penalty provisions for various drunk driving offenses,
particularly making changes concerning the use of, and applicable time periods
covering, driver’s license suspensions and installations of ignition interlock
devices on motor vehicles owned or operated by these drivers.
Drunk Driving
Concerning
the offense of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs (R.S.39:50-4),
the bill revises the relevant penalty provisions as follows:
For a
first offense, if
that offense involved a person’s blood alcohol concentration of 0.08% or higher
but less than 0.10%, or otherwise operating a motor vehicle while under the
influence of intoxicating liquor, the court would order a 10-day license
suspension, during which the person would have to install an ignition interlock
device in one motor vehicle owned, leased, or principally operated by the
person, whichever the person most often operates, for three months, unless the
court was clearly convinced, based on a series of aggravating factors
outweighing mitigating ones as set forth in the bill, to instead order a
license suspension of three months (the three month suspension would also apply
instead of device installation if the person did not own or lease a motor
vehicle and there was no motor vehicle the person principally operated).
The
aggravating and mitigating factors for consideration by the court to order a
license suspension instead of device installation would include, but not be
limited to: the nature and circumstances of the person’s conduct, including
whether such conduct posed a high risk of danger to the public; the person’s
driving record; whether the character and attitude of the person indicate that
the person would be likely or unlikely to commit another violation; and the
need for personal or general deterrence.
If the
court did order the installation of the ignition interlock device, the person’s
driver’s license would only be reinstated within the 10-day suspension/device
installation period by the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission upon showing
proof of such installation, and the commission would imprint a notation
concerning driving with the device on the person’s driver’s license.
Additionally,
for a person with an ignition interlock device installed, the three-month
installation period would be subject to possible extension for an additional
period equal to one-third of the originally designated period, for attempting
to operate the affected motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of
0.08% or higher during the last one-third of the installation period, or for
failing to present the affected vehicle for device servicing at any time during
the installation period. This extension would occur without need of further
court order, following notification of the event to the court by the Chief
Administrator of the Motor Vehicle Commission, which notification would be
supported by a certification from the ignition interlock device manufacturer,
installer, or other party set forth in regulation responsible for the servicing
or monitoring of the device.
If the
first offense involved a person’s blood alcohol concentration of 0.10% or
higher but less than 0.15%, the court would order a 10-day license suspension,
during which the person would have to install an ignition interlock device in
one motor vehicle owned, leased, or principally operated by the person,
whichever the person most often operates, for not less than seven months or
more than one year, unless the court was clearly convinced, based on the series
of aggravating factors outweighing the mitigating ones as described above, to
instead order a license suspension of not less than seven months or more than
one year (the seven month to one year suspension would also apply instead of
device installation if the person did not own or lease a motor vehicle and
there was no motor vehicle the person principally operated). As above, if the
person was ordered to install an ignition interlock device, the person could
only reinstate the person’s driver’s license through the Motor Vehicle
Commission upon showing proof of such installation, and could have the
installation period extended by an additional period equal to one-third of the
originally designated period in the same manner as previously described.
If the first
offense involved a person’s blood alcohol concentration of 0.15% or higher, the
court would order a 10-day license suspension, during which the person would
have to install an ignition interlock device in one motor vehicle owned,
leased, or principally operated by the person, whichever the person most often
operates, and maintain installation of the device during a period of license
suspension of not less than seven months or more than one year and after
license suspension for an additional period of not less than seven months or
more than one year, unless there was no such vehicle, in which case the person
would receive an initial period of suspension plus an additional period of
suspension equal to the total period the person would have had an ignition
interlock device installed.
With
respect to the license suspension of a person with a blood alcohol
concentration of 0.15% or higher, the person would have the opportunity,
beginning 90 days after the start of the suspension, to petition the court to reinstate
the person’s driving privileges for the duration of the initially ordered
suspension period, subject to the person maintaining the installation of the
ignition interlock device in the person’s motor vehicle both for the remainder
of the initially ordered suspension period and afterward for the additional
seven- month to one-year period. Additionally, a person whose driving
privileges were suspended for an additional period because the person does not
own or lease a motor vehicle and there is no motor vehicle the person
principally operates, may petition the court that established the forfeiture
period, upon proof of owning, leasing, or principally operating a motor
vehicle, to reinstate the person’s driving privileges for the duration of the
initial and additional suspension period, subject to the person maintaining the
installation of an ignition interlock device in that vehicle. As above, a
person ordered to install an ignition interlock device could only reinstate a
driver’s license through the Motor Vehicle Commission upon showing proof of
such installation, and could have the installation period extended by an
additional period equal to one-third of the originally designated period in the
same manner as previously described.
If the
offense involved a “drugged” driver (i.e., operating a motor vehicle under the
influence of a narcotic, hallucinogenic, or habit- producing drug), the court
would order a license suspension of not less than seven months or more than one
year, with no option to instead operate a motor vehicle with an ignition
interlock device installed.
For any
such first offense of drunk or “drugged” driving occurring on or near a school
property or crossing, the bill would eliminate any enhanced penalties currently
available under the law and instead treat such an offense the same as all other
first offenses.
For a
second offense,
the bill increases, for all drunk and “drugged” drivers, the period of license
suspension from the current law’s two years to instead a period of not less than
two years or more than four years. The court would order a 10-day license
suspension, during which the person would have to install an ignition interlock
device in each motor vehicle owned, leased, or operated by the person to be
maintained during the two to four year suspension period, and to remain
installed afterward for a period of not less than one year or more than three
years, unless there was no such vehicle, in which case the person would receive
an initial period of suspension plus an additional period of suspension equal
to the total period the person would have had an ignition interlock device
installed.
With
respect to a second offender’s license suspension, a person who does not own or
lease a motor vehicle or have a motor vehicle the person operates may petition
the court that established the forfeiture period, upon proof of owning,
leasing, or operating a motor vehicle, to reinstate the person’s driving
privileges for the duration of the additional one to three year suspension
period (not the initial two to four year period), subject to the person
maintaining the installation of an ignition interlock device in that vehicle.
As above
for any first offender, a person who is a second offender ordered to install an
ignition interlock device could only reinstate a driver’s license through the
Motor Vehicle Commission upon showing proof of such installation, and could
have the installation period extended by an additional period equal to
one-third of the originally designated period in the same manner as previously
described for a first offender.
For a
second offense occurring on or near a school property or crossing, the bill
would eliminate any enhanced penalties currently available under the law and
instead treat such an offense the same as all other second offenses.
For a
third or subsequent offense, the bill increases, for all drunk and “drugged” drivers, the period
of license suspension from the current law’s 10 years to instead a period of
not less than 10 years or more than 20 years. The court would order a 10-day
license suspension, during which the person would have to install an ignition
interlock device in each motor vehicle owned, leased, or operated by the person
to be maintained during the 10 to 20 year suspension period, and to remain
installed afterwards for a period of not less than one year or more than three
years, unless there was no such vehicle, in which case the person would receive
an initial period of suspension plus an additional period of suspension equal
to the total period the person would have had an ignition interlock device
installed.
With
respect to a third or subsequent offender’s license suspension, a person who
does not own or lease a motor vehicle or have a motor vehicle the person
operates may petition the court that established the forfeiture period, upon
proof of owning, leasing, or operating a motor vehicle, to reinstate the
person’s driving privileges for the duration of the additional one to three
year suspension period (not the initial 10 to 20 year period), subject to the
person maintaining the installation of an ignition interlock device in that
vehicle.
As above
for both first and second offenders, a person who is a third or subsequent
offender ordered to install an ignition interlock device could only reinstate a
driver’s license through the Motor Vehicle Commission upon showing proof of
such installation, and could have the installation period extended by an additional
period equal to one-third of the originally designated period in the same
manner as previously described for first and second offenders.
For a third or subsequent offense
occurring on or near a school property or crossing, the bill would eliminate
any enhanced penalties currently available under the law and instead treat such
an offense the same as all other third or subsequent offenses.
Refusing a Breath Test
Concerning
the offense of refusing to submit to a breath test (section 2 of P.L.1981, c.512
(C.39:4-50.4a)), the bill revises the relevant penalty provisions as follows:
For a first offense, the court would order a 10-day
license suspension, during which the person would have to install an ignition
interlock device in one motor vehicle owned, leased, or principally operated by
the person, whichever the person most often operates, for not less than seven
months or more than one year, unless the court was clearly convinced, based on
the series of aggravating factors outweighing the mitigating ones as described
above for drunk driving offenses, to instead order a license suspension of not
less than seven months or more than one year (the seven month to one year
suspension would also apply instead of device installation if the person did
not own or lease a motor vehicle and there was no motor vehicle the person
principally operated). As above with respect to drunk driving offenses, if the
person was ordered to install an ignition interlock device, the person could
only reinstate the person’s driver’s license through the Motor Vehicle
Commission upon showing proof of such installation, and could have the
installation period extended by an additional period equal to one-third of the
originally designated period in the same manner as previously described.
For any
first offense of refusing a breath test occurring on or near a school property
or crossing, the bill would eliminate any enhanced penalties currently
available under the law and instead treat such an offense the same as all other
first offenses.
For a
second offense,
the bill increases the period of license suspension from the current two years
to instead a period of not less than two years or more than four years. The
court would order a 10- day license suspension, during which the person would
have to install an ignition interlock device in each motor vehicle owned,
leased, or operated by the person to be maintained during the two to four year
suspension period and remain installed afterward for a period of not less than
one year or more than three years, unless there was no such vehicle, in which
case the person would receive an initial period of suspension plus an
additional period of suspension equal to the total period the person would have
had an ignition interlock device installed.
A person
who does not own or lease a motor vehicle or have a motor vehicle the person
operates may petition the court that established the forfeiture period, upon
proof of owning, leasing, or operating a motor vehicle, to reinstate the
person’s driving privileges for the duration of the additional one to three
year suspension period (not the initial two to four year period), subject to
the person maintaining the installation of an ignition interlock device in that
vehicle.
As above
with respect to any drunk driving offense, a person who is a second offender
ordered to install an ignition interlock device could only reinstate a driver’s
license through the Motor Vehicle Commission upon showing proof of such
installation, and could have the installation period extended by an additional
period equal to one- third of the originally designated period in the same
manner as previously described for a drunk driving offense.
For a
second offense of refusing a breath test occurring on or near a school property
or crossing, the bill would eliminate any enhanced penalties currently
available under the law and instead treat such an offense the same as all other
second offenses.
For a third or subsequent
offense, the
bill increases the period of license suspension from the current 10 years to
instead a period of not less than 10 years or more than 20 years. The court
would order a 10- day license suspension, during which the person would have to
install an ignition interlock device in each motor vehicle owned, leased, or
operated by the person to be maintained during the 10 to 20 year suspension
period, and to remain installed afterwards for a period of not less than one
year or more than three years, unless there was no such vehicle, in which case
the person would receive an initial period of suspension plus an additional
period of suspension equal to the total period the person would have had an
ignition interlock device installed.
A third or
subsequent offender who does not own or lease a motor vehicle or have a motor vehicle
the person operates may petition the court that established the forfeiture
period, upon proof of owning, leasing, or operating a motor vehicle, to
reinstate the person’s driving privileges for the duration of the additional
one to three year suspension period (not the initial 10 to 20 year period),
subject to the person maintaining the installation of an ignition interlock
device in that vehicle.
As above
with respect to any drunk driving offense, a person who is a third or
subsequent offender ordered to install an ignition interlock device could only
reinstate a driver’s license through the Motor Vehicle Commission upon showing
proof of such installation, and could have the installation period extended by
an additional period equal to one-third of the originally designated period in
the same manner as previously described for a drunk driving offense.
For a third
or subsequent offense of refusing a breath test occurring on or near a school
property or crossing, the bill would eliminate any enhanced penalties currently
available under the law and instead treat such an offense the same as all other
third or subsequent offenses.
Ignition Interlock Device Installation – License Reinstatement
With
respect to all cases for which a person has been ordered to install one or more
ignition interlock devices, the court would notify the Chief Administrator of
the Motor Vehicle Commission. The commission would thereafter require that the
one or more devices be installed before the reinstatement of the person’s
driver’s license, whether after a 10-day suspension period or some longer
period as applicable to the specific offense. The commission would imprint a
notation on the reinstated driver’s license stating that the person could not
operate a motor vehicle unless it is equipped with an ignition interlock
device, and would enter this requirement in the person's driving record.
Ignition Interlock Device – Failure
to Install, Tampering
Lastly, a
person who fails to install an ignition interlock device as ordered by a court,
or who drives a device-equipped vehicle after being started by means other than
the person blowing into the device, or who drives an unequipped vehicle, would
be guilty of a disorderly persons offense. A disorderly persons offense is ordinarily
punishable by a term of imprisonment of up to six months, a fine of up to
$1,000, or both. Furthermore, the court would suspend the person’ s driver’ s
license for the period of time associated with a drunk driving offense under
R.S.39:4-50, except that the applicable period applied by the court would be
the period for a second offense (not less than two years or more than four
years) if the underlying act was committed by a first offender drunk
driver/breath test refusal, and would be the period for a third or subsequent
offense (not less than 10 years or more than 20 years) if the underlying act
was committed by a second offender drunk driver/breath test refusal; the
suspension period for a third or subsequent offender drunk driver/breath test
refusal would not be enhanced (remaining not less than 10 years or more than 20
years).
This bill,
as amended and reported, is identical to Assembly Bill No. 1368 (ACS/1R), also
reported by the committee today. Please note the bills are considered identical
even though the Assembly bill was not amended to incorporate provisions of the
relevant drunk driving statute, R.S.39:4-50, updated by the enactment of
P.L.2014, c.54 on September 10, 2014 (which in relevant part increases a drunk
driving offense surcharge to, in part, help fund the installation of mobile
video recording systems on municipal police vehicles); only this bill, being
amended to match the Assembly bill, incorporated the update. Such a statutory
update alone is considered technical in nature and absent any further
substantive amendments to the Assembly bill by the Legislature, at which point
this technical update would be incorporated, the update can occur after the
Legislature’s passage of that bill pursuant to the authority of the Office of
Legislative Services’ Legislative Counsel to make such corrections, as
concurred to by the Attorney General. See R.S.1:3-1.
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS:
The committee amendments to the bill:
The committee amendments to the bill:
- provide, for all of the relevant
drunk driving and breath test refusal offenses described above, a 10-day
license suspension period, during which an offender would have to install an
ignition interlock device in the one or more motor vehicles required by the
bill’s provisions;
- clarify the device installation
requirements for repeat offenders, so that an ignition interlock device would
have to be installed in all motor vehicles operated by such offenders (along
with all vehicles owned or leased), not just those vehicles “principally”
operated by such offenders;
- add provisions to further explain
the available penalties for offenders who are required to install ignition
interlock devices versus those offenders who face license suspension because
they do not have a motor vehicle in which a device would be installed, as
detailed above;
- update the existing law
concerning the procedure to be followed by drunk driving and breath test
refusal offenders who are seeking the reinstatement of their driver’s licenses
through the Motor Vehicle Commission;
- update provisions of the relevant
drunk driving statute, R.S.39:4- 50, to account for the enactment of P.L.2014,
c.54 on September 10, 2014, providing a $25 increase to the surcharge assessed
against drunk driving violators ($100 to $125) in order to, in part, help fund
the installation of mobile video recording systems on municipal police vehicles
as required by that act;
- reinsert provisions concerning
the currently operating supervised visitation program for convicted offenders,
providing visits to hospitals which receive drunk driving victims, facilities
caring for advanced alcoholics or drug abusers, and public morgues or county
medical examiner offices holding deceased victims; the provisions were
inadvertently marked for deletion by the underlying bill (see R.S.39:4-50,
subsection (h)); and
- reinsert the penalty provisions
for offenders who fail to install ignition interlock devices, tamper with
devices, or operate unequipped vehicles, as detailed above, which were included
in the bill as introduced but inadvertently left out of the underlying bill.
KENNETH VERCAMMEN & ASSOCIATES, PC
ATTORNEY AT LAW
2053
Woodbridge Ave.
Edison, NJ
08817
(Phone)
732-572-0500
(Fax) 732-572-0030
website:
www.njlaws.com
