Breath Analyzer-Ignition Lock Idea Catches On

As a Municipal Court judge in northern San Diego County, David Ryan was being asked to participate in a pilot program in which some drunk drivers would be ordered to put gadgets on their cars that would effectively prohibit them from driving if they had alcohol on their breath.

Ryan figured he’d install the device--an ignition lock--on his own car to see if it worked. It did, too well.

“One morning I breathed into the machine, and I couldn’t get my own car started. That kind of caught me by surprise,” said Ryan. “It turned out to be the mouthwash I had used.”

Ryan laughs off the incident now, and stands by the somewhat controversial device as perhaps the best way of keeping convicted drunk drivers from repeating their offenses.

The instrument, introduced to California last summer by three different companies, is designed to prohibit the driver of a car from turning on his ignition unless he first breathes into an under-the-dashboard breath analyzer to make sure his blood alcohol level isn’t above 0.03%--which amounts to about two drinks for most people. In California, a person with a blood alcohol content of 0.10% or more is considered legally drunk.

If the driver can’t pass that test, the ignition remains locked and he can’t start the engine. If he passes the first test, he must still breathe into the instrument with a particular, predetermined pattern of breaths and pauses--a sort of signature that he is in fact the proper driver of the car.

The secondary test is designed to prohibit a drunk from having a buddy breathe into the device on his behalf. If after three tries the computer doesn’t accept the puff-and-pause protocol, the car’s ignition remains locked--even if the person passed the initial breath test.

If the driver fails at either the first or second step, he can try again 15 minutes later--but each failure is noted in the instrument’s computer, which is recorded when the device is checked at a service center every 60 days.

State legislation last year allowed judges to order the device installed in the cars of convicted drunk drivers. Three counties--San Diego, Alameda and Sonoma--are being monitored by the state Office of Traffic Safety to determine how effective the devices are.

While judges as a whole in the three pilot counties agreed to give the device a try, some judges are nonetheless reluctant to order it as a condition of probation when sentencing a drunk driver, for a variety of logistical and philosophical reasons:

- Some judges say the device, which costs about $500 a year to lease--is too expensive to impose on drivers. Others, however, reduce the amount of the accompanying drunk-driving fine by that amount to compensate for the cost of the device.

- Some judges say the device unfairly burdens other members of the family who might need to drive the same car but who must pass the breath test themselves. Other judges respond, What’s wrong with that?

- And others complain that the machine may glitch and unfairly penalize a sober driver, that the machine could be tinkered with and somehow bypassed, or that the driver may simply use another car to head for a bar or party. Proponents counter that the machines rarely fail, that the computer will indicate to technicians whether it has been tampered with, and that the car’s odometer is monitored regularly to make sure it is still the primary vehicle of the driver.

“Sure there are ways around the machine, like anything else,” Ryan said. “People from East Berlin still figure how to get to West Berlin.

So Ryan, among others, is a firm believer that the device may be the most effective way yet to keep drunks off the road.

Statistics Lacking

There are not enough statistics to effectively evaluate whether the gadgets are doing what they’re supposed to do, said Marilyn Sabin, the alcohol program manager for the Office of Traffic Safety. She’s hoping for another year’s extension of the pilot program to better study the results. But here’s how Ryan sees it:

“I’ve reached the conclusion, after 15 years in this business, that we can’t effectively prevent the drunk from getting off a bar stool and driving home just by directing our attention at him . So, we’ve got to work on the drunk’s vehicle, by preventing the intoxicated person from even getting the car started.”

Other traditional sentencing tools available to judges for drunk drivers haven’t been too effective, almost everyone argues, in teaching drunk drivers their lesson because they focus generally on punishment versus behavior modification.

Repeat offenders traditionally face a fine, time in jail and a suspended license, in addition to being ordered to an alcohol rehabilitation program. But jail time may develop little more than a chip on the driver’s shoulder, and studies indicate that 75% of the people with suspended California licenses drive anyway.

One Stiff Drink

For that reason, judges and defense attorneys say the ignition locking system seems to be hitting home with most drunk drivers, who realize that if they even take one stiff drink, a couple of beers or two glasses of wine, they may not be able to start their car and get back home or back to the office.

Consider Ryan’s experience, having had the device on his car for two months just to see how it worked.

“As you drive along, a little red light blinks to show the machine is working. It’s like a constant reminder about drinking. When I’d go to a social function or a chamber of commerce event or to a bar (lawyers’) meeting, I just wouldn’t drink--even though usually I would have a drink. I was just too afraid that when I went out to my car, it wouldn’t start and I wouldn’t be able to get home.”

Betsey Meyer, state coordinator for Guardian Technologies, one of three distributors of the devices in California and the only provider in San Diego County, estimates that there are “several hundred” installed there. Her company has installed “several thousand” elsewhere in the United States--including a sprinkling to car owners who voluntarily install them, at a cost of about $500, to prevent their children from drinking and driving, she said.

Routinely Ordered

Judges in San Diego County order between 30 and 40 of them installed every month through her company, Meyer estimated.

The judge most responsible for ordering their installations, she said, is San Diego Presiding Municipal Judge Ronald Domnitz, who figures that he orders about five drivers a week to have the device installed.

“I don’t know if it’s the answer, but it’s another impedement to drinking and driving, so I tend to use it,” Domnitz said. “And I haven’t seen anyone who’s had one in their car get arrested again for drunk driving.”

Domnitz said he typically orders the device installed if the driver is a repeat offender who violated an earlier probation order prohibiting him from drinking and driving, or if the person has fallen out of the state-sponsored alcohol counseling program. Other judges sometimes order the devices if the driver is a first-time offender who records a blood alcohol of 0.20% or higher, or if the driver is under 21.

“I offer (the device) as an alternative to suspending their license,” Domnitz said. “A few people say they’d rather have their license suspended. I guess some people decide they’ll violate the law (by driving without a license) and hope they don’t get caught.”

Protecting People

Defense attorney David McKenzie of Vista is a big supporter of the instrument, even if his own clients balk at it. “I think it’s a way to protect people from themselves. My clients don’t always agree with me,” he said.

McKenzie noted the case of one woman in her 50s who had been arrested for drunk driving four times over the last 20 years. “She was obviously a problem drinker, and she was facing a lot of time in custody for her most recent offense,” he said.

One judge insisted on sending her to jail for 120 days, but McKenzie found another judge willing, instead, to order the installation of the lock.

“She’s complained that the machine wouldn’t work several times and she couldn’t get her car started, and she had to call a cab,” McKenzie said. “I don’t know if she simply wasn’t able to blow in it correctly, or if she actually had been drinking. She was complaining, but I think she should have been grateful.”

Another defense attorney, however, doesn’t see it the same.

“I think it’s bull . . . ,” said Dan Cronin, an Escondido criminal defense lawyer. “It’s got malfunctioning problems, and it’s a pain . . . for other people who have to drive the car. And it’s not that difficult to get around.”

Still, Cronin admitted to buying stock in the company that makes the instrument.

Some drivers also resist the gadget. Stories abound.

There was, for instance, the salesman who complained to a judge that having to blow into the tube before taking a client to lunch would embarrass him.

Then there was the fellow who, wary he wouldn’t be able to restart his car after driving to a liquor store, left his auto idling in the parking lot.

It was stolen.