MI DUI & CPL

When the blue and red lights come on you immediately begin to go down a mental check list: Where is my license?  Where is my insurance and registration?  How fast was I going?  Is my seatbelt on? And for those of you with a Concealed  Pistol License (CPL) you need to revert to your initial training.

First, you need to notify the officer that you hold a CPL and where the weapon is located[i].  Further, you may be subject to a $500 fine and 6 month CPL suspension if you fail to notify the officer.[ii] Typically, the officer will have knowledge that you hold a CPL after running the license plate to inquire who the vehicle is registered to, and then running the registered owner’s license that would include notification that the potential driver is a CPL holder.  Officers are going to approach with much caution under these circumstances, therefore, it is important for you to be forthcoming and cooperative.

In some cases, these temporary traffic stops morph into indepth drunk driving investigations.  If you are arrested for drunk driving, the penalties that you may endure or the degree of the penalties depend on several variables.

First, the major distinction between the potential penalties depend on whether you physically had your pistol on your person, in the vehicle, locked in the vehicle, or at home.

However, for your county licensing board, there is no presumption of innocense when arrested for drunk driving.  When you are arrested or more specifically charged with drunk driving the Prosecutor (who by law is typically a member of the licensing board) is required to report the drunk driving chargeto the county licensing board[iii].   When the Board receives that notice they will send Order of Suspension because of the alleged violation.[iv]

You are required then to forfeit your license in a timely manner, and failure to do so is punishable by up to 93 days in jail and /or fine of $500.[v]

This suspension will continue until the disposition of the drunk driving.  When the matter is ultimately resolved, the prosecutor again is required to report the disposition to the Board so they may take appropriate action.  The Board will then send a subsequent Notice  of suspension and possible revocaction.  Under some circumstances, you have a right to a hearing[vi] but the board is going to revoke your CPL as result of a drunk driving conviction.

When reviewing the CPL  application and renewal requirements, to be eligible for for CPL you can not have a drunk driving within the past 3 years.  Therefore, it is  anticpated that the suspension would likely continue for a minimum of 3 years.

However, these penalties are subject to whether the pistol was on person when the alleged offense occurred.  If the pistol was on person, and not locked in the trunk or not at home, and the BAC or bodily alcohol content was above a .10, then the CPL will be permantly revoked.[vii] If the the BAC was .08 or more but less than .10, then the it would  be revoked for not more than 3 years, and 1 year revocation if more .02 or more but less than .08. [viii] In addition, there are related criminal charges if the pistol is on person, which may include 93 day jail sentence and $100 fine. [ix]

Therefore, it is extremely important to notify the officer immediately of the CPL and pistol location when involved in a traffic stop.  If you are subsequently arrested for drunk driving, you may anticipate that you will be required to relinquish your license to the Board, and may have pistol forefeited.  That suspension will conitnue until disposition of the case, and notification by the prosecuting attorney to the Board.  The potential suspension will depend on the resolution of the case, but also some of the other aspects outlined above.  In addition, it is likely that you would not be eligible for renewal of the CPL for a minimum of 3 years if convicted of the drunk driving.

[ii] MCL  28.425f(4)

[iii] MCL 28.425m

[iv] MCL 28.425b(7)(i)

[v] MCL  28.425b(16)

[vi] MCL  28.428

[vii] MCL 28.425k(a)

[viii] MCL 28.425k(b)-(c)

[ix] MCL  28.425k (a)-(b)

Drunk Driving Suspects have many Rights.  However, most drunk driving suspects are unaware of the rights they have during the investigation, the arrest, and thereafter.  If you have been arrested for drunk driving, or represent someone who has been arrested for drunk driving, it is necessary to clearly understand those rights.

It is commonly understood that we all have a right to remain silent, but silence is rarely adhered to after being stopped and investigated for Drunk Driving.  In that same regard, you have a right not to perform Field Sobriety Tests (FSTs) when asked by an officer because these tests are voluntary, but the officer will not inform you that they are voluntary.

Further, an officer will often request a suspect to submit to a roadside or preliminary breath test, a PBT.  Prior to that request officers are required to read the suspect their PBT rights.  You have the right and should refuse this test, but you will be subject to a civil infraction ticket for PBT Refusal[1], which would include a fine but no points on your driving record.  Further, that test is inadmissible at Trial and is only used to establish probable cause to support an arrest.[2]

Once arrested, you will often be transported to the County Jail or arresting agency’s station for a chemical test.  Prior to any test being performed an officer is required to read Chemical Test Rights[3].  Unfortunately, under Michigan’s Implied Consent Law [4]it is not necessary for you to “understand” your Chemical Test Rights, only that they are read to you[5].  However, you may request a copy of the Chemical Test Rights to read independently.

After these rights are read the officer will request that you submit to a blood, breath, or urine test.  In a majority of cases, the officer will request a breath test on the BAC Datamaster, a breathalyzer.  This test is completely separate from a roadside breath test.  You have a right to refuse, but you will then be subject to a possible 6 points and 1 year license suspension[6] and in a majority of cases a Warrant will be obtained to have your blood drawn[7].  In addition, if you do submit to the breath test, or whichever test was requested by the officer, you have a right to have your own independent test performed[8].  Lastly, you may request to speak with an Attorney, but unfortunately again, you do not necessarily have a right to speak with one prior to submitting to a chemical test.

Finally, an officer is not required to provide you Miranda Rights[9] unless the officer intends on asking you further questions, or interrogating you, after you have been arrested.  Typically, an officer feels he or she has sufficient evidence and information obtained during the investigation wherein it is not necessary to interrogate a suspect.  However, you should always elect your right to remain silent, request an Attorney, and not answer any questions if the officer does provide you Miranda Rights.

If you feel any of these rights have been violated it is imperative to inform your attorney, so they may better represent you and protect your rights .

Get a FREE confidential CASE EVALUATION on your Michigan OWI/OWVI/DUI by calling (616) 365-5780 , or filling out this consultation request form. Call now, there’s no obligation!

[2] 257.625a(2)(b)(i)

[3] 257.625a(6)(b)

[4] 257.625c

[5] 257.625f(4)(d)

[6] 257.625a(6)(b)(v)

[7] 257.625d

[8] 257.625a(6)(b)(i)

[9] MIRANDA v. ARIZONA, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)

Fleeing Eluding Michigan

Michigan DUI lawyers are sometimes faced with over-zealous prosecutors who want to pile on to the drunk driving charge.  One way to do this is to add an additional “count” (charge) of Fleeing and Eluding.  Fleeing and Eluding in the 4^th Degree is a 2 Year Felony and the “count” most commonly added to a Charging Complaint.

As some Michigan DUI lawyers know, the reason that adding Fleeing and Eluding to a Michigan drunk driving charge is so significant is because this additional crime is classified as a Felony, whereas most Michigan drunk driving charges are misdemeanors.

If you are charged with this crime, or if you are a DUI lawyer trying to help a client so charged, then it is important to understand the differences and similarities of Fleeing and Eluding under the Michigan Motor Vehicle Code(MMVC)[1], and Fleeing and Eluding under the Michigan Penal Code(MPC)[2].

The two codes, also called “statutes” are essentially identical in their statutory construction and how they are prosecuted.  Further, the license sanctions are also identical.  However, the monetary penalties and how the matter is potentially resolved are very different.

For example, as shown below, there is a significant difference in the fine that may be imposed under the two statutes.

MMVC                         MPC

257.602a v          750.479a

*4^th Degree                   2 yrs/ $500                  2 yrs/ $2,000

3^rd Degree                   5 yrs/ $1,000               5 yrs/ $5,000

2^nd Degree                   10 yrs/ $5,000             10 yrs/ $10,000

1^st Degree                    15 yrs/ $10,000           15 yrs/ $15,000

The most significant difference between the two charges/codes is that if the charge is brought under MPC, then the prosecutor has the ability to amend or reduce the charge to ATTEMPTED Fleeing and Eluding, which would allow the conviction to be a Misdemeanor.

In many cases, attorneys seek a plea offer to an Attempted Fleeing and Eluding because they believe it will then be a Misdemeanor, however, that is not always the case.  If the Fleeing and Eluding charge is under the Motor Vehicle Code then it CAN NOT be reduced to a Misdemeanor.

The reason this charge cannot be reduced a Misdemeanor as an “Attempt” is because under the MMVC’s “Conviction of an ATTEMPT”Statute[3] it requires the Court to impose the same penalties as if the offense were committed.  Therefore, a District Court does not have jurisdiction and can not sentence because the penalty requires more than a 1 year jail sentence.

Conversely, under MPC, there is no similar statute that prevents the charge from being reduced to an Attempted Fleeing and Eluding.  However, this alternative to a Misdemeanor is only available under 4^th Degree .  Fleeing and Eluding 3^rd – 1^st Degree still prohibit the District Court jurisdiction because the penalty would be greater than a 1 year jail sentence.  Therefore, only  Fleeing and Eluding 4^th Degree under the Penal Code may be reduced to a Misdemeanor.

When considering this information, keep in mind that there are many similarities as well so that with a conviction for Fleeing and Eluding under the Motor Vehicle Code, or Attempted Fleeing and Eluding or Fleeing and Eluding under the Penal Code, the Secretary of State will impose an identical 1 year license suspension with no Hardship Appeal, 6 points, and a two-year $1,000 driver responsibility fee.  Further, if the conviction is under 1^st or 2^nd degree, the Secretary of State will impose a 1 year revocation rather than a suspension.

Get a FREE confidential CASE EVALUATION on your Michigan OWI/OWVI/DUI by calling (616) 365-5780 , or filling out this consultation request form. Call now, there’s no obligation!

[2] MCL 750.479a

[3] MCL 257.204b

DUI Super Drunk Law Enforcement

On October 31, 2010 a new drunk driving law in Michigan goes into effect, and it carries some stiff penalties. Known as the “Super Drunk” bill, this legislation amends several sections of Michigan law, and most notably adds a new crime for drivers with a bodily alcohol content (BAC) of .17 or greater.  Under this new statutory definition of operating while intoxicated these high BAC drivers are required to have a breath alcohol ignition interlock device (BAIID) placed on their vehicle.

Other more punitive sanctions include:

• A first offense high BAC drunk driver’s license is suspended for one year.
• The first 45 days of this year is considered a “hard” suspension, meaning absolutely no driving is allowed.
• 320 days of restricted driving privileges, but only with an ignition interlock device placed on their car.
• Fines are increased to $200.00 – $700.00, and
• potential jail time is increased from up to a possible 93 days to as much as 180 days.

There are several other changes as well.  For example,

• The court must also order a mandatory minimum one-year alcohol treatment program.
• The new law also makes drunk driving far more expensive because it is the driver’s responsibility to pay the cost of installing the BAIID as well as the monthly fees required to maintain it.
• The new law also provides for a sanction of impoundment where a person required to have a BAIID is stopped in a non-BAIID vehicle.

At the Barone Defense Firm we intend to fight this new law and to help our clients avoid any of these penalties.

Get a FREE confidential CASE EVALUATION on your Michigan OWI/OWVI/DUI by calling (616) 365-5780 , or filling out this consultation request form. Call now, there’s no obligation!

Only Blood Alcohol Intoxicates

One of the main scientific underpinnings of breath testing is this thing called “partition ration.”  This refers to the difference in breath alcohol verses blood alcohol.  this is an important subject because testing the breath can only tell you how much alcohol is in the breath.  And, there is always less alcohol in the breath than there is in the blood.

But breath alcohol does not impair or intoxicate.  For that to happen the alcohol must get into the brain, and this of course requires that the alcohol be in the blood.

Because of this, in order for breath alcohol to have any relevance it must be converted to blood alcohol.  To do this a ratio of breath and blood alcohol must be used.  This is where partition ratio comes in, and this is one of the dirty little secretes of breath testing.

All breath testing machines everywhere in the United States “assume” that your breath blood partition ration is 2100/1.  This means every molecule of alcohol in your breath is multiplied by a factor of 2100.   But, not everyone has a partition ratio of 2100/1.  Some people have a partition ration as low as 1784/1 to as high as about 3400/1, and anyone who has a partition ration that is different has a breath test score that is either too high or too low.

Because of this many scientists have recommended that a “safety factor” be applied to breath test scores.  The idea is that this will cause there to be fewer false convictions. For example, Kurt Dubowski suggested this “safety factor” because data from his own research showed that at least 14% of the subjects had blood breath partition ratios less than 2100:1.[i] Dr. Dubowski also stated that for states using the two decimal system, (such as Michigan), a 0.025 deduction would round off to 0.03.  This would make a .10 breath test score actually a .07 – below the legal limit!

Another top expert, A.W. Jones recomends a 0.015 g/210 liter reduction from the mean of two subsequent breath tests.  This is less than Dubowski, but can still be significant.  The highest recommendation is from Dominick Labianca who suggested a 0.055% reduction from the raw result.  This would make a .13 at .075, again, below the legal limit!

Get a FREE confidential CASE EVALUATION on your Michigan OWI/OWVI/DUI by calling (616) 365-5780 , or filling out this consultation request form. Call now, there’s no obligation!

Trial of the DUI Case

Tonight President Obama is likely to talk to nation about the economy and what he intends to do to fix it. I suspect that he’ll say something like that fixing the economy is his number one priority.  Like someone else said a long time ago, it’s all about the economy, i.e., “it’s the economy – stupid.”

And so it is with wining a DUI trial.  Just substitute the word “preparation” for the word “economy.”  You want to know how to win a drunk driving trial?  “It’s the preparation –.”  Before you start spending lots of time figuring out exactly what you’re trying to prepare you need to understand that your preparation is for one purpose and one purpose only – to identify the theme of your case.  Everything else goes follows from there.

Let me say this differently.  Let’s say you’re handling a murder case and you learn that the state’s eye witness made a written statement that the perp had only one ear.  You know your client has two ears.  Do you cross examine the witness on this obvious mistake?  It depends on your theory of the case.  If your theory is self-defense then who cares if the witness is wrong about the ears?

The same is true of a drunk driving case.  Yes, in most DUI cases you will ask the jurors if they are members or contribute to MADD, if they drink, if they keep and/or serve alcohol in their home, do they allow people to leave their house after drinking, have they have consumed alcohol and driven, do they agree that it’s possible to do this and still drive safely, etc., etc., but these questions may not applicable, and certainly may not be the most important.

The first thing you must do, and this requires a great deal of preparation, is to figure out your theme.  Everything else, from voir dire, to opening statement, to direct (if any) to cross to closing is all based on this theme.  You use your voir dire to set up your opening statement which sets up your cross examination which sets up your close; and all of this is wrapped around a theme.  If the voir dire or cross-examination question doesn’t fit into your theme, then no matter how tempting, don’t ask it.

Ok, having said all this, we all use various sources to figure out how to approach different cases and witnesses and so forth, and Patrick T. Barone’s book Defending Drinking Drivers has lots of sample cross-examination in it and there are several detailed sections on voir dire, opening, closing and so forth.  Larry Taylor’s book is a must-read, and is simply excellent.  There are dozens of DUI defense books on the market these days, but in my very biased opinion James Publishing has several of the leading books on DUI defense, including Kapsack’s book, and the book on defending chemical tests.

With proper preparation and a powerful theme and some good story telling nearly any DUI case can be won at trial.  But, if you lose the preparation and you’ll surely lose the case!

MOGG v. State
Ind: Court of Appeals, 2009

Here is a summary of the case:

On January 16, 2007 Appellant pled guilty to operating a vehicle while intoxicated.  Her jail time was suspended pending successful completion of a probationary term.  One of the conditions of probation was that she consume no alcohol.  On August 27, 2007, the state alleged that Appellant violated her probation by consuming alcohol.

Upon admission of the violation, the trial court extended Appelant’s probation and imposed an addition condition, which was the continuous wearing of the SCRAM bracelet. 

In January, 2008 Appellant was placed on a SCRAM II bracelet, an updated version.  March 17, 2008 Appellant admitted violating her probation as part of an agreement that extended her probation by four months and required her to remain on the SCRAM II.  

On June 20, 2008 the State filed a new information of probation violation, alleging violation by consuming alcohol “as evidenced positive SCRAM events.” On November 1, 2008 the State filed another information of probation violation alleging Appellant consumed alcohol four days prior, as evidenced by positive readings for alcohol while on SCRAM. 

The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on both information’s and revoked Appellants probation on the finding that she had consumed alcohol.  Appellate continued to deny consuming any alcohol.

Appellant appealed on whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of Appellant’s alcohol consumption generated by the SCRAM system. An additional question before the court was whether there was sufficient evidence to support the revocation of Appellant’s probation. 

The Court of Appeals concluded the trial court did not abuse their discretion based on the uncontroverted expert testimony and evidence before them in determining the SCRAM readings as evidence of alcohol consumption.   Finding that they were sufficiently reliable to be admissible as for purposes of a probation revocation.

What follows is a discussion of breath testing source-code challenges that have been brought in New Jersey.  It was written by one of the nation’s top DUI defense lawyers, Evan Levow.

New Jersey was the last to get rid of the antiquated Draeger-Smith & Wesson Breathalyzer®, replacing it with a computer-chip based machine, the Draeger Alcotest MKIII-C®.  The Alcotest is a dual measuring device, using both fuel cell and infrared technology to assess a breath sample.  No other company uses this dual technology, and the combination of the measurements, at first glance, made the machine and the process sound too good to be true.

Other jurisdictions are currently implementing the Alcotest, including Massachusetts and Connecticut, although they are using the 9510 model, which is a Windows® type format, but is essentially the same as the 7110.  Washington is about to purchase the 9510, as well.  New York State Police and some counties in California have been using the 7110 for a couple of years now.

Without the computer chips in the Alcotest®, Intoxilyzer®, DataMaster®, or Intoximeter®, the machines would be useless.  The machines run based on computer language or “source code”. 

Defendants in several jurisdictions, including Arizona, Florida and Minnesota, sought the source code from CMI, the manufacturer of the Intoxilyzer®, but actual litigation to obtain the code has not been successful.  DataMaster® has, with a non-disclosure agreement, allowed its code to be reviewed, but no litigation resulted from the review.

Only New Jersey, has undergone full source code litigation, both to obtain the code and a court based challenge on the reliability of the code.

In 2002, a pilot program was started in one New Jersey town, testing over 300 defendants on the Alcotest 7110.  Litigation was instituted in a single county, resulting in authorization to use the machine in that one county, only, in a case called State v. Foley, 370 N.J.Super. 341, 851 A.2d 123 (Law Div., 2003).  Foley resulted in some software changes to the machine.

However, appellate approval was required to use the machine state-wide, and the State failed to certify the case to the Appellate Division.  Not realizing its mistake, the State began to roll-out the machine county by county in 2005.  Several defendants began making discovery requests for the source code, and the State again certified a group of cases in a county level court, in State v. Chun.  That court declined to grant judicial notice of Foley, and the issue was eventually picked up, sua sponte, by the New Jersey Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court appointed a Special Master to conduct a state-wide reliability hearing on the machine.  The ensuing litigation lasted over three years, produced over 10,000 pages in testimony and almost 300 exhibits.  National and international experts testified for the parties, including Michael Hlastala, Ph.D., and Gerald Simpson, Ph.D.

Initially, Draeger declined to get involved in the litigation, and would not grant any realistic access to the source code.  After the Special Master issued his first of two findings of fact, Draeger intervened in the litigation because it did not like some of the Master’s rulings.  As a party to the limitation, the Supreme Court then ordered Draeger to disclose its source code under protective order

The defense team, which included Evan Levow, hired a source code analyst that found several errors and issues with the code.  Each one of these errors was opined to be enough to determine that the code is not scientifically reliable:

• The Alcotest® software would not pass U.S. Industry standards for software development and testing.  The software was not developed to any known standards, or, according to Draeger’s software engineer, no guideline standards at all.
• Actual proof of incomplete software testing.
• Catastrophic error detection in the program is disabled.  As a result, the machine would not know if critical processes failed during its operation.
• Design lacks positive feedback.  The machine cannot tell if the program is functioning correctly, and that each of the processes or calculations are occurring during operation of the program.
• Diagnostics adjust or substitute actual readings.
• Flow measurements adjust and substitute
•  No error detection logic
•  Software does not insulate/protect modules or data
• Timing problems

The most significant issue with the reliability of the Alcotest® actually came up during the cross-examination of one of Draeger’s software designers, who testified that the fuel cell measurements were actually tied in to and calibrated by the infrared measurements.  If the machine sensed an error with the fuel cell reading, it basically brought the fuel cell reading in line with the infrared reading and did not report any error.  The designer testified that, due to fuel cell drift, there was up to twenty five percent error in the fuel cell measurement.

This revelation directly contradicts Draeger’s claim that the Alcotest® is the only machine available that tests breath with two independent sources, fuel cell and infrared.

In March 2008, in State v. Chun, 194 N.J. 54 (2008) the New Jersey Supreme Court disregarded these errors and held that the machine, with certain safeguards, was reliable.  The machine tolerance between acceptable fuel cell and infrared readings was reduced by fifty percent, and the volume of air required to be emitted by women aged 60 years or older was reduced.  A twenty minute observation period prior to the breath testing was mandated.

An appeal was filed to the United States Supreme Court on confrontation issues under Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004).  Certiorari was denied, Chun v. New Jersey, 129 S.Ct. 158, 172 L. Ed.2d 41 (2008).

Despite the errors and issues present in the Alcotest 7110 MKIII-C, it is now used throughout New Jersey.

The case involving the lead defendant, Jane Chun, was ongoing at press time.  Ironically, the breath test results in Ms. Chun’s case were excluded from evidence, due to failure to follow protocol procedures for breath testing.  Field tests were administered while Ms. Chun was wearing high heeled shoes.

Massachusetts has also begun a scientific reliability challenge to the Alcotest.

On December 21, 2009, Michael Boyle got things rolling at the new 63^rd – 2^nd District Court with the court’s first not-guilty verdict on an OWI (Operating While Intoxicated) case. Mr. Boyle is a Senior Trial Lawyer at the Barone Defense Firm.

In this case the driver was charged with a second drunk driving case in seven years. He faced up to a year in jail and an automatic license revocation, also for one year. The not-guilty verdict allowed the client to avoid all of these consequences for this Michigan OWI case.

In addition to being charged with drunk driving based on the theory of OUIL (Operating Under the Influence of Liquor) and UBAL (Unlawful Bodily Alcohol Content), this client was also charged with Open Intoxicants in a Motor Vehicle.

According to the police report, at approximately 9:40 p.m., the Kent County Sheriff Department was dispatched to a grocery store where a man was supposed to be passed out in his truck. The deputies and emergency people arrived and just as reported, found a driver passed out in his truck. The car was parked in a parking space, but was not running. The only field sobriety test administered was the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN), which was positive. The passed-out person also had slurred speech, a strong odor of intoxicants and was not oriented. He was arrested and his blood was drawn pursuant to a search warrant. The toxicology report came back showing a BAC of .16 grams of alcohol per 100 ml blood.

At the Driver Appeals and Assessment Division of the Michigan Secretary of State (DAAD) hearing Mr. Boyle got the officer to admit that he know nothing about when the driver got to the parking lot or how long he had been there before the Deputies arrived. Also that the Deputy collected no information during his investigation of about alcohol consumption (other than an admission) how much was consumed or over what period of time

The Deputy did claim that a half of Fifth of Crown Royal was in the vehicle and believed a 32oz cup had a mixture of coke and crown with approximately 1/8 to 1/10 was left in the cup.

At trial, Mr. Boyle cross-examined the witnesses to show that the state had no evidence of operation. Specifically, that there was no real evidence that the driver was under the influence of alcohol (OUIL) or above the legal limit (UBAL) while driving. Mr. Boyle was able to support this argument through cross examination of the State’s Expert who admitted that there was insufficient evidence. After a very brief period of deliberations, the jury found our client NOT GUILTY of OWI.

Ignition Interlock Device in Car

MADD is at it again, this time the goal is to put an ignition interlock device into every drunk driver’s car. A bill has been introduced to make such a law mandatory in every state.

They intend to do it the old fashioned way – by withholding federal highway money. This is the same insidious method that was used to make 0.08 blood-alcohol content the law in every state. MADD intends to use this method to compel states to require alcohol ignition interlocks for all convicted drunk driving offenders.

The threat of losing federal highway funds has proven to be a powerful inducement to pass increasingly draconian drunk driving laws. Recently, two U.S. senators, Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey and Tom Udall of New Mexico, joined MADD representatives Monday to announce their bill will use this tactic for ignition interlocks.

Accordingly to OHSonline:

Lautenberg wrote the law that lowered the legal blood-alcohol limit to 0.08 from 0.10 in all 50 states and also the law that set 21 as the legal minimum drinking age. He said U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman James Oberstar, D-Minn., has included language to accomplish the bill’s goal in the transportation reauthorization bill. Lautenberg and Udall serve on the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee.

In passing the super drunk law, Michigan recently joined ten other states that currently have laws that require an ignition interlocks for all drunk driving offenders. The other states include Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Hawaii, Louisiana, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Utah, and Washington. Michigan’s law will go into effect on October 31, 2010.

For more information on ignition interlocks see:

• Drunk Driving Traffic Stops and Interlocks
• Will Ignition Interlocks End Drunk Driving?
• Ignition Interlocks – BAIID