BILL NUMBER: S2517A
SPONSOR: COONEY
 
TITLE OF BILL:
An act to amend the vehicle and traffic law, in relation to ignition
interlock devices
 
PURPOSE:
This bill requires compliance with a court order to install, maintain
and regularly use an ignition interlock device, absent a finding of good
cause for a defendant's inability to do so.
 
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:
Sections 1 and 2 amend Vehicle and Traffic Law 1193 to require that
interlock ignition devices (IIDs) be regularly used by defendants
ordered to install and maintain them and to clarify that a driver who
provides proof of regular IID use for at least six continuous months
shall qualify for a reduction to their mandated period of use unless the
court specifically ordered otherwise.
Section 3 makes technical amendments to Vehicle and Traffic Law 1193(1-
a) (c).
Section 4 amends Vehicle and Traffic Law 1193(2)(e) (7) (d) and (e) to
state that no conditional license or extreme hardship privilege issued
during a period of license suspension pending prosecution shall be valid
for the operation of a taxicab or any other motor vehicle used for
transporting passengers for compensation.
Sections 5 amends Vehicle and Traffic Law 1196(7)(g) to state that no
conditional license or privilege conferred in connection with partic-
ipation in an alcohol and drug rehabilitation program within the Depart-
ment of Motor Vehicles shall be valid for the operation of any motor
vehicle used for transporting passengers for compensation.
Section 6 makes technical amendments to Vehicle and Traffic Law 1198
(1).
Section 7 makes technical amendments to Vehicle and Traffic Law
1198(2)(a) and (b) and adds a new paragraph (d) to direct the commis-
sioner to require proof of compliance and regular use of an IID prior to
restoring full license privileges to any driver ordered to install,
maintain and regularly use a functioning IID as a condition of a period
of probation or conditional discharge.
Section 8 amends Vehicle and Traffic Law 1198(3)(a) to require proof of
compliance and regular use of an IID prior to having full license privi-
leges restored upon termination of a period of probation or conditional
discharge and makes technical amendments to (d).
Section 9 makes technical changes to Vehicle and Traffic Law 1198(4)(a),
plus limits the grant of a good cause exception for failure to install
an IID to drivers who do not now own a car, did not own a car at the
time of their arrest, are not married to someone who owns a car they
drive at least occasionally, and are not an adjudicated youthful offen-
der who resides with a parent or legal guardian who owns a car they
drive at least occasionally; requires proof of compliance and regular
use of an IID from a driver prior to removing any court-ordered IID
mandate imposed as a condition of probation or conditional discharge.
Section 10 adds 1198(5)(c) to allow people, once a court-ordered IID is
installed, to start their parked cars during periods of license suspen-
sion or revocation to preserve the battery life of their vehicles.
Section 11 adds Vehicle and Traffic Law 1198(11) to direct the commis-
sioner to establish minimum standards for the continuous and regular use
requirements of 1198.
Section 12 provides an effective date and authorizes the addition,
amendment and/or repeal of any rule or regulation necessary to implement
the legislation on its effective date.
 
JUSTIFICATION:
Leandra's Law (chapter 496 of 2009) was intended to ensure that all DWI
offenders are required as a condition of probation or conditional
discharge to install and maintain an IID for a period of at least 12
months in any vehicle they own or operate, with compliance earning early
release from the IID requirement. Despite the intention of the law, the
utility of IID's is limited by their exceptionally low utilization rate.
In New York, only 25% of drivers ordered to install an IID in their cars
installed such a device. In NYC, 94% of drivers who were ordered to
install an IID from 2010 to 2023 did not do so.
Currently, when a defendant swears in court that they do not own a car
at the time of their sentencing appearance, the court generally excuses
them from installing an IID. Under the terms of the bill, the defendant
would also have to avow that they did not own a car at the time of the
arrest for the drunk driving incident and are not married to someone
whose car they drive at least occasionally. The proposed change in the
requirement for a good cause exception eliminates the defendant's abili-
ty to defeat the IID order by giving their vehicle away to their spouse
after their drunk driving arrest.
This bill also stops DWI offenders sentenced to conditional discharge
from simply "waiting out" their mandated 6 - 12-month IID sentence.
Rather than automatically allowing a person to begin driving again
following the IID period, despite never having installed and driven with
an IID, this bill requires DWI offenders ordered to install an IID in a
car they own or operate to also "regularly use the car with an IID as a
condition for getting their license back.
It is important to make sure that IID's are installed and used as a tool
against drunk driving since they are proven to be effective in reducing
DWI's. In a recent study comparing two states that have HD laws with two
states that do not, the Governor's Highway Safety Association found a
significant decrease in DWI recidivism in the states that had such laws
compared to the states that did not. The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration observed that states with stringent IID laws experience a
15% decrease in DWI-related traffic deaths compared to states lacking
such laws. IID's reduce DWI's while they are installed by approximately
70%. IID's also teach people when not to drive; many people are in
denial about their alcohol intake or their ability to function after
drinking alcohol. IID's provide an effective behavioral feedback mech-
anism to educate drivers about their fitness to get behind the wheel.
Perhaps most importantly, IID's are the only available technology to
stop people from driving while drunk.
Finally, people who have their license suspended or revoked while they
have an IID in place are not currently permitted to start their cars.
When the car battery inevitably dies, it appears to the monitor that the
IID has been disabled, and the person with the installed IID is punished
with a fine or other penalty for non-compliance with the IID order. This
bill would permit people with suspended or revoked licenses to start
their parked cars and run them during the period of license suspension
revocation to preserve their battery life and avoid the fees and penal-
ties associated with non-compliance with the court's IID order.
 
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
S775/A4171 of 2023-24: Referred to Transportation
 
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
This bill will have no fiscal impact on the State or local governments.
 
EFFECTIVE DATE:
This act shall take effect immediately.

Statutes affected:
S2517: 1193 vehicle and traffic law, 1193(1) vehicle and traffic law, 1193(2) vehicle and traffic law, 1198 vehicle and traffic law, 1198(4) vehicle and traffic law
S2517A: 1193 vehicle and traffic law, 1193(1) vehicle and traffic law, 1193(1-a) vehicle and traffic law, 1196 vehicle and traffic law, 1196(7) vehicle and traffic law, 1198 vehicle and traffic law, 1198(1) vehicle and traffic law, 1198(5) vehicle and traffic law