Alcohol Interlock Devices Across the Country

[GuyInNC]

This is mostly a curiosity question. I recently received my first DUI in NC and am required to have a Alcohol Interlock Device for a year (plus my license is suspended for a year). I am guilty and have to suffer the consequences.

The law plays out in my case in a very strange way. After 45 days I can apply for a 'Limited Driving Privilege'. This would limit my driving to a car with a Interlock on it and would further limit my driving only to/from work and to/from the Interlock Device testing facility. Since I am retired the only driving that I could do is to/from the testing facility. But it still is in my best interest to install the device, because I have to have it on a car for a year even if I wait until my suspension period is up. So my choices are to have the device on a car that I cannot drive (and get the device calibrated/downloaded monthly or bi-monthly) and once my suspension is up I can 'drive normally again'. Or I can just not bother now with the device but will have to put up with it when I start driving again.

Since I do not currently own a car, the obvious choice of putting the device 'on now when I cannot drive' is a goodly sized incremental expense. It would be nice if I could buy a junker that would barely pass inspection and just leave it parked at the interlock facilities for regular testing - from all that I know (I have talked to two attorneys on this) that would suffice and 'the powers that be would be happy'. But I don't think it would work with the Interlock folks

This is almost like something out of Alice in Wonderland. I was wondering if this kind of strange sounding scenario could happen in other states. Like I said it is mostly a curiosity thing.

Thanks.

ps. Just a fascinating question. What kind of car do you buy if you do not intend to drive it?

 

[Ohiogal]

This is mostly a curiosity question. I recently received my first DUI in NC and am required to have a Alcohol Interlock Device for a year (plus my license is suspended for a year). I am guilty and have to suffer the consequences.

The law plays out in my case in a very strange way. After 45 days I can apply for a 'Limited Driving Privilege'. This would limit my driving to a car with a Interlock on it and would further limit my driving only to/from work and to/from the Interlock Device testing facility. Since I am retired the only driving that I could do is to/from the testing facility. But it still is in my best interest to install the device, because I have to have it on a car for a year even if I wait until my suspension period is up. So my choices are to have the device on a car that I cannot drive (and get the device calibrated/downloaded monthly or bi-monthly) and once my suspension is up I can 'drive normally again'. Or I can just not bother now with the device but will have to put up with it when I start driving again.

Since I do not currently own a car, the obvious choice of putting the device 'on now when I cannot drive' is a goodly sized incremental expense. It would be nice if I could buy a junker that would barely pass inspection and just leave it parked at the interlock facilities for regular testing - from all that I know (I have talked to two attorneys on this) that would suffice and 'the powers that be would be happy'. But I don't think it would work with the Interlock folks

This is almost like something out of Alice in Wonderland. I was wondering if this kind of strange sounding scenario could happen in other states. Like I said it is mostly a curiosity thing.

Thanks.

ps. Just a fascinating question. What kind of car do you buy if you do not intend to drive it?

Whose car were you driving while drunk? And apparently you drive more than just to testing.

 

[FlyingRon]

There's nothing "strange" in this. NC is hardly unique in that you can't wait out the interlock requirement. You've got to do it for a year whether you get a limited license or not, and whether you wait a decade before driving again or not.
They want to see you can be trusted driving without consuming alcohol.

There are some states that wouldn't even offer the limited license. The suspension period is a hard suspension.

But you are right, they don't care if once you install the interlock you NEVER drive. That's up to you. Note the car has to be operational enough to get to the testing center.

 

[GuyInNC]

Whose car were you driving while drunk? And apparently you drive more than just to testing.

I'm not sure that I understand the question. I was driving my own car, I missed the deer, but not the tree. 9 year old car so it didn't take much to total it out.

I don't understand your second sentence at all. Right now I don't drive anywhere/anytime.

dave

 

[GuyInNC]

There's nothing "strange" in this. NC is hardly unique in that you can't wait out the interlock requirement. You've got to do it for a year whether you get a limited license or not, and whether you wait a decade before driving again or not.
They want to see you can be trusted driving without consuming alcohol.

There are some states that wouldn't even offer the limited license. The suspension period is a hard suspension.

But you are right, they don't care if once you install the interlock you NEVER drive. That's up to you. Note the car has to be operational enough to get to the testing center.

Re: The BOLD Stuff

It just seems odd that if they view this as a 'test of being trusted to drive without consuming alcohol", then my situation where I basically cannot drive anywhere would not fulfill that requirement. In my case I was worried that someone was going to look at this whole story and say "this makes no sense - you cannot have an unlimited license until you have actually driven with an interlock in place. That has not happened yet so you have another year before we will let you go".

It is a bigger deal for me than most since I don't currently own a car. I'm mostly trying to get comfortable with the outcome that I won't be wasting my time buying/insuring a car that i don't drive.

 

[FlyingRon]

lost since I don't currently own a car. I'm mostly trying to get comfortable with the outcome that I won't be wasting my time buying/insuring a car that i don't drive.

I don't know why you think you need to get "comfortable" with anything. If you don't want to drive, don't get a car. You're going to be stuck with a year of interlock no matter what you do.
At least if you have a car and you're not driving it we can feel comfortable that you're responsible enough to stay within your license restrictions. That actually puts you ahead of many of your fellow criminals.

 

[GuyInNC]

I don't know why you think you need to get "comfortable" with anything. If you don't want to drive, don't get a car. You're going to be stuck with a year of interlock no matter what you do.
At least if you have a car and you're not driving it we can feel comfortable that you're responsible enough to stay within your license restrictions. That actually puts you ahead of many of your fellow criminals.

Don't know about you, but before I pay for a year's depreciation a car, a year's (expensive) insurance on a car, and a year's interlock monitoring fees on a car, I NEED to be comfortable that after the year is up I have not wasted my money (call it $5k) as this scenario makes no sense to me.

Here is a slightly different swizzle on this deal. I could cancel out the re-titling/re-registering of the (jointly titled) car that my wife drives and we could put the monitor in place on that car. Note that I WOULD NOT ask my wife to do this (even if she would). But it is an option. In this case the state will allow me to drive again 'free and clear' only if my wife drives sober for a year (I would not be driving it).

I just cannot imagine a rational person looking at this and not asking "REALLY??? - Is that what they would do?"

From all I can tell, yes - that really is what they would do.

Sincerely,

Your Friendly Discussion Board Criminal

 

[not2cleverRed]

Don't know about you, but before I pay for a year's depreciation a car, a year's (expensive) insurance on a car, and a year's interlock monitoring fees on a car, I NEED to be comfortable that after the year is up I have not wasted my money (call it $5k) as this scenario makes no sense to me.

Here is a slightly different swizzle on this deal. I could cancel out the re-titling/re-registering of the (jointly titled) car that my wife drives and we could put the monitor in place on that car. Note that I WOULD NOT ask my wife to do this (even if she would). But it is an option. In this case the state will allow me to drive again 'free and clear' only if my wife drives sober for a year (I would not be driving it).

I just cannot imagine a rational person looking at this and not asking "REALLY??? - Is that what they would do?"

From all I can tell, yes - that really is what they would do.

Sincerely,

Your Friendly Discussion Board Criminal

Um, is that a problem?

Does you wife also drive drunk? If so, then she should be off the road too.

Accept the system and work with it. It may be imperfect, but it is what it is.

 

[FlyingRon]

I don't know what your persistant whining is about. If you don't want to drive (because they won't let you use your restricted license to do anything that pleases you), DON'T DRIVE. Then you don't have to worry about owning a car.
That doesn't change the fact that when you do drive again, you'll need to use an interlock.

Nobody is making you get a restricted license. It's an exception and a privilege extended to criminals who don't have any other way to earn a living. Sorry the leniency is such a burden to you.

 

[GuyInNC]

Um, is that a problem?

Does you wife also drive drunk? If so, then she should be off the road too.

Accept the system and work with it. It may be imperfect, but it is what it is.

We are talking about subjecting an innocent party to an alcohol interlock device and using those results to judge a guilty party and base his/her ability to drive on the results of the innocent party. And you are asking me if I see something wrong here. That right? And obviously you have no idea about the field performance of these devices (where the real problem has nothing to do with the sobriety of my wife who doesn't drink).

BTW, I am not trying to game the system and I am not trying to change the system. I am trying to verify my understanding of a system that seems illogical in my case. I will, without complaint, buy a car and sit it in my garage for a year IF the outcome is what I have been led to believe it will be and no one is going to 'post-judge' this and apply common sense.

 

[FlyingRon]

You're not innocent. Your wife is just going to have to put up with the consequences of being married to a criminal.

 

[GuyInNC]

I'm withdrawing from the free for all that is going on here (short pause for the applause the gallery to die down ). This is certainly within the norms of a newbie arriving on a discussion board (even without the extreme circumstances in this case). I will admit to being a bit surprised at the treatment of my wife, but ...

However, if anyone actually has experience with an undriven car meeting a state's interlock requirements I'd be interested in that background. If I could get REALLY comfortable with how this actually plays out I would remove the device (they are removeable by design, but your car is disabled), and pay a small fee to have the car long-term winterized and rodent-proofed, and store it somewhere off my property, leaving it undriven for a year. Even though the first thing that the interlock folks are going to do is remove the device and take it inside their business, me showing up on a bike with the device in hand probably won't cut it as they probably have some kind of tampering check requirement. But since logic isn't applicable to all situations here, you never know.

So if anyone has any relevant experience here, I'll be watching until Tuesday. Then, unless the scheduled mechanical check falls apart, I will be heading down the 'own an undriven car for a year' road (most likely the car parked in my garage and driven 6 times - total of 24 miles - over a year). After Tuesday I'll be outta' here (more applause).

 

[drruthless]

Forgive them Father, for they care not who they snark

We are talking about subjecting an innocent party to an alcohol interlock device and using those results to judge a guilty party and base his/her ability to drive on the results of the innocent party. And you are asking me if I see something wrong here. That right? And obviously you have no idea about the field performance of these devices (where the real problem has nothing to do with the sobriety of my wife who doesn't drink).

BTW, I am not trying to game the system and I am not trying to change the system. I am trying to verify my understanding of a system that seems illogical in my case. I will, without complaint, buy a car and sit it in my garage for a year IF the outcome is what I have been led to believe it will be and no one is going to 'post-judge' this and apply common sense.

I think there is little chance of that happening.
Obviously you were not present to point out the absurdity's of these poorly written and enacted laws,
but it is what it is.
a clear minded criminal such as yourself can't be expected to be everywhere all at once can he?
The intent was to keep drunks such as ourselves off the road at prime deer crossing hours (deer bars close early you know) these laws are crafted by the fine folks who work up on capital hill and live on one.
They have people who drive them to and from important appointments and meetings with the lobbyists.
If on the rare occasion they are caught with their pants down or driving southbound in the northbound lanes they have only to invoke Diplomatic immunity or say they were fleeing from a terrorist attack and they was in fear for their life...and got confused.
A state trooper or it's equivalent will be more than happy drive the alleged offending legislator home at taxpayer expense.

BTW, if it had been me driving
to hell with the tree, I would've nailed Bambie right where he stood and we'd be eaten deer steaks for weeks.

.._______________________
~ Free advice is just that.
It didn't cost you a dime so do with it what you will.

 

[not2cleverRed]

Frankly, I think your plan is silly.

Only a dolt would believe that you were not driving at all. It's going to be very obvious that you're not driving the car with the interlock device. The assumption will then become that you bought the car precisely for the purpose you state, but are in fact driving your wife's car every now and then, if not regularly.

At least, that's how it works for all the single car married households I know.

What? You telling the entire, unvarnished truth?

Let me put it this way: it doesn't sound honest.

Just put the interlock device on your wife's car and be done with it.

It's an imperfect law in an imperfect world. But then, you're not exactly perfect either.

 

[GuyInNC]

Frankly, I think your plan is silly.

Only a dolt would believe that you were not driving at all. It's going to be very obvious that you're not driving the car with the interlock device. The assumption will then become that you bought the car precisely for the purpose you state, but are in fact driving your wife's car every now and then, if not regularly.

At least, that's how it works for all the single car married households I know.

What? You telling the entire, unvarnished truth?

Let me put it this way: it doesn't sound honest.

Just put the interlock device on your wife's car and be done with it.

It's an imperfect law in an imperfect world. But then, you're not exactly perfect either.

Since you asked - this must be a different world than the one that I live in.

In the world that I live in there is NO WAY that a reasonable man would force his wife to put up with one of these devices. They are highly intrusive and very prone to error. My wife thought it was OK until I explained the whole story. No way would she consent now that she understands (I don't blame her).

Additionally my attorney STRONGLY suggested that I not do that. Any issues (positive readings) are my problem regardless. These devices are way too prone to false positives and other problems to be on 'a daily driver car' of someone else (according to him). This would be a particular problem for me as the local 'DMV judge' is known to be difficult to deal with regarding issues such as this. All it takes is for your wife to leave the car running for a few minutes to go back into the house to get her purse, the phone rings and she picks it up, is gone 8 minutes, and it just so happens that the device signals for a 'random running test' while no one is there. 5 minutes go by and you now have a violation to explain to a judge who is known for zero tolerance of such things. Another typical problem - when the device install is done it is my understanding that part of the training is to go over a list of "over 40 items that cause false positives". To get a feel for this I bought a breathalyzer to try out. I blew a 0.07 off a can of diet ginger ale. 0.03 off a retail purchased cheeseball. And the albuterol (probably mis-spelled) in my wife's asthma inhaler is a definite no-go. She could easily get stranded in the middle of nowhere if she had to suddenly use her inhaler (which happens). My oral hygiene products of choice were not a problem, BTW. Don't know about my wife's.

Fortunately I was/am a cyclist (road bike) before this event and 150 miles/week was average for me (closer to 250 now). I just got back from a 36 mile ride that (by design), went by a local grocery store. Right before I left my wife said "could you pick up a single side of mashed potatoes and a couple of bananas while you are in Food Lion getting your side dish for tonight". So I did. You'd be amazed at what you can do on a bike in a small town. I typically carry a messenger bag but use a larger backpack on occasion. I linked a file that shows 'a picture' of today's ride including the grocery store stop. See http://tinyurl.com/nzgcdhm . Sorry about not attaching the file - I am currently not allowed to do that (or maybe no one is). I don't know why this isn't a 'real link' and I don't see any options regarding this. You'll have to cut/paste it into your browser.

The reason that I'd like to get car #2 out of my garage is that my 2 car garage has attic access steps and a good bit of workbench/other stuff, so is crowded with 2 cars. I'd like to get a second bike that could easily be fitted with panniers (bike saddlebags) but there is no room for it that is obvious. And my wife has her treadmill in the garage and it would be nice if there were only one car so that she could set it up permanently (fold down type treadmill). Her having to move my car with the interlock ... well, you see that problem. Her car is a very tight fit on the 'treadmill side' and I don't know if she could deal with that or not.

A few close friends know about this and are willing to help when needed. THey just naturally assume that I will not be driving (they'd be shocked if I did some driving, but then they were shocked at my DUI, so...). That is full disclosure and it is not a complaint - I just want to understand.

ps. I don't know if there is anyone out there who is a cyclist. But FWIW the linked plot was generated with Golden Cheetah, power from Garmin Vector power pedals and Garmin Edge 800, and the plot is VERY HEAVILY smoothed (pretty much to the max). E.G., peak power was actually 625W and peak speed was 35 mph