Ok. I’m repeating myself, but I can’t help it. I continue to get a high volume of inquiries from people who are trying to get out of having the ignition interlock device installed in their vehicles. Given the problems, frustration, inconvenience, embarrassment, anxiety, and expense associated with the interlock devices, I don’t blame them. However, the Registry and RMV Board of Appeal adhere to strict rules regarding interlock requirements. In the vast majority of cases, if the Registry or Board of Appeal determine that a Massachusetts driver is ignition-interlock required, there is no way to successfully challenge this requirement.

The ignition interlock aspect of Melanie’s law went into effect on January 1, 2006. It says that anyone who has 2 or more DUI convictions or alcohol program assignments, anywhere in the world at anytime, must have the ignition interlock device for 2 years after getting a full reinstatement and for the entire length of any DUI hardship license, when they are reinstating or coming off of a hardship license on or after January 1, 2006, the Massachusetts interlock cutoff date.

If someone is legally interlock required, there is absolutely, positively, definitely no way around this requirement, other than moving out of Massachusetts. In those cases, where an interlock driver establishes residency outside of the Commonwealth, the RMV –may- excuse him or her from the interlock requirement. However, the driver must prove non-residency at a RMV hearing and he or she will not be allowed to drive in Massachusetts without interlock.

This mandatory interlock requirement has presented serious obstacles. For example, some people are required to drive company vehicles and their employer will not allow the device to be installed therein. Others, such as real estate brokers, for example, must transport customers and clients in their vehicles. The interlock device is a huge source of embarrassment and humiliation for these drivers. Nevertheless, the interlock law is applied and enforced with a zero tolerance approach. The Board of Appeal and Massachusetts Registry take the approach that interlock-required drivers are fortunate to have licenses at all and the interlock is a small price to pay for the privilege of driving in Massachusetts.

The State of Minnesota allows DUI defendants back on the road if they agree to the installation and use of an ignition interlock device. Although these interlock devices are not without problems, this program allows drivers to get back on the road and support themselves and they families, while not endangering the public. The vast majority of my hardship license clients would gladly have an ignition interlock device installed in their vehicles in exchange for being allowed to drive.

The ignition interlock device will prevent a DUI offender from starting his or her vehicle if it detects alcohol. This will protect public safety while still allowing the DUI offender to drive, so that he or she can get to work. Because the interlock device will physically prevent a vehicle from starting, this program is actually safer than suspending the license of DUI offenders. It is no secret that many people drive on suspended licenses.  Most drive out of absolute necessity while others simply ignore the DUI license suspension.  Without an interlock device, there is nothing to prevent these people from re-offending. If, on the other hand, they had been given licenses in exchange for having ignition interlock devices installed in their vehicles, they would be physically prevented from driving while intoxicated.

A little known feature of Melanie’s Law makes it a crime to knowingly allow a vehicle which you own or control to be driven by someone whose license has been suspended or revoked. Melanie’s Law also makes it a crime to knowingly allow someone with an ignition interlock restricted license to drive your vehicle if it is not equipped with a certified alcohol ignition interlock device.

The Mass. RMV can suspend, for up to one year, the registration of the vehicle which was improperly driven by the suspended or revoked driver or the license of the vehicle’s registered owner or the person who controlled the vehicle. The Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles has been taking action against licenses and registrations under this little-known law.

If you are the registered owner or person in control of a vehicle which is being driven by someone with a suspended or revoked license, you risk fines, jail time, and a suspension of your license and the vehicle’s registration. Likewise, if you allow someone to circumvent the Registry’s ignition interlock requirement, by driving a non-interlock equipped vehicle which you own or control, you may also face these harsh penalties.

Today I met individually with three ignition interlock device manufacturers. To their credit, each one admitted that their interlock devices use fuel cell technology and that ignition interlocks can and do generate false positive readings. We discussed the most common source of false positive blood alcohol readings, which is contamination. This occurs when the device mistakes another substance for blood alcohol.

There are many types of alcohol and the interlock devices often cannot differentiate between the ethyl alcohol contained in liquor and other alcohols such as the sugar alcohol found in protein bars, the sorbitol found in sugarless gum, the menthol found in cough drops, or the multiple alcohols which mouthwash contains. Also, hand sanitizer contains 62% ethyl alcohol. Using hand sanitizer shortly prior to blowing into an ignition interlock device can therefore result in a false positive reading.

In Massachusetts, interlock violations can result in 10 year or lifetime license suspensions. Therefore, interlock users should be mindful of the possibility of false positive interlock readings. Under the Massachusetts ignition interlock program, users who have positive alcohol readings will be called into the Mass. RMV in Boston for an interlock violation hearing. The results of this interlock hearing will determine if the driver will lose his or her license for 10 years or life for the alleged violation.

Many ignition interlock users do not believe that the Registry will actually suspend someone’s license because of an interlock reading. They are wrong. The Registry routinely suspends people’s licenses based on ignition interlock results. 

If you have received an ignition interlock violation notice from the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles, you should immediately contact a qualified and experienced ignition interlock attorney. I know interlock inside and out. If you have been accused of a interlock violation, do not risk a license suspension; contact me for a free consultation and case review.

Attorney Brian E. Simoneau

Not a week goes by where at least one person asks about whether or not he or she needs to have an ignition interlock device. Here is the answer to one of the most frequently asked questions.

If you have two or more OUI, DWI, DUI, DWAI, or “drunk driving” convictions on your record, no matter when or where the offense occurred, and you are reinstating your suspended or revoked license after January 1, 2006 or coming off of a hardship license after January 1, 2006, or you are converting to a license from another state to a Massachusetts License, you are legally required to have the interlock device for 2 years. This is required by Melanie's Law.

Also, if you are a second or subsequent offender and you are trying to get a DUI hardship license, you will need interlock for the entire term of the hardship license.

There are absolutely no exceptions to this rule. Like the Registry, the Board of Appeal takes a zero tolerance approach when it comes to interlock requirements. If you are legally required to have interlock, there is no way around it.

If you are accused of an ignition interlock violation, please contact me. I have an outstanding track record in ignition interlock defense cases.

Attorney Brian E. Simoneau

The Wisconsin state assembly passed a bill would make DUI penalties in that state more like the Massachusetts Drunk Driving Penalties.

The new drunk driving law would make 4th offense DWI a felony and, like Massachusetts, it would require all DUI repeat offenders, and those with a blood alcohol level of .15 or higher, to use ignition interlock devices in their vehicles.  The ignition interlock device prevents a vehicle from starting if the driver's blood alcohol level registers above a pre-set limit. In Massachusetts, the limit is .02.

Interlock devices have been known to sometimes generate false positive blood alcohol readings. They do this because the use fuel cell rather than more reliable infrared technology. In Massachusetts ignition interlock violations can result in 10 year and even lifetime license revocations.

Supporters of the new drunk driving legislation characterize the law as an important first step in curbing Wisconsin's high rates of DWI. Opponents say implementation of the law could be expensive and the state will be required to hire more DUI prosecutors. Critics also describe the law as a "baby step" and claim that it does not go far enough.

Wisconsin is the only state which does not criminalize DUI first offense. Instead of being arrested, offenders are given a traffic ticket, unless there is someone under 16 years of age in the vehicle.  In Massachusetts, a first offense OUI is a criminal offense which results in arrest and a mandatory license suspension.

The bill allows certain DUI offenders to shorten their jail sentences by completing complete an alcohol or drug treatment program. This recongizes that the crime of DUI often involves alcohol addiction, which must be treated to prevent recidivism. 

The DUI bill will now make its way to the Wisconsin Senate for further action.  

Jason W. Wetteland, 39, of Charlton Massachusetts plead not guilty in Newburyport District Court on Monday August 3rd to what was at least his 10th drunken-driving charge and 6th DWI conviction. He nearly struck another car while swerving across heavy traffic while he had a bottle of brandy between his legs. Under Melanie’s Law the incident caused Wettland’s license to be revoked for the rest of his life. However, when he was arrested, he was already driving on a suspended Mass. license. This incident shows what a powerful disease alcohol addiction is.

Mr. Wetteland obviously has a serious and untreated alcohol addiction. Because of his alcohol addiction, he appears to be someone who is too sick to drive. Critics of the Registry will undoubtedly point to this incident as a failure of the system. However, the Registry is not to blame and tougher laws or longer license suspensions would not have helped. The Registry had already suspended Mr. Wetteland’s license. He drove anyways. Perhaps if he was getting on-going treatment for his alcoholism, the result would have been different. Perhaps if Wetteland had an ignition interlock device installed in his vehicle, he would not have been able to start it and the incident would have been prevented. Unfortunately, the political fallout form cases such as this can make it very difficult for someone with a couple of DWIs on his or her record to get a hardship license and support his or her family.