 "Photo: Christina Klein")
While perusing Saturday’s Wichita Eagle, it occurred to me that accountability seems to not be as important as it used to be in this state. The Eagle ran a story about a proposed bill in the Kansas Senate that would eliminate almost all accountability on convicted drunk drivers.
The main idea of this bill is drivers required to install an ignition interlocking system would not have to ever actually report whether they had the device installed. For those unfamiliar with the ignition interlock system, basically there is a device hooked up to a vehicle’s ignition system that requires the driver to blow into an on-board Breathalyzer.
The vehicle will not start if that person’s blood-alcohol content is above half the legal limit. The device will also require the driver to randomly blow into the device again as the vehicle continues to run so as to prevent drinking after the vehicle has started.
The only reason someone would have one of these devices in their vehicle is through a court order. The guidelines for whether or not you are required to have an ignition interlock system are pretty straightforward. Drivers are required to have such a system if it is their second drunk driving offense, they refuse a field sobriety test or if their blood alcohol level is twice the legal limit or higher. Essentially, you have to be pretty drunk, uncooperative or a repeat offender to have to install one of these things.
The law being proposed by Senator Mary Cook from Shawnee would allow a loophole for people to not have to install this device even if a judge orders them to do so.
With the current system, the device is installed by a mechanic for up to $70 as well as up $75 a month for fees such as general upkeep and maintenance of the device. After that, the driver must then report to the court that he or she has in fact had the device installed in their vehicle.
The loophole being proposed is for people without a vehicle so that they don’t have to report they had the device installed on some vehicle.
While I think Senator Cook has a good idea in not requiring people without vehicles to report they had the device installed, what’s to keep a person with a vehicle from saying they do not have a vehicle? If I was ever in that situation and this legislation was in place, of course I would not have a vehicle. Who would? Why pay $75 a month if I don’t have to?
So the law may be unfair to some people, namely those without a vehicle, but why make an exemption law so broad that it will actually demean the entire system already in place? There will be no accountability on these convicted drivers. They will simply say they don’t have a vehicle, and presto, they don’t have to install and pay for that annoying little device.
While I do realize it is possible to get a DUI without actually owning a vehicle, for example, driving a lawn mower on a public road while intoxicated, I just find it hard to prove you don’t have a vehicle if you really do have a vehicle. True there are unregistered vehicles out there, but if that’s your source of transportation and that’s what you got your DUI in, wouldn’t the police be aware of that when they take you in? I guess it is possible to work the system so well that you appear not to own a vehicle even though you do. Look at how Senator Cook is trying to work the system. Final thought: just what the laws need, more loopholes.
Be the first to comment on this article!