12 comments
These are the details of requested regulatory changes. These changes will ensure the Commission on VASAP and ASAP case managers will adhere to the laws as they were written, not their subjective interpretations. I have requested to make a public comment at the next commission on VASAP meeting March 29, 2018 in Richmond, but the commission staff has not yet granted my request as of 2/19/2018.
§ 18.2-270.1. Ignition interlock system; penalty.
"Ignition interlock system" means a device that (i) connects a motor vehicle ignition system to an analyzer that measures a driver's blood alcohol content; (ii) prevents a motor vehicle ignition from starting if a driver's blood alcohol content exceeds 0.02 percent; and (iii) is equipped with the ability to perform a rolling retest and to electronically log the blood alcohol content during ignition, attempted ignition and rolling retest.
Request to move fail point from .02% to .04% BAC for all interlock devices. This will reduce non-ethanol violations (24VAC35-60-70 Section F “positive readings from other substances”). It should also dramatically decrease ASAP case manager and courts’ caseloads. The legal level at which DUI occurs in Virginia is .08% BAC. Interlock users would violate their program at only half this level (.04% BAC) if approved. If keeping drunk drivers off the road truly is the goal, it can still be accomplished if the fail point is moved, without violating those who are compliant with all program requirements.
Case Manager Guidance Document (2017)
Change client contract [15-minute] time requirement to reach zero to read “may be considered a violation if interlock readings indicate an elimination rate at or near .015% BAC per hour”. In most cases, endogenous alcohol production cannot be determined within 15 minutes. Human physiology makes it impossible to meet contract requirements as the contract is currently written if a medical condition exists.
Require dual approval of Case Manager and supervisor (ASAP director) for any violations that require interlock time requirement restart or violations sending offender to court. Case Manager and supervisor’s names must be included for accountability purposes.
Hold Case Managers to .015% BAC elimination rate for all violations. Case Managers should not be able to violate interlock users subjectively. They should all be held to the same objective standard.
§ 18.2-270.1. Ignition interlock systems; penalty. Subsection B
Change 6-month consecutive requirement to allow time served for any non-alcohol related reason consecutive duration could not be met. Proof must be provided to Case Manager (vehicle accident, license suspension due to accumulated points, etc.).
In the interest of public transparency, list all commission members and staff, and contact information for each member on VASAP website. Contact information shall include at a minimum an email address and phone number.
Case Manager Guidance Document (2017)
A contact list of ASAP Case Managers and ASAP director shall be given to every ASAP client upon enrollment. If a grievance arises, a complaint may be filed with the appropriate person in the chain of command as directed in the Case Manager guidance document. Contact information shall include at a minimum an email address and phone number. ASAP enrollees must contact each successive person in the chain until a resolution is reached.
I support the change to move the ignition interlock fail point from .02% BAC to .04% BAC. Many DUI offenders have difficulty starting their cars because he or she is at the mercy of flawed fuel cell technology, which can generate false positives (even though the user has not been drinking) which can cause a DUI convicted person to go back to court and face possible jail time. Case managers often misinterpret ignition interlock data. Moving the fail point will dramatically decrease false positive results that case managers use to keep offenders in the program and cost offenders who have not violated their program additional money.
Lawrence Langer
While I’m all for convicted drunk drivers requiring these devices they should be treated fairly as well.
I support this too. Changes need to be made.
I am in support of banning Ignition Intertock altogether. My personal experience with the device was very stressful during the 6 month that I had it. My horn would blow and lights would come on at random times. In 2 days I had to blow in the device 121 times because it would not work properly. I followed my Attorney's device and requested a new system, which was installed by a SMART START technician. The second device did the same thing as the first device. SMART START informed me that my car had issues so I took it to the dealership, where they confirmed that my vehice was performing at the proper standards. The technicians at SMART START concluded that the device was not compatible with my vehicle so I just had to "deal with it". I believe that Ignition Interlock simply generates a lot of revenue but does not address or eliminate drunk driving. An individual that is drunk can simply drive another vehicle if they are adamant about going somewhere. Yes, they are taking a chance by doing this, but when one's mind is altered we tend to do things we wouldn't normally do. We need a better system for addressing drunk driving.
I am in support of these proposed changes.
I strongly urge you to grant the changes outlined in the petition by Cynthia Hites. As a longtime resident and taxpayer, I have believed that our VA laws were for the good of the people. Mrs. Hites points out the trouble with this law and how to make amendments so that it will do what lawmakers intended.