VASAP, ASAPs and at least one (former) Virginia ignition interlock company (Alcolock) have been fleecing Virginians for years and now it has caught up with them.  Just two days after this petition was filed, Alcolock cancelled its contract with VASAP and will be closing their doors in Virginia by June 30, 2020, the end of the current ignition interlock contract period.

The fraud discussed in the petition is not possible without the interlock company disabling the yellow caution light (if it ever existed) AND the client’s ASAP accusing the interlock user of a violation (for which the client is subject to a $50 reset fee).  If the interlock user sees a green light, they should EXPECT the reading to be zero, but since Virginia, for some reason, does not allow the user to see the device reading (alcohol level indicated), the user is forced to rely on the device’s green light to know that their breath alcohol concentration is zero.  If the reading is not zero, the light should not turn green.

VASAP has gone a step further to increase their sorely needed revenue.  At the December 2019 quarterly VASAP meeting, the commission condoned ASAPs restarting a client’s interlock time for a SUSPECTED violation WITHOUT RETURNING THE CASE TO COURT FOR NON-COMPLIANCE.

This is completely contrary to what the law says.  VA Code 18.2-270.1 section B paragraph 1 states that the court shall “prohibit an offender from operating a motor vehicle that is not equipped with a functioning, certified ignition interlock system for any period of time not to exceed the period of license suspension and restriction, not less than six consecutive months without alcohol-related violations of the interlock requirements.”  

The penalty for violating this section of law is VERY CLEARLY spelled out in VA Code 18.2-271.1 section F, which states, “The COURT SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION over any person entering such program under any provision of this section UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE CASE HAS BEEN DISPOSED OF BY EITHER SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF THE PROGRAM, OR REVOCATION DUE TO INELIGIBILITY OR VIOLATION OF A CONDITION OR CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY THE COURT, WHICHEVER SHALL FIRST OCCUR. Revocation proceedings shall be commenced by notice to show cause why the court should not revoke the privilege afforded by this section.”

My interpretation of this law says that a client EITHER successfully completes the program with no program violations OR the client is returned to court for non-compliance via a revocation hearing.  If the court upholds the violation, the penalty is expulsion from the program, NOT additional interlock time.  

VA code 18.2-271.1 section D states, “The court shall, as a condition of a restricted license, prohibit such person from operating a motor vehicle that is not equipped with a functioning certified ignition interlock system for a period of time not to exceed the period of license suspension and restriction, not less than six consecutive months without alcohol-related violations of interlock requirements. Such order shall be conditioned upon the successful completion of a program by the petitioner. If THE COURT subsequently finds that such person has violated any of the conditions set forth by the court, THE COURT SHALL DISPOSE OF THE CASE AS IF NO PROGRAM HAD BEEN ENTERED and shall notify the Commissioner, who shall revoke the person's license in accordance with the provisions of § 46.2-389 or subsection A of § 46.2-391. 

The VA attorney general’s office would have you believe that interlock violations don’t have to be returned to court for non=compliance and that if an ASAP case manager suspects an interlock program violation, that it is fine for the case manager to restart the client’s 6-month interlock time requirement, robbing the ASAP client of their 14^th amendment right to due process and have their case heard in court.

I requested from VASAP any VERBIAGE in ANY LAW that gives ASAP case managers the authority to restart a client’s interlock time requirement.  The response I got was a statute (VA Code 18.2-270.1) ... no verbiage.  There is NO LAW in Virginia that grants ANYONE authority to extend an ASAP client’s interlock time requirement, including a judge.

There’s a reason neither ASAP case managers nor the court are allowed to extend a client’s interlock time requirement.  Think of the ASAP program like a building with a revolving door.  Clients enter the building, do their time in the program, and then exit the building.  If an ASAP (or judge) extends a client’s interlock time FOR ANY REASON, that client does not exit the program in the allotted amount of time.  

The valve of clients coming into the program never gets shut off so theoretically, the number of clients entering the program is fairly constant.  If the number of people exiting the program doesn’t equal or exceed the number of people entering the program, what results is a consistently larger client base.  Eventually the ASAP program fills up to and beyond capacity.  The number of cases per case manager will NEVER go down, only up.

If the ASAP does not file a court case for revocation, then there is NO PROGRAM VIOLATION.  Case managers don’t get to pick and choose who they’re going to restart and who they are going to return to court.

VASAP doesn’t track the number of violations each of the 24 ASAPs have so there is no way for them to know if their program is successful.  I know they don’t track violations because I asked (via the Freedom of Information Act) and was told no records exist.

The VASAP program in Virginia is one of the most backward run government programs I’ve ever seen.  Over the past 3 years the commission has heard roughly 10 petitions asking for very reasonable changes to the program that would have increased the program’s revenue and yielded fewer false positive interlock results.  For example, they refused to lower the breath requirement to 1.0 liter from 1.5 liters for everyone (which is already allowed by law), even though this would have allowed clients with shortness of breath to be able to provide a breath sample (without a doctor’s note), therefore increasing the number of people on the interlock, and in turn adding to ASAPs’ revenues.

The commission has refused to acknowledge case managers falsifying offense dates and evidence.  In one instance, VASAP even refused to allow an interlock to be removed from a client’s vehicle AFTER a judge dismissed her revocation case.  Why?  Because Court Community Corrections ASAP had already sent her notice PRIOR to her court case (which was filed 2 months after her one interlock event with high breath alcohol readings) that her interlock time was being restarted from the date of her one "violation".  This means that going to court (which was at her request) had no benefit and could only get worse for her.  Why would a guilty person request that her case be returned to court?  She would not.  She won her case and was still penalized as if she had never gone to court.

The commission has failed in its oversight (or lack thereof) of this program.  Its commissioners refuse to acknowledge any flaws in their program, including yellow light fraud and its failing business model.  I wonder if the other interlock companies are committing the same yellow light fraud perpetrated by Alcolock.  It would not surprise me one bit.