If the legal limit is .08, that would suggest that it is not illegal to drive at .02. So is the state effectively prohibiting otherwise lawful conduct here?
“If the legal limit is .08, that would suggest that it is not illegal to drive at .02. So is the state effectively prohibiting otherwise lawful conduct here?”
Well this only comes into play AFTER you’ve blown it (pardon the pun) enough to warrant having this device in the first place.
Driving is a privilege, not a right.
For convicts, yes. The bigger question is whether it is ex post facto.
And the bigger concern is whether requiring 'on the roll' retests is going to create a safety hazard. I don't do plaintiff's work, but I can see looking for some deep pockets if someone caused a wreck while trying to blow into the device while driving 70mph down the interstate.
Good question. The state may have to change the law for the legal limit to operate a vehicle.
Overall, I think the state has every right, under the Constitution, to implement one of these for a person convicted of DWI or DUI.
Sounds good to me.
Maybe it will keep some of these offenders from getting a 3rd.
I’m surprised the state is going along with this, considering how much revenue DWI/DUI brings into the system.
Coming soon to EVERY car.
“...require all individuals with alcohol-related offenses to have an ignition interlock installed on their vehicles.”
Does that mean cars the convict OWNS?