Today, KTVA in Anchorage reported on a tragic drunk driving crash caused by Lori Phillips, a woman who has four previous DUI convictions. She shouldn’t have been on the road.
Requiring DUI offenders with multiple convictions, like Phillips, to install ignition interlocks is the most effective use of the technology.
The strange part about this story is that all convicted drunk drivers in Alaska are required to install interlocks. Phillips was charged with a DUI in March, so while we know she was ordered to abstain from both alcohol and driving, we have to ask: Why didn’t Lori Phillips have an interlock installed?
Here’s one possibility. States, like Alaska, have been passing interlock mandates for all offenders (even those just one sip over the limit) without considering the funding and infrastructure necessary to enforce such a requirement. Because the states have no way to enforce these wide-reaching, catch-all laws, offenders can easily ignore the interlock mandate. For example, in New Mexico — which boasts the highest interlock compliance rate in the country – only 32 percent abide by the interlock requirement. A whopping 68 percent don’t follow by it. Phillips is probably among the latter in Alaska.
Interlocks are not the silver bullet. They are just another tool in the toolbox. State legislatures would better serve their citizenry by targeting chronic (high-BAC and repeat-offense) drunk drivers, like Phillips, with interlocks and utilizing other penalties for low-BAC, first-time offenders.
