A recent study sought to measure the involvement of drugs and alcohol on four types of fatal accidents. The authors, Eduardo Romano and Robert B. Voas wanted to explore the association of drunk and drugged driving with fatal crashes that were attributed to speeding, failure to obey/yield, inattention and seat belt nonuse.

To collect data, the researchers analyzed data for fatally injured drivers that were involved in single-vehicle crashes. The data was collected in states in which more than 79 percent of the drivers were tested for drugs, in addition to alcohol, and results were obtained.

The results of the analysis showed that approximately 25 percent of drivers in these states tested positive for drugs. This figure is nearly double of that estimated by the 2007 National Roadside Survey. The drugs involved varied, but about 23 percent of the accidents were attributed to the use of cannabinoids and stimulants (6 percent of the fatally injured single-vehicle drivers). The analysis also showed that stimulants were more likely than cannabinoids to be associated with the four types of fatal crashes.

There was also evidence that some drugs had a protective effect over the four crash types involved in analysis. The authors observed significant interactions between drugs and alcohol in the crash types. In addition, stimulants were involved in the four types of fatal crashes, despite the different levels of alcohol used by the drivers.

The analysis conducted by the researchers shows evidence of a connection between drug consumption and fatal crashes, which supports previous research in a long line of studies showing the dangers of consuming drugs or alcohol before driving.

The researchers believe that the study opens the door for discussions about the ways that drugs impact crash rates, which was found to be varied depending on the type of crash examined, the type of drug and whether or not alcohol was involved.

Further research is necessary regarding the drugs that were found to have a protective effect on the occurrence of fatal crashes. The findings of the study could be useful in how policymakers design drug-related traffic laws and tailor programs intended to reduce drug-related accidents.

The end of school, beginning of summer, vacations and the Fourth of July are times to savor, enjoy with loved ones and friends, meet new people, see new places, and do new things. But it’s also a time when many otherwise-intelligent people throw caution to the winds and proceed to get drunk out of their mind – and then get behind the wheel.

The economy has put a damper on some Americans’ travel plans this Fourth of July, with only about 40.5 million estimated by the AAA to be on the road and traveling more than 50 miles during the holiday weekend. That’s down slightly – 1.3 percent, or nearly 500,000 people — from the 41 million who traveled last year. That’s still a huge population that will be on the road.

The thing about drinking and having a good time is that once you start the process, it’s really hard to stop. Everyone’s laughing and carrying on, telling stories, getting reacquainted, even falling in love. But when you add alcohol to the mix, it can turn deadly before you even know it.

Teens are one segment of the population that is likely to be drinking this summer. Experimentation by teens with alcohol when parents are away at work and school is out for the summer is nothing new. But even with all the media coverage warning teens not to drink and drive, they’ll still do it.

Parents with teens can help ward off alcohol-related trouble by encouraging their teens to get involved in healthy activities that are monitored or supervised by adults. Have frequent discussions about what’s expected of teens while parents are away and give them chores or duties they’re responsible for. Planning a few fun family events this summer will also give them something to look forward to so they’re not sitting around bored. That’s when they may decide to experiment with alcohol. Definitely don’t keep alcohol around the house. If you must have alcohol at home, keep it under lock and key.

But it isn’t just teens that are getting in trouble with alcohol. Somehow, vacation time and holidays seem to cause well-meaning people to figure that they deserve to let go a little, to get a bit soused, sleep off the hangover in the morning, and go on about their business.

The trouble is, tragedy can strike during one of those drinking binges or partying with pals or just having one too many on the way home from work at the start of the holiday weekend.

Think About This – Before You Get Behind the Wheel

Here are some points to remember – before you decide to drink and get behind the wheel this Fourth of July:

·It’s too easy to rationalize that you’ll be able to stop at just one. Like that will ever happen. The first one tastes good or makes you feel less tense. You quickly grab another one, and then another after that. Before you know it, you’ve really tied one on. It’s the same old story repeated far too many times. The only way to avoid getting in trouble with alcohol this Fourth of July or anytime this summer is to make a pledge never to drink and then get behind the wheel.

·What should you do if you didn’t plan to drink and then you suddenly do when you get to your destination? Spontaneous decisions like deciding to drink when you hadn’t planned to don’t have to result in a tragedy. But it does mean that you can’t in good conscience drink and then drive home – or anywhere. You’ll need to find someone to drive you home, or take alternate means of transportation, or plan to spend the night where you are. There really is nothing that can possibly justify you drinking and then driving. Plain and simple, you are playing with fire this Fourth of July if you get lit and then drive.

·Think that you’ll be able to get away with drinking and driving, that nothing will happen to you – or to anyone else – if you’re on the road? Do you really think that you should take such a chance? For one thing, when you drink, you begin to lose control over your inhibitions. You may become boisterous, take risks, get angry and start a fight, or become sad or weepy. Your mind becomes less and less able to process what’s going on, and your judgment is impaired. The more you drink, the worse your impairment. And it can come up on you all of a sudden. One minute, you think you’re fine (you’re really not, but you’re still standing), and the next minute, you’re stone drunk. The really outrageous thing is that so many obviously drunk individuals still believe they’re okay to get behind the wheel. “I’m fine. I can drive.” Make a pact with a non-drinking friend (and hopefully you have one) that if you’re drinking, they’ll take away your keys and refuse to let you drive.

·Don’t kid yourself that you can eat a big meal and then go out drinking this holiday weekend – or anytime during the summer months. Alcohol will still have a cumulative effect regardless of how much you do or don’t put into your stomach beforehand. And it still will take a much longer time for you to sober up than you have before you can safely get behind the wheel after you’ve been drinking.

·Think you’ll start off with a watered-down drink or a fruity drink and somehow pace yourself? Again, it’s fascinating and sad at the same time how many people mistakenly believe that this type of behavior will keep them from getting drunk. In many cases, all that happens is that they consume even more alcohol. They’re often not even aware that they’re slipping into the intoxicated state – until they are stumbling around, talking gibberish, and still insisting that they’re perfectly fine to drive.

·Don’t want to stick out and be the only one not drinking among your friends? Afraid of the kidding or urging by others to drink? You’d be surprised how many people today are making a conscientious decision not to drink alcohol. When you’re at a party and it’s a help-yourself bar, you can mix yourself a soda with a twist of lemon or slice of lime, or make a concoction that looks like a mixed drink but really is only fruit juices and ice with garnish. If you’re at a bar or a party where there’s a bartender, make it known to the bartender that your drink is non-alcoholic – no matter what. No one will notice – or even care. As long as they’ve got their own drink (which may very well be non-alcoholic, for all you know), they’ll be happy.

·Watch out for drinking games that often get organized by partygoers after a few drinks. It might be a ritual that happens every time these individuals get together or it may be something that someone suggests when the party starts to get a little too quiet or people seem a bit bored. Drinking games, popular on college campuses and among some high school groups, result in binge drinking – consuming five or more drinks in an hour on more than one occasion. Binge drinking can lead to serious consequences, including death from alcohol poisoning. But after engaging in drinking games, when you get behind the wheel stone-drunk, you’re just a tragedy waiting to happen. It may not be you that gets seriously injured or killed this Fourth of July or anytime this summer, but do you really want to have the deaths or injuries of others on your hands? Is it really that compelling that you take part in your buddies’ drinking games?

·Arrange for a designated driver (DD). The DD pledge is one that never goes out of style. While it’s always a wise idea never to drink and drive, the fact of the matter is that you know yourself. If you have a problem keeping your word, then the only responsible thing to do is to bring someone along with you who will not be drinking – under any circumstance, not even one drink – and who will then drive you home at the end of the evening or event. Do not argue with that person and insist that you are perfectly capable of driving. If you’ve had even one drink, don’t even think about getting behind the wheel. The only way for this to work is for you to keep your word. If you have a designated driver, let that person do the driving, not you, not after you’ve been drinking.

·Worried about your friends or a loved one who repeatedly drinks and drives? There is something you can do, something that, while it may not prevent that person from drinking, may start the process where he or she begins to think about getting some help to quit drinking. Learn all you can about the effects of alcohol on the body and the brain. Talk to your friend or loved one about cutting down drinking or cutting it out altogether. If the two of you have been drinking buddies, if you decide to quit, it may encourage your friend or loved one to also give sobriety a try. If you need help finding the words to say, look up how to stop drinking or what to say to a friend who has a problem with drinking on the Internet.

Where to Go For Help

If you’ve decided that it’s time for you to get help for your own drinking behavior that may be out of control, look into Alcoholics Anonymous meetings in your area. If you feel like you’re not yet ready to actually go to a meeting, check out the Alcoholics Anonymous website (http://www.aa.org/?Media=PlayFlash). Besides a directory listing meeting locations, there is a wealth of information available. You can read literature, get answers to your questions, find out more about alcoholism and how to overcome the addiction, find links to other resources and much more.

Need more help, possibly rehab? Look up treatment facilities by using the Treatment Facility Locator (http://dasis3.samhsa.gov/) or call their confidential toll-free helpline at 1-800-662-HELP. This way, you can find a treatment facility that can help you overcome your problem with alcohol and get on the road to recovery.

Are You Ready to Make a Change?

Perhaps the biggest thing to keep in mind is that making a decision to not drink and drive is completely up to you. It may be that you’ve “gotten away with” a lot of bad stuff so far in your life. But that’s just whistling in the dark against the shadows. Thinking something is fine when it really isn’t, is no way to live. Not only that, but it’s totally irresponsible.

Maybe now isn’t the time for you to quit drinking totally. Millions of Americans are able to have a drink now and then without a problem. As long as they don’t drink and then get behind the wheel, no one else needs to have disastrous consequences either. But for the millions of Americans who do have a problem with alcohol, and who repeatedly drink to the point of being intoxicated and then get behind the wheel, something needs to change.

There’s just no excuse to put others’ lives in jeopardy because a driver makes the foolish decision to make his or her way down the road after drinking.

Let’s start with this decision. Make a pledge not to drink and drive this Fourth of July – or anytime this summer. Let’s just begin there and see where it takes you. Little steps can be huge at this point. Think of it this way. You’ll not only potentially be saving the lives of others, but also your own. That’s certainly something worthwhile, no matter how much you enjoy your alcohol or believe that you have a right to drink if you want to.

Are you ready to make a change? Don’t get lit and drive this Fourth of July – or anytime this summer.

Although it’s difficult to tell whether the drugs contributed to the cause of the crash, a recent government study found that 14 percent of U.S. drivers who were pulled over tested positive for drugs. Because the percentage of drugged drivers involved in fatral crashes was almost twice this number, the figures suggest that drugs do contribute to fatal car accidents.

Study co-author Robert B. Voas, Ph.D., of the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation in Calverton, Maryland, said that the suspicion is there because when you look at drivers who have been in fatal crashes, the percentage that are using drugs is significantly higher than those who aren’t involved in fatal crashes.

Unlike alcohol, there is no agreed-upon level of drug use that impairs driving. And it isn’t easy to test for drug use, as some drugs remain in the system longer than others. Some states have drugged driving “per se” laws, which sometimes means zero tolerance for any detectable amount of certain drugs in a driver’s blood or urine. Last year, the White House said it would be encouraging more states to adopt these laws.

For the study, the researchers examined data from a government reporting system that collects information on all U.S. traffic deaths. All states report drivers’ blood-alcohol levels, but only 20 test for drugs.

Between 1998 and 2009, there were more than 44,000 fatally injured drivers with drug-test information, and 25 percent tested positive for drugs. Marijuana and stimulants such as cocaine and methamphetamine were most commonly implicated. Stimulants were linked to a range of crash fatalities, including speeding, failure to obey traffic laws, inattention, or not wearing a seatbelt. Marijuana was only linked to speeding and not wearing a seatbelt.

The study found that drugs besides alcohol seemed to play a role in the fatal accident only when drivers had not been drinking as well. In other words, when someone drinks and does drugs, alcohol is the main reason for the impaired driving.

Eduardo Romano, Ph.D., the study’s lead author, said that alcohol remains the largest contributor to fatal crashes.

The researchers hope their findings will lead to a better understanding of the way drugged driving presents a social danger, and that it will help encourage more states to impose a “zero tolerance” drug policy.

For the study, the researchers looked at official data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), which includes information on 1,495,667 people who were involved in fatal car accidents between 1994 and 2008. FARS covers all United States counties, all days of the week, all times of day, and reports on blood-alcohol content in increments of 0.01.

The authors looked at different levels of accident severity by measuring the ratio of severe injuries to minor ones. Phillips said that accidents are 36.6 percent more severe when alcohol is involved—even a barely detectable level. The authors wrote that even with a blood-alcohol level of 0.01, there are 4.33 serious injuries for every non-serious injury versus 3.17 for drivers with a blood-alcohol level of 0.00.

Phillips said that drivers who have had any alcohol are more likely to speed, to not be properly belted in, and to drive the striking vehicle (the at-fault car in an accident). All of these factor into greater accident severity.

The authors noted that the higher the blood-alcohol content, the greater the average speed of the driver and the greater severity of the accident. These findings were duplicated even when accounting for inattention and fatigue.

The study found that accident severity is significantly higher on weekends between 8:00 pm and 4:00 am, and in June through August. The relationship between blood-alcohol content and severe car accidents remained even when the researchers standardized for day of the week, time of day, and month.

Phillips said that until now, blood-alcohol content limits have been determined by rational considerations, empirical findings, and political and cultural factors. For instance, the U.S.’s 0.08 limit is relatively recent, and blood-alcohol content limits vary greatly by country. Sweden’s limit is 0.02, Japan’s limit is 0.03, and Germany’s limit is 0,05.

The authors hope their findings influence United States legislators and foreign legislators to consider lowering the legal blood-alcohol content limit, as well as raise awareness to the public of the dangers of driving after having any amount of alcohol.

Source: Science Daily, Buzz Kills: No Amount of Alcohol Safe to Drive, June 20, 2011

The DRAM, a column on Basisonline.org, has begun a series of reports highlighting aspects of the problem of DUIs. In an article published June 8, the authors use several markers to help get a clearer picture of DUIs in the United States. Some information was gathered from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, but to get information beyond traffic fatalities related to alcohol use, the authors had to gather data from other sources.

The analysis gathered information about motor vehicle fatality data, arrest records, national roadside surveys, self-report data and passenger reports.

To get information about alcohol-related motor vehicle fatalities, the authors used information from the NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts reports for 1993 through 2010. For information about DUI arrests, data was gathered from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s report on Crime in the United States.

Road survey information was derived from the 2007 National Roadside Survey of Alcohol and Drug Use by Drivers. The authors also gathered passenger report DUI behavior by accessing information from the ICARIS survey.

When the authors graphed the information from the various sources regarding DUI behaviors, the graph revealed that DUI events exhibit a diverse pattern over time.

The information set that provided the most detailed data was for motor vehicle fatalities. Over time, that number has steadily dropped, but the last four years have shown stabilization. Roadside surveys showed a steady decline in DUIs over time and DUI arrests remained stable. Self-report estimates, however, show that there may be a recent increase in DUI behaviors.

The information about DUIs is significantly limited by the nature of tracking a crime-related measure. Data only reveals information about instances in which a person was apprehended for a crime. Even such tools as roadside sobriety tests in which every driver is stopped are limited by the time and place that the tests were conducted.

The data gathered by the authors at the site shows the complex nature of DUI activities. While some measures show a decrease in DUI activity, those measures operate in isolation and may not reflect accurately other aspects of DUI behaviors.

The officer asked Lafferty to push the bike toward him, and when he did so, it appeared that Lafferty was unsteady on his feet. The officer also observed that his eyes were bloodshot and his breath smelled of alcohol. Lafferty admitted to drinking beer, but refused to answer any of the officer’s questions. A nystagmus test for involuntary eye movements indicated that Lafferty was drunk, but he refused to perform any other field sobriety tests in the parking lot.

The officer arrested Lafferty, advised him of the implied consent law and its requirement to submit to an alcohol breath or blood test when driving a motor vehicle and further told him that if he did not consent to the tests the officers could compel him to take them. When Lafferty refused to pick one of the tests, the officer called for a phlebotomist to draw Lafferty’s blood. The sample contained a blood alcohol content of .28, over three times the legal limit in California.

A witness at the scene claimed that Lafferty ran into his truck and fell off his bike. Lafferty then yelled at the man and demanded his insurance information. The witness claimed that Lafferty smelled of alcohol and appeared to be intoxicated. When the man drove off, Lafferty briefly pursued him into the street.

Court records revealed that Lafferty had three prior DUI convictions from 2005, 2006, and 2008. At trial, Lafferty represented himself and argued that his minibike did not qualify as a vehicle subject to California’s DUI laws, and as such, the charges against him should be dismissed. The court disagreed, and found him guilty of felony driving under the influence (DUI), a violation of California Vehicle Code, section 23152(a), and driving with a blood alcohol content of .08 or more (Vehicle Code, section 23152(b)).

The trial court sentenced Lafferty to 16 months in jail for violating VC 23152(a), stayed sentence for VC 23152(b), and credited him with 205 actual custody days and 205 conduct days pursuant to Penal Code, section 4019.

On appeal, Lafferty argues that his motion to suppress the blood alcohol content (BAC) evidence should have been granted as it was obtained in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The officer had advised him at the time of his arrest that riding the bike automatically meant that he consented to an alcohol test. On the way to the station, Lafferty mentioned that he would take a breath test. However, he then changed his mind, fearing that the officers would tamper with the sample. Courts have routinely found no constitutional violation in the warrantless taking of blood for an alcohol test, provided the sample is obtained in a medically approved manner, is incident to a lawful arrest, and is based upon reasonable belief that the person is drunk.
 

A new tool from Android, an open-source software provider for devices including mobile phones, is allowing users to test themselves to see if they’re in danger of a DUI if they operate a vehicle. The app is the subject of debate, as it may help keep some intoxicated drivers off the road — but may encourage others to get behind the wheel with a “passing” app score even though their judgment is impaired by alcohol. Android Phone App Designed to Deter DUIs Receives Mixed Reviews.

Released by Lone Wolfe Mobile, DUI kNOw! is the name of the mobile phone application that is designed to help users avoid the deadly risks associated with driving a vehicle after drinking alcohol. Similar to the tests performed in a field sobriety examination, users of DUI kNOw! perform a 30-second test in which they count verbally out loud. If the user exhibits too much of a delay, the phone app requests that the user may have consumed too much alcohol and has failed the test.

The test may help gauge a driver’s ability to operate a vehicle because alcohol causes a delay in the body’s built-in clock mechanism. If the phone app user is beyond four seconds off in their estimation of a 30-second interval, they are considered to have failed the test.

Despite increase law enforcement efforts and harsher penalties, more than 1.4 million motorists received DUI arrests in 2009, according to the NATIONAL Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Close to 20 percent of fatalities on roadways were linked to the influence of alcohol or drugs in 2009.

The pictures the DUI kNOw! app presents to the user are designed to help the person think twice about getting behind the wheel. When the sobriety 30-second test is failed, images related to DUI-caused injuries, financial penalties, the legal system and even fatalities are presented. A second version of the downloadable mobile phone app allows users to use a speech-recognition test to mimic police-administered sobriety tests.

App creators hoped the technology would prevent people from taking to the roadways when they’ve had too much to drink, but some experts fear the test will encourage drivers to continue drinking alcohol and then try to drive, under the false assumption that “passing” the app test means driving is safe. For many people, even one alcoholic beverage can cause slowed coordination or motor skills – a dangerous effect that may not be detected by the phone app or a sobriety test.

The sector of DUI-related apps is growing across mobile phone technology providers. Apps that give the locations of sobriety checkpoints have been removed by major providers like BlackBerry for fears of aiding drunk drivers to avert arrest.

Some fear the Android phone technology for a self-administered DUI test and related apps may encourage an overall behavioral trend to “buck the system” and drink before driving, giving users the false confidence that they can continue to drink then drive as long as they stop and take a free test from their smartphone. Because people’s reactions to alcohol are so varied, many may be involved in injury or fatality accidents without realizing their judgment has already become impaired by alcohol – despite what a smartphone test might say.
 

At 3am on July 12, 2009, Santa Rosa police encountered a disheveled man named Mendoza on the side of the road; the officers concluded that he was in shock. The man told the police that he had been in an accident and there was someone else in the car. Several miles away, police discovered a car that appeared to have rolled over several times – it had settled upside down in a ditch. A teenage girl (the defendant) was also lying in the ditch, about sixty feet from the car. Officers determined that she had urinated on herself, had scratches and was covered in dirt.

Shortly thereafter, two California Highway Patrol (CHP) officers arrived and began to investigate the incident. While questioning Mendoza, they discovered that he had been driving along around 40 miles per hour when he and the girl started arguing. Mendoza claimed that the girl grabbed and yanked the wheel, causing him to lose control of his car and crash. As she was being place in the ambulance, the girl told police “I did it. It was my fault.”

Upon questioning at the hospital, police observed that her eyes were red and watery, her speech was slurred and she smelled of alcohol. Her blood alcohol content (BAC) was .10 three hours after the crash. She admitted to arguing with Mendoza (her boyfriend) from the passenger seat and then grabbing and turning the wheel, causing the crash. The girl also admitted to drinking five shots of hard liquor and some beer.

The girl was charged and found guilty of both misdemeanor DUI causing bodily injury and driving with a blood alcohol content over .08 causing bodily injury. The judge made her a ward of the court and put her on home probation.

On appeal, the girl argued that a passenger who grabs the steering wheel and causes a crash is not “driving” within the meaning of the Vehicle Code. Although this is a case of first impression in California, the court relied on out-of-state authority and a common sense interpretation of the Vehicle Code to declare that the girl had taken actual physical control of the vehicle and was, therefore, driving.
 

Adenhart’s death came a few hours after he appeared in his first Angels game of the season; he stunned fans by pitching six scoreless innings. Also killed in the crash were Courtney Stewart, a student at Cal State Fullerton, and Henry Pearson, who was going to law school and had already founded a sports management firm. Two other passengers, Jon Wilhite and Raymond Rivera, Gallo’s stepbrother, were injured.

Immediately after the accident, Gallo fled the scene. After his eventual arrest a couple of hours later, he underwent a blood-alcohol test and still managed to score a .19%, more than twice the legal limit. In addition to finding him guilty of felony DUI and hit and run, the jury found him guilty of three counts of 2nd degree murder. Prison sentences for these types of crimes can total over 50 years to life.

Gallo had been convicted of a previous DUI in 2006; he was still on probation at the time of the crash. Records reveal that a San Bernardino judge had sentenced Gallo to two days in jail, three years of probation, a $1500 fine, and attendance at a four-month alcoholism treatment program. However, because of time already served while awaiting trial, Gallo actually did not have to serve any time in jail. Because he had violated the probation at some point, it was later extended an additional year.

During the trial for the fatal DUI, his criminal defense attorney, Jacquline Goodman, conceded that Gallo was a recovering alcoholic who had undergone treatment for alcoholism, albeit unsuccessfully, twice before. Goodman also informed the jury that her client typically recruited the aid of a designated driver before he went out to drink.

On the night of the tragedy Rivera, Gallo’s stepbrother, was supposed to be the designated driver. Gallo’s attorney tried to convince the jury that Rivera encouraged Gallo to drink excessively that night at a West Covina bikini bar. She also intimated that, because the pair was heavily under the influence at the time of the crash, it could actually have been Rivera who was driving at the time. The jury did not agree.

Nor did the jury buy Goodman’s argument that leniency was warranted, given Gallo’s age (22 at the time of the crash) and the fact that he was, deep down, simply a good kid with bad judgment. Perhaps the jury considered his various prior DUI, public drunkenness, or drunk and disorderly charges when they declined to let him off the hook this time. Or perhaps it was the fact that he actually wrote, “I understand that if I continue to drink and drive it may result in death or serious bodily injury to another person” in connection with his 2006 DUI plea deal in San Bernardino that resulted in his murder conviction.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/09/verdict-in-death-of-nick-adenhart-.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/10/andrew-thomas-gallo-charg_n_185789.html

The law makes it an automatic felony on the first offence to drive drunk with a person under age 16 inside the vehicle. The law was enacted in November 2009, but now the second component of the legislation is going into effect. It is estimated that 25,000 drivers statewide will be required to install an ignition interlock device each year.

Dutchess County District Attorney William Grady said that if a person was arrested after November 18, 2009, and convicted after August 15, 2010, he or she will be mandated to install an ignition interlock device, which keeps the vehicle from starting until the driver has passed an in-vehicle breathalyzer test. The driver will continue being tested every 10 to 15 minutes while the vehicle is being operated.

He added that anyone convicted of a misdemeanor or felony DWI will be required to install the system on every vehicle they won within 10 days of their conviction. The system must remain in the vehicle(s) for six months to a year for a misdemeanor conviction and five years for a felony. Attempts to tamper with the system are punishable by up to one year in jail.

Senator Steven Saland said that out of the 300 DWI arrests in New York State since Leandra’s Law was passed that involve children under 15, 12 have occurred in Dutchess County and 8 have occurred in Columbia County. He added that the measure is an effort to deter people from making poor decisions, and that it’s an important component to Leandra’s Law.

The law, formally known as the Child Passenger Protection Act, was set into motion by Leandra’s father, Lenny Rosado. He said he will visit the White House on September 20th to discuss making Leandra’s Law apply to all 50 states. New York is one of 10 states in the nation to mandate ignition interlock devices for first-time drunk-driving offenders.

Sources: Mid-Hudson News, Tougher Leandra’s Law takes effect next week, August 13, 2010

Long Island Press, Kaitlyn Piccoli, New Provision of Leandra’s Law to Take Effect, August 12, 2010