Thanks to unusually stiff laws requiring interlocks for all DUI offenders seeking to drive, nearly 20,000 residents here use the alcohol-sensing devices. That puts Washington among the top-five states for interlock use.
And new legislation aimed at boosting enforcement of interlock orders would give the industry an estimated 4,500 more customers per year.
The proposal, like previous ones, came out of a public Impaired Driving Working Group founded by Goodman, the Kirkland lawmaker, in 2007.
“The companies are salivating,” said state Rep. Roger Goodman, a Kirkland Democrat and architect of the bill. “They’re in these meetings and they have to kind of bite their tongues at how excited they are.”
“We’ve had about 25,000 (devices installed) over the course of the last couple of years. This might double those numbers,” said Goodman.
Luce, then a 20-year State Patrol veteran specializing in breath tests, has participated in the group since the beginning. So has Stanton.
That made the state industry profitable “overnight,” said Stanton, emphasizing he lost money here for a decade beforehand.
Stanton has also frequently donated to campaigns. Last year, he contributed nearly $7,000 to Goodman’s, according to the Public Disclosure Commission.
This new DUI bill requires drivers who are arrested for suspicion of driving under the influence of marijuana to install these alcohol interlock devices, even before going to trial. Representative Goodman admits that these devices are worthless for detecting THC and that it doesn’t make any sense, but that didn’t stop him from helping out his benefactors in the alcohol interlock industry increase their yearly profits.
If Goodman makes the unfortunate decision to run for another legislature term, you’re likely to see alcohol interlock devices for a wide variety of non-alcohol related driving infractions. Window tint too dark? Solution: alcohol interlock device.
It’s definitely time to investigate Goodman and this mysterious “Impaired Driving Working Group”, started by Goodman in 2007. This group appears to have no official membership list, no official status, holds no public hearings, and yet these industry executives members appear to be working within the framework of this mystery group to establish public policies that directly determine their own personal profits.
“There really should be a study into who owns the ignition-interlock devices and who participates in legislation,” said state Rep. Sherry Appleton, D-Poulsbo, in a public hearing last Wednesday. “I think there’s something going on there.”
Sources:Anti-DUI interlock companies in state helped set own rules – Seattle Times
Public records request document uncovered by Cannabis Action Coalition’s Arthur West…
Subject: Impaired Driving Bill Draft – BIG Problem!!! RCW 46.04.215 and 43.43.395
The changes to RCW 43.43.395 (Bill Sec. 6) and RCW 46.04.215 (Bill Sec. 9) whereby Ignition Interlock becomes Certified alcohol monitoring device MUST be reversed!
“Ignition interlock” has specific meanings in Federal law, and has encompassed thirty years of research in dozens of studies and has led to specific recommendations by the highway safety community. Also “ignition interlock” is used elsewhere in the RCW (e.g., Ignition Interlock License) .
Changing “ignition interlock” to “certified alcohol monitoring device” will be a massive step backwards that simply can’t happen.
I apologize to everyone because I am certain the confusion began with my using these two sections as the basis for granting WSP the authority to develop standards for alcohol monitoring devices OTHER THAN ignition interlocks as we discussed at last week’s working group meeting. As you may recall, the group decided attempting to establish such standards in the absence of Federal standards was neither practical nor wise.
Unfortunately, the amended language I had proposed to become the basis for new RCW Sections for other devices, became changes to the existing authority and standards for ignition interlocks leading to more than seventy changes in the proposed bill.
I am sorry for the extra work this confusion has and will cause the bill drafter (Ms. Walker, I presume). On a positive note, thank you for including language on Page 38 as a first step to deal with compliance based removal issues.
On another positive note, the senior member of the ignition interlock provider community will be providing refreshments at the next meeting of the Impaired Driving Working Group!