Local lawmaker: Indiana could okay anti-drunk driving device

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

An Indiana lawmaker believes the State Legislature would sign off on technology that could stop drunken drivers from getting on the road.

The National Transportation Safety Board recommended Tuesday that all states require ignition interlock devices for all convicted drunk drivers, including first time offenders. It also encouraged more research on other alcohol detecting technologies.

The interlock device is known to use a breathalyzer to check a driver’s blood alcohol level. It also has the ability to prevent the driver’s vehicle from starting if he or she blows above the legal limit.

“This is a tool that, I think that, our state and all states should have,”‬ said State Senator Jim Merrit, R-31.

Currently, only 17 states require the device, but Merritt believes the Indiana Statehouse would also push it through, especially after State Rep. William Stine was killed in a crash in 2003, apparently caused by a drunken driver. He was 62.

‪”We lost a legislator several years ago down in the south part of Indianapolis… and I think the legislature always makes a point to have a strong position on anti-alcohol, anti-impairment, but also understanding that there could be a repeat offender and more times than not they’re going to harm someone,”‬ said Merritt.

Public opinion, however, is divided. Many viewers on Fox 59’s Facebook page expressed their favor for the recommendation, but there were also some who felt it was another case of big government.

“My first thought was that it’s just more government gone wild,”‬ said Jason Sharp on Fox59’s Facebook page.

He said he’s lost a family member in a drunk driving accident, but he doesn’t believe a new law is the solution. He’d rather see current laws toughened up.

“We re-write legislation to where the penalties are tougher for those who are drunk driving or kill somebody while drunk driving and we start charging them with first degree murder… instead of vehicular manslaughter where they’re serving seven, eight years,” he explained. “Now they’re facing 50 years, life, or even the death penalty. Those are penalties for their actions.”

Even though he is against the recommendation, he does believe it will pass in Indiana. Legislators like Merritt are counting down the days.

‪”It is something that needs to happen immediately,” he said. “It’s gonna save lives.”‬

Merritt said he doesn’t know of any related legislation on the agenda for the upcoming session, but said many lawmakers are discussing it.


  • Kent

    These interlock devices are far more dangerous than texting and driving or even talking on the phone and driving. At least, with texting, you have a choice as to whether you are being distracted. With this device you are required to blow and hum randomly when the devise beeps. It is very dangerous attempting to merge into traffic while leaning over blowing into this device. I can only imagine what winter weather will add to the risk

  • A Charles

    The interlock equipment gives the driver one minute to pull over and complete the test. That's long enough to be safe, if the driver chooses. I believe this technology if far overdue. It is exactly at the point of ignition that the drunk driver (DD) is at his/her most vulnerable to making a bad choice. A potential 50 year jail sentence won't be a disincentive to the alcohol soaked brain. It simply is incapable of the rational thought it takes to sense consequences. Taking away one's ability to drive is bad policy also. It wasn't the driving that got them in trouble, it was the alcohol. Taking a driver's license only promotes job loss, which embitters the offender, who is more often than not, a provider for a family. An interlock device could significantly reduce a DD's ability to get behind the wheel. If you want long sentences that don't destroy lives and families, sentence the first offender (dui only, no deaths) to ten years with this interlock equipment, a five year prohibition to A) purchasing or having ANY alcohol in the home, B) be in ANY bar, C) consume alcohol. Proscribe weekly AA meetings for five years. Minimum 30 jail sentence which means 15 actual days which is just a bad vacation, not a job loser. Simply place a black zip tie-type band on the right pinky finger tight enough to be unable to be removed over knuckle, so bartenders and liquor store clerks can see it. Pay a $25/month fee to offset cost of oversite. I believe this will reduce 2nd offense DUIs by 90% or more. Isn't that what we want? This probably would have kept me from my second DUI.

Comments are closed.

Notice: you are using an outdated browser. Microsoft does not recommend using IE as your default browser. Some features on this website, like video and images, might not work properly. For the best experience, please upgrade your browser.