Senate panel OKs bill that would require drivers who refuse breathalyzers to install interlock devices

Sen. Nick DiCeglie is bringing back legislation that would require drivers who have their license suspended for a suspected DUI to install interlock devices in their cars, even if they refused a breathalyzer.

The legislation (SB 260) moved through its first committee stop in front of the Senate Transportation Committee, but not without some questions from Democrats on the panel.

Democratic Sen. Victor Torres asked DiCeglie about the cost not just to install the device, but also to recharge or fix the device.

“I ran this bill last year and I know there’s some concern with some folks about the cost of this. But I will tell you that I look at this as simply a matter of accountability for folks who get pulled over for driving under the influence and refusing that breathalyzer test,” DiCeglie responded.

“As we talk about, you know, the costs and things like that, I’m sensitive to that too. But we are talking about, you know, we are talking about lives here. And there’s no dollar amount for, you know, attempting to save lives. And I think the easiest way for folks not to get into this, you know, situation is don’t drink and drive.”

Democratic Sen. Tracie Davis also raised similar concerns about the cost to drivers. DiCeglie did, however, signal a willingness to look into fees and get more information as the bill continues moving forward.

The Indian Rocks Beach Republican said the bill contains due process for individuals challenging a license suspension after refusing a breathalyzer.

“If a person whose driver license is suspended for refusal to submit to a lawful breath test has his or her driver license suspension invalidated for any reason under this section, the requirement … that he or she install an ignition interlock device for refusal to submit to a lawful test of his or her breath is waived,” the legislation reads.

But Aaron Wayt, Legislative Chair for the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, spoke against the bill, citing costs as well as administrative challenges when dealing with a client’s license suspension. He encouraged lawmakers to speak with defense lawyers to better understand those challenges.

If the suspension is upheld, the device would need to be installed for up to one year, under the proposed legislation.

DiCeglie tried pushing similar legislation last year. The House approved the measure but the Senate did not.

A representative from the SPLC Action Fund also spoke Wednesday against this year’s version, citing costs for low-income individuals to install and maintain the devices.

A speaker on behalf of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, however, spoke in favor of the legislation.

Torres closed by again mentioning his concerns about costs.

“I just want to make sure the cost of it is reasonable,” he said. Ultimately, however, Torres supported the measure.

“We have so many issues on the road, and I just don’t want the innocent drivers to be victims.”