Editorial: Keep working on DWI law

It's been one year since Leandra's Law mandated alcohol interlock devices for anyone convicted of driving while intoxicated. And while progress has been made to keep repeat drunken drivers off the streets, more can and should be done. Too many people who've been convicted of DWI continue to evade the law and avoid the interlocks. And that puts all of us at risk.

The law is named for Leandra Rosado, an 11-year-old from the Bronx who was killed in 2009 in a car driven by the mother of a friend who was taking seven girls to a sleepover. It requires that those convicted of DWI operate only vehicles armed with interlock devices, for at least six months. The equipment costs about $90 per month, plus an installation charge -- paid for by the offender -- and keeps a car from starting if the driver can't blow an essentially alcohol-free breathing sample.

About 1,700 people in Nassau have been sentenced to use interlock devices in the past year, but 60 percent of them, rather than getting and installing the machines, simply told judges they have no car and no plans to drive during the time their privileges are restricted. Some stick to this and use mass transit, bikes and rides. But others manipulate the system by driving without licenses, in cars registered to other people.

Twenty such people were arrested this week, 18 of them when they brazenly drove illegally to meet with their probation officers.

The Nassau County district attorney's office recently concluded an investigation, set to coincide with the one-year anniversary of Leandra's Law. Of 147 DWI offenders who were placed under surveillance, 101 appear to have honored their sentences: They told judges they would not drive and didn't need interlock devices, and they stayed out from behind the wheel. Another 26 were using the interlock devices. The remaining 20 were arrested after being caught driving without the machinery.

There may come a day when every car has an alcohol interlock device, set to the legal limit. It's a controversial idea, but since the only right such mandatory devices would infringe upon is one that doesn't exist -- the right to drive drunk -- some argue it should happen.

Until it does, if it does, law enforcement will be caught in a battle with those who would repeatedly evade drunken driving laws. District Attorney Kathleen Rice and Sen. Charles Fuschillo (R-Merrick) are working together to tighten up the law so that it does more to prevent repeat DWIs and force compliance. The most promising areas for progress are in increasing the length of time DWI convicts must use the interlocks, and changing the law so that drivers can't wait out the penalty. Right now, someone sentenced to use an interlock for a set period can let that time pass, then get a license and drive without one. It would be better if the interlock clock started whenever DWI convicts got their licenses back, regardless of how long they waited.

Even then, the biggest key to curbing drunken driving isn't legislators, but judges. To make a difference, they must regularly slap interlock evaders with jail time, up to and including the rarely imposed maximum sentence of 12 months. It's worth such steps to try to get the attention of drunk drivers before, not after, the tragedy happens. hN