Fiscal impact reports (FIRs) are prepared by the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) for standing finance

committees of the NM Legislature. The LFC does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of these reports

if they are used for other purposes.

Current FIRs (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) are a vailable on the NM Legislative Website (legis.state.nm.us).

Adobe PDF versions include all attachments, whereas HTML versions may not. Previously issued FIRs and

attachments may be obtained from the LFC in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.

F I S C A L I M P A C T R E P O R T

SPONSOR SCORC

ORIGINAL DATE

LAST UPDATED

2/6/08

2/13/08 HB

SHORT TITLE Alternate DWI Sentencing

SB 565/SCORCS/aSJC

ANALYST Cox/Moser

APPROPRIATION (dollars in thousands)

Appropriation

Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY08

FY09

$00.1 see analysis

Recurring

General Fund

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

LFC Files

Responses Received From

Administrative Office of the Courts – AOC

Administrative Office of DAs – AODA

Public Defenders – PDD

SUMMARY

Synopsis of SJC Amendment

Senate Judiciary Committee Amendment to Senate Bill 565 provides that alcohol

monitoring bracelets may be required in addition to a vehicle ignition interlock rather than

be offered as an alternative to the vehicle ignition interlock. Additionally, the Amendment

provides that “all costs associated with having a secured continuous remote alcohol

monitoring bracelet will be paid for by the offender."

Synopsis of Bill

Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 565 provides that an alcohol monitoring (scram) bracelet

may be worn as an alternative to vehicle ignition interlock following conviction for DWI.

This Committee Substitute Bill contemplates amending NMSA 1978, Section 66-8-102, dealing

with DWI, adding alcohol monitoring bracelet ‘language’.

Senate Bill 565/SCORCS/aSJC – Page

2

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

There may be significant costs associated with manpower, vehicles, monitoring equipment and

personnel. These costs would be incurred when an individual infraction occurs, necessitating a

DWI violation ‘pick-up’. This may be especially noteworthy for rural New Mexico areas that

have limited law enforcement personnel.

AOC notes:

There will be a minimal administrative cost for statewide update, distribution and

documentation of statutory changes. Any additional fiscal impact on the judiciary would

be proportional to the enforcement of this law, court installation and monitoring of

bracelets, and appeals from sentencing. New laws, amendments to existing laws and new

hearings have the potential to increase caseloads in the courts, thus requiring additional

resources to handle the increase. Additionally, the sanction of wearing a bracelet may

cause accused persons to invoke their right to trial and their right to trial by jury. More

trails and more jury trials will require additional judge time, courtroom staff time,

courtroom availability, and jury fees. These additional costs are not capable of

quantification.

SIGNIFICANT ISSUES

AODA states:

•

A secured continuous remote alcohol monitoring (SCRAM) bracelet is an electronic

monitoring device which is fastened securely (locked) around the offender’s ankle, and

which monitors the offender for alcohol use. If the sensor detects alcohol in the

offender’s body, or if it detects tampering with the contact between the offender and the

bracelet, a signal is sent electronically to a central location and a report is generated

regarding the alcohol use or tampering. That report is then forwarded to the agency or

court which is supervising the offender’s probation.

•

SB 565 would permit the court to order an offender to wear a SCRAM bracelet AS AN

ALTERNATIVE, or in the place of, an ignition interlock device.

•

The two technologies are entirely separate. The ignition interlock works by disabling the

offender’s vehicle unless an alcohol-free sample is blown into the device. Thus, when it

is working properly and not defeated by use of a non-intoxicated “substitute blower," the

ignition interlock PREVENTS VEHICLE OPERATION of the vehicle on which it is

installed. It does not prevent “substitute blowing," nor does it prevent operation of other

vehicles by the offender.

•

The SCRAM bracelet is securely attached to the offender, not to the vehicle, and

monitors the offender continuously for alcohol use. However, IT WILL NOT PREVENT

VEHICLE OPERATION, it will only report that the offender is using alcohol. While this

will undoubtedly result in detection of many more probation violations than are currently

observed, and will probably result in many more probation revocation proceedings,

conceivably with more incarceration of offenders, this only occurs after the fact. The

SCRAM device does not prevent the offender from starting a vehicle and driving in an

intoxicated condition. It will, however, detect the alcohol usage. So, for example, an

offender who would defeat an ignition interlock by use of a “substitute blower" will be

reported to have used alcohol, but may still be able to operate a vehicle.

Senate Bill 565/SCORCS/aSJC – Page

3

•

While the SCRAM bracelet would be a very useful adjunct technology to monitor

probation compliance, until technology is in place for the SCRAM device to actually

prevent vehicle operation upon detection of alcohol usage, it is not an appropriate

alternative or replacement for the ignition interlock device, because IT DOES NOT

PREVENT THE OFFENDER FROM DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED. (Capital

Lettering added by AODA)

AOC notes:

Similar to the administrative burden related to monitoring ignition interlock devices,

there are limited resources around the state for oversight of electronic sobriety monitoring

devices. The courts, Corrections Department, and county DWI programs lack the staff

and resources to provide the comprehensive monitoring necessary to provide oversight of

court-mandated ignition interlock devices. Personnel need to be trained and available to

respond to any reports of alcohol use by an offender wearing an electronic sobriety

monitoring device.

PDD notes:

The science behind the bracelet has not peer-reviewed so it may not pass a

Daubert/Alberico challenge. There are reports of false positives from exposure to

chemicals.

PRC/mt