Legislation watch
Mackinac Center for Public Policy
Capitol Building

2007 House Bill 4289: Revise drunk driving ignition interlock device rules

Public Act 461 of 2008

  1. Introduced by Rep. Bob Constan (D) on February 20, 2007, to prohibit and establish penalties for a person convicted of drunk driving and allowed only to drive a vehicle equipped with an ignition interlock device who drives any other vehicle, and revise interlock device standards. This is part of a package creating a new high blood alcohol level drunk driving offense (above .15 milliliters per liter of blood). See House Bills 4920 and 4921.
    • Referred to the House Transportation Committee on February 20, 2007.
      • Reported in the House on March 15, 2007, with the recommendation that the bill be referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
    • Referred to the House Judiciary Committee on March 15, 2007.
      • Reported in the House on July 18, 2007, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-4) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
    • Substitute offered in the House on October 10, 2007. The substitute failed by voice vote in the House on October 10, 2007.
    • Substitute offered by Rep. Tonya Schuitmaker (R) on October 10, 2007, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that revises various administrative details and postpones the effective date until Oct. 1, 2010. The substitute failed by voice vote in the House on October 10, 2007.
    • Substitute offered by Rep. Bob Constan (D) on October 10, 2007, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that revises details based on extensive testimony and "fine tuning." The main substance of the bill as previously described is not changed. This version does not postpone the effective date from 2008 to 2010. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on October 10, 2007.
    • Amendment offered by Rep. Marc Corriveau (D) on October 10, 2007, to eliminate definitions of injuries and "serious impairment" that are defined elsewhere in statute. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on October 10, 2007.
    • Amendment offered by Rep. Tonya Schuitmaker (R) on October 10, 2007, to move the effective date of the bill back to Oct. 1, 2010. The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on October 10, 2007.
  2. Passed 96 to 12 in the House on October 11, 2007, to prohibit a person convicted of drunk driving and allowed only to drive a vehicle equipped with an ignition interlock device from driving any other vehicle, subject to up to six months in jail, a $5,000 fine, and automatic immediate impoundment of the vehicle not containing the device. The bill also revises the required interlock device standards, and requires review of these every four years. It is bill is part of a package creating a new high blood alcohol level drunk driving offense (above .15 milliliters per liter of blood). See Senate Bill 1134.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

  3. Received in the Senate on October 16, 2007.
    • Referred to the Senate Transportation Committee on October 16, 2007.
    • Substitute offered in the Senate on December 10, 2008, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that does not have the provisions revising the required interlock device standards, and requires review of these every four years. The substitute passed by voice vote in the Senate on December 10, 2008.
  4. Passed 37 to 0 in the Senate on December 10, 2008, to prohibit a person convicted of drunk driving and allowed only to drive a vehicle equipped with an ignition interlock device from driving any other vehicle, subject to up to six months in jail, a $5,000 fine, and automatic immediate impoundment of the vehicle not containing the device. The bill is bill is part of a package creating a new high blood alcohol level drunk driving offense (above .15 milliliters per liter of blood). See Senate Bill 1134.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

  5. Received in the House on December 11, 2008.
    • Amendment offered by Rep. Paul Condino (D) on December 18, 2008, to establish a new date on which the bill will go into effect if passed. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on December 18, 2008.
  6. Passed 104 to 1 in the House on December 18, 2008, to concur with the Senate-passed version of the bill, except with a new effective date.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

  7. Received in the Senate on December 18, 2008.
  8. Passed 38 to 0 in the Senate on December 18, 2008, to concur with the House-passed version of the bill.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

  9. Signed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on January 9, 2009.

Comments

And Can We  by Anonymous Citizen on November 19, 2008 
also make it a rule that when a person on a cell phone steps out in front of your car and you run them over, that it is classified as a "cell phone related" accident?
How about a guy on a bike talking on a cell phone falls off and gets hurt, this will be a "cell phone related" accident. And if you are sitting still in your car talking on the phone and someone runs into you that's not on a cell phone that will also be a "cell phone related" accident". ?????
Sound Familiar?
This would raise the statistics on "cell phone related" accidents" so high that we could ban them tomorrow, and put anybody that dares to talk on a cell phone in jail for years even before they harmed anyone. No one would ever speak out against the ban because we will do it to "save the children", how can you be against that.

Wake Up Dummies!!!!!

you support any and  by uber-liberal on November 18, 2008 
all legislation, no matter how unfair or unconstitutional it may be. that's not a thinking man's position on any laws, much less laws that this state is attempting to use to keep itself afloat financially.

why not ticket those who use cell phones while driving? they cause three times more accidents and deaths than drunk drivers do. but you ever hear about 'rounding them up'?

no.

why not?

because EVERYONE uses a cell phone. and EVERYONE would become a criminal if this were a ticketable offense.

why not do what several other states and simply state that using a cell phone while driving is driving with total disregard for the safety of others.

let's make driving while using a cell phone the proximal cause of any accident that it occurs in, with the person on the cell phone TOTALLY responsible for any damages, injuries, or deaths that occur as a result.

THAT should make our roads safer.

Then I Want  by Anonymous Citizen on November 18, 2008 
you to have an interlock when you hurt my family because you are not smart enough to drive and talk on a cell phone. You can't keep punishing people for "potentially" causing harm or there is no end to it. Remember, sober drivers cause 95.8% of crashes and deaths on the highway.

View pre-2013 Comments.
Your new comments should be made in the box below.