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 Martinez, K

ORIGINAL DATE

LAST UPDATED

2/11/08

HB 100/aSJC

SHORT TITLE

Ignition Interlock Tampering Penalties

SB

ANALYST C. Sanchez/Cox

APPROPRIATION (dollars in thousands)

Appropriation

Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY08

FY09

NFI

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

LFC Files

Responses Received From

Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC)

Public Defender (PDD)

SUMMARY

Synopsis of SJC Amendment

Senate Judiciary Committee Amendment to House Bill 100 merely adds’ clean-up language, and

does not affect the intent of this Bill

Synopsis of Original Bill

House Bill 100 amends NMSA 1978, Section 66-5-503 (Ignition Interlock License) to add a new

subsection that provides that “tampering or interfering with the proper and intended operation of

an ignition interlock device may subject the applicant to penalties for driving with a license that

was revoked for driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs or a violation of the

Implied Consent Act."

The bill further amends NMSA 1978, Section 66-5-504 (Penalties) to include language clarifying

that a person who is issued an ignition interlock license and who nevertheless operates a vehicle

that is not equipped with an interlock device “is driving with a license that was revoked for

driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs or a violation of the Implied Consent

Act" and continues the present penalties pursuant to Section 66-5-39.

House Bill 100/aSJC – Page

2

The bill further amends NMSA 1978, Section 66-5-504 (Penalties) to include language providing

that a “person who is issued an ignition interlock license and who knowingly and deliberately

tampers or interferes or causes another to tamper or interfere with the proper and intended

operation of an ignition interlock device shall be subject to the penalties for driving with a

license that was revoked for driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs or a

violation of the Implied Consent Act as provided in Section 66-5-39".

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

Any additional litigation could be absorbed in the ordinary course of business.

SIGNIFICANT ISSUES

Enactment of this bill would clarify that a person who violates the Ignition Interlock law is guilty

of driving with a revoked license. It would provide that a person who knowingly tampers with a

mandated interlock is likewise guilty.

Public defenders, judges, and district attorneys have some concern about the proposed

legislation’s lack of specificity vis-à-vis whether having another person blow into the interlock

device constitutes deliberate tampering with the device in violation of the proposed legislation. A

concomitant concern is to note that the second person would be guilty of a crime under the

proposed legislation: although the proposed legislation requires a person to be “issued an ignition

interlock license" before the provisions of the new law would apply, NMSA 1978, Section 66-8-

120 (Parties to a Crime) would make an accomplice likewise guilty.

ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS

This bill could increase workloads for public defenders, district attorneys, judges and related

staff.

TECHNICAL ISSUES

In order to avoid otherwise inevitable, time-consuming and costly litigation if this bill should

pass, public defenders and district judges suggest that language be inserted clarifying whether

having a second person blow into the interlock device constitutes deliberate tampering with the

device in violation of the proposed legislation

WHAT WILL BE THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ENACTING THIS BILL

Status quo.

POSSIBLE QUESTIONS

Does having a second person blow into the interlock device violate the Ignition Interlock law as

amended by the proposed legislation.

CS/PC:mt