In late 2011, Oklahoma passed the Erin Swezey Act which mandates additional ignition interlock installation on Oklahoma drivers reinstating their driver’s license after a DUI (driving under the influence)or APC (actual physical control). On a first time revocation for these charges, the license revocation or suspension period is 180 days. This time frame can be modified to allow driving with the installation of an ignition interlock in the vehicle. Upon the expiration of the 180 days, the licensee may reinstate. However, if the revocation was the result of a refusal to take the state’s chemical test, or, a test result with a BAC of .15 or more, than the licensee will be required to have an interlock on his car for an additional 18 months.
If the licensee has a second revocation or suspension for APC or DUI within a ten year look back time frame, the license revocation or suspension will be for a period of one year which can still be modified to allow driving as long as an interlock is in the vehicle. However, the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety (DPS) will require the installation of an interlock for an additional four years after reinstatement. This additional four years is required regardless of the breath or blood test results or whether it was a test refusal.
If the licensee has a third revocation or suspension during the ten years, he/she will be looking at a three year revocation or license suspension which can still be modified with the installation of the ignition interlock device. However, after reinstatement, he/she will be required to have the interlock for an additional five years under the Erin Swezey Act.
During the time the licensee has reinstated and is driving with an interlock under the Erin Swezey Act, he is a valid licensed driver. The requirement of the interlock is a restriction on the license similar to having to have glasses if visually impaired.
About the Author:
Located in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, John is the lead attorney with the Hunsucker Legal Group. The Hunsucker Legal Group is a multi-attorney firm defending over 300 DUI cases a year. John is a Director on the Board of the Oklahoma Criminal Defense Lawyer’s Association and a Sustaining Member of the National College of DUI Defense.
Serving as Oklahoma’s NCDD State Delegate, John is also a Faculty Member of the National College for DUI Defense. John is one of only a few attorneys in the country that actually owns the Intoxilyzer 8000 and has instructed attorneys in the United States and Canada on the use and problems of the machine as well as other DUI defense subjects. John has co-authored 20 books on the subject of DUI Defense including Oklahoma DUI Defense, The Law and Practice (Lawyers and Judges Publishing).
John has been featured as a legal expert nationally on CourtTV’s Open Court with Lisa Bloom and CourtTV’s In Session with Ashleigh Banfield. Locally, he has appeared on every major news station in the Oklahoma City market and has been quoted in the Daily Oklahoman for his extensive knowledge of DUI law. In 2012, 2013 and 2014, John was selected as the Daily Oklahoman Reader’s Choice Best DUI Attorney.
John may be reached through his website, www.OKDUI.com or by telephone at 405-231-5600.
4 Responses
I caught a “blip” on the news about a dui conviction resulting in the convicted having to turn over their car and car title to authorities. I have tried to find details on this to no avail. Are you aware of any such proposal or law?
Great question. There have been some changes to the law as it pertains to Oklahoma DUI forfeitures. Check back tomorrow and I will have a new blog article posted explaining it. John Hunsucker
What was the legislative intent in the ten year look back rule? Wasn’t it to give a person a clean slate after ten years as well as enhance sentences for DUI’s within that ten years? I had three DUI’s 23 years ago. I Served my time. Last Summer, I was arrested for misdemeanor DUI in Tulsa and posted a 1K bond. At my arraignment, the DA charged me with a Fifth FELONY, using my 23 year old DUI’s . I am a paralegal and researched it and found SalatHiel and Kolberg and the ten year look back rule. (Read the briefs on my motion to dismiss in State v. Wirtz, @ OSCN.net Tulsa County No. CF-2014-4934, pending ruling, ESPECIALLY MY REPLY). At oral arguments on Feb, 2nd, I want to argue the intent of the ten year rule was to give a person a clean slate after ten years. Where can I find the legislative history?
It appears from OSCN.net that you are represented by counsel on a pending case. As such, under Oklahoma Ethical Rules, it would be improper for me to give any legal advice or comment. Your attorney of record should be able to answer these questions for you. Good luck on your case