City attorneys would like Alaska’s drunk driving laws cleaned up a bit. They say not all DUI sentences are following a law that says first-time offenders should have a breathalyzer-triggered ignition lock on their vehicle for 12 months after the offender has their driving privileges reinstated. (The device prevents a car from starting until someone blows a deep breath of alcohol-free air into its plastic tube.)

The law came into effect in January 2009, but Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor Jennifer Messick says another portion of the law describing several sentencing standards was not repealed. That part of the law required the breathalyzer lock—called an “ignition interlock device” or “IID” in legal shorthand—for six months if a defendant had a blood-alcohol content between .16 and .24 percent at the time of their arrest, and for one year if they blew over .24.

“This is what happens when they pass a law without getting advice from prosecutors and defense attorneys,” Messick says. She provided us with a memo written to city prosecutors that describes three different sentencing rules that might be, or may not be, the law of the land. The current law, Messick wrote in the memo, is “clear as mud.” Some judges have allowed defendants to wait out their ignition lock requirement by accepting sentence agreements in which the defendant’s probation coincides with the interlock requirements. The devices have to be rented from a contractor approved by the state, so such a sentence may soften the financial blow of a DUI conviction.

The city is recommending the legislature do something, and includes the DUI law in its legislative requests this year. Messick says one fix is to repeal a portion of the old law the legislature left intact when it passed the changes that showed up in 2009. She also said in an email to the Press that prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges have looked at the law and can’t discern the legislative intent behind it.

“I do not think this is an issue of miscommunication between judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys, I think it is an issue of poor legislation. The IID has its place and it was passed with good intentions however we needed time to prepare for the implementation of it. As it is, we are all scrambling trying to figure out exactly what the legislature meant to do,” Messick wrote.

New interlock sentencing rules are not yet included in any pending DUI legislation. Bill McAllister, a spokesman for the state Department of Law, says state prosecutors are also aware of the sentencing disparities.

—Scott Christiansen