Melanie’s Law & IID Requirements

Understanding Melanie’s Law and IID Requirements

Melanie’s Law, enacted in October 2005, strengthened Massachusetts’ drunk driving laws by imposing stricter penalties and requirements on those convicted of DUI offenses. A key provision that took effect on January 1, 2006, mandates the use of an Ignition Interlock Device (IID) for individuals with two or more DUI convictions who are reinstating their license or removing hardship license restrictions. This requirement applies regardless of whether the DUI convictions occurred in Massachusetts or another state.

Mandatory IID Use for Repeat Offenders

Under Melanie’s Law, anyone with two or more DUI convictions must install an IID during the entire hardship license period and for two years after obtaining a full license reinstatement. The Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV) enforces this requirement with zero tolerance. The RMV Board of Appeals also upholds it consistently, making it nearly impossible to bypass the IID requirement.

Legal Challenges and Court Decisions

Despite legal challenges, Massachusetts courts have consistently upheld the IID mandate. In Gordon v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, the Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled that the IID requirement was constitutional and did not violate the ex post facto clause. Similarly, in Commonwealth v. Sean Pettit, the Appeals Court determined that a revoked driver with an IID restriction could not be convicted of operating without an IID, since the restriction applies only to active licenses.

Costs and Employment Consequences

IIDs can be costly and may impact employment, especially for individuals who need to drive company vehicles. However, Massachusetts law does not provide exemptions based on financial hardship or employment needs. The Board of Appeals and advocacy groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) argue that IIDs are more effective than license suspensions in preventing repeat offenses.

Compliance and Enforcement

For those required to install an IID, failure to comply can result in extended suspensions or further penalties. Even individuals who were eligible to remove hardship restrictions before January 1, 2006, but failed to meet with an RMV Hearings Officer, must now comply with the IID requirement. Fighting this mandate is typically unsuccessful, as both the RMV and Board of Appeals strictly enforce it.

Conclusion

Melanie’s Law imposes severe restrictions on repeat DUI offenders, with the IID requirement being one of its most uncompromising provisions. Those facing an IID mandate should be aware of the strict enforcement policies and legal precedents supporting the requirement. If you have two or more DUI convictions and are seeking reinstatement, compliance with IID regulations is mandatory under G.L. c. 90 Section 24 ½.