HUNTINGTON -- Randall Thayer Blake is a 26-year-old from Ona, W.Va., whose third drunken driving arrest in less than three years reveals apparent shortcomings in the state's effort to punish and rehabilitate repeat drunken drivers.

The most recent arrest occurred after a crash on Oct. 29 at U.S. 60 and Blue Sulphur Road, just miles from his residence. No one was seriously injured in the accident, but the case demonstrates two ways in which enforcement may not have worked as intended.

First, Blake’s vehicle was equipped with an ignition interlock, designed to prevent an intoxicated person from starting and operating the vehicle. Authorities suspect a sober person blew into Blake’s device, thus enabling him to drive even though court filings state Blake’s blood alcohol content exceeded the legal limit. The legal limit is .08.

Secondly, the circumstances of his first two DUIs reveal significant jail time can be avoided when multiple driving-under-the-influence arrests occur in a short time. The first two DUI arrests also involved automobile accidents.

The defendant is free on a $15,000 property bond, and he awaits court action on two fronts.

The state Division of Motor Vehicles has disqualified Blake's participation in the interlock program and moved for another one-year license revocation, said Debbie Ferguson, supervisor for the DMV's drunken driving section.

Blake's criminal charge awaits indictment by a grand jury. If indicted and later convicted, Blake faces a one- to three-year prison sentence. Blake's public defender did not return a message seeking comment.

Ignition interlock

Blake's first crash occurred Jan. 19, 2007, on the W.Va. Turnpike in Kanawha County. The second took place April 3, 2007, on Blue Sulphur Road in Ona. Court filings state the January incident involved alcohol only, but the later arrest involved alcohol and prescription medication. The court later deemed Blake, then 23, to be a chronic alcoholic in the same year.

Blake served a two-year license revocation based on the January and April 2007 crashes, Ferguson said. Her agency reinstated Blake's driving privilege on May 19, 2009, with a condition he would participate in the state's ignition interlock program.

Ferguson said her office received a report indicating that investigators believe a sober person blew into Blake's device, enabling his vehicle's ignition to start. Investigators have no evidence Blake's interlock was defective, and two passengers in his vehicle did not appear intoxicated at the time of the crash, Cabell County Sheriff Tom McComas said.

The sheriff said it is a "good, noble cause" to rehabilitate past offenders, but he believes any such effort comes with risks.

"You have people that are still willing to circumvent the system because their desire to consume alcoholic beverages is greater than their desire to conform with accepted public behavior," he said.

Ferguson said her agency is preparing to implement new technology to better supervise repeat offenders who circumvent the interlock program. The improvements will require installation of interlocks with photographic capabilities, meaning the interlock equipment would snap a photo of the testing subject's face each time he or she blows on the device. Those photos would be downloaded at least once every 30 to 60 days for inspection to ensure compliance.

Ferguson said she believes current technology already makes it difficult for one to sidestep the interlock. She said today's devices require repeat testing during one's journey. That forces the person blowing into the device to also be a passenger in the vehicle.

"What sane, non-intoxicated individual is going to do that?" she questioned.

Ferguson said repeat offenders must successfully complete one year of interlock for every arrest. For example, a three-time arrestee would face three years of interlock.

However, each repeat offense results in a typical one year revocation, Ferguson said. She said state law provides increased revocations for habitual offenders, but she said legislation does not provide clear definitions. She said that keeps her agency from implementing anything more serious, no matter how many prior arrests a person may have.

Second offense

Because Blake's first two DUI arrests were only about three months apart, he was able to plead guilty to first-offense drunken driving in both cases, rather than facing a potential six-month to one-year prison or jail sentence for a second-offense drunken driving charge.

Both times he received 24-hour jail sentences with fines and court costs.

The second case, heard in Cabell County, moved much faster than the earlier case in Kanawha County. When Blake was ready to admit guilt, court records show the second-offense charge was reduced to first-offense because prosecutors lacked a first-offense conviction.

The Kanawha County case eventually was resolved in November 2007. Court records show Blake pleaded guilty to first-offense drunken driving, despite the earlier guilty plea in Huntington.

"That is not unusual, especially when people are given to that kind of behavior. They and their lawyers have studied the system and found every loophole and way to navigate," McComas said. "All of the players involved, from the court system to law enforcement, I have to believe are doing all that they can. Again, it's not a perfect system, but it's the system that we have, and we try to follow it."

Maryclaire Akers, chief of staff for Kanawha County Prosecutor Mark Plants, said court delays in her county did not affect the ultimate resolution of Blake's case. She blamed the state law requiring any second-offense arrest to follow a first-offense conviction.

That means to have qualified for second-offense drunken driving, Blake's subsequent arrest would have had to follow his first conviction. In this instance, Blake's Jan. 19 and April 3 arrests occurred before his scheduled court date of April 17, 2007.

"I don't really like that law either, but that's the way it is," Akers said. "I could go out and get arrested today, tomorrow and the next day all for DUI first."

McComas described the Sheriff's Office investigation in the current case as strong. He vowed earlier plea deals should not derail prosecution of a third-offense charge in relation to the Oct. 29 crash. He said the only requirements are strong evidence and the presence of two prior drunken-driving convictions.

Akers agreed that prosecutors only need two prior drunken driving convictions to sustain a felony third-offense charge. Specific first- and second-offense convictions are not necessary.

A legislative effort to mandate ignition interlocks for all convicted drunken drivers failed earlier this year. It sought to change current law, which only mandates interlocks for repeat drunken drivers.

National Video