New DUI law full of holes

I read the Daily Herald's ringing endorsement of the new DUI law which requires mandatory installation of Breathalyzer devices in vehicles for first-time offenders.

I would like to know what provisions the law makes for installing the devices in vehicles such as police patrol cars, fire trucks and other emergency vehicles which may be driven by first-time DUI offenders (and whose offenses occur off the job) who work in such occupations and who pays for the installation of these?

If no such provisions exist, are these individuals working in these occupations automatically prohibited from driving vehicles as part of their normal daily activities?

It would seem to me that virtually every type of service vehicle (waste haulers, school buses, ambulances, cabs, limos) would have to be so equipped if an individual works in an occupation which requires driving an official or corporately owned vehicle.

Was that the intent of the law or has something been missed here? Seems to me if an individual is picked up on a first-time DUI while driving a private vehicle and an employer refuses to install the device on a vehicle driven as part of an occupation, the "automatic penalty" could/would lead to loss of a job for a non-job related activity.

Of course, if the device need only be installed on an personally-owned vehicle, where is the "intended" deterrence if the individual charged continues to drive in unmonitored vehicles?

If the first-time offender is caught while driving someone else's vehicle or doesn't own the vehicle he/she is driving, where does the device get installed?

This new law, at least on the surface, seems full of holes, inequities, and contradictions.

Stephen J. Gohmann

Huntley