Judiciary advisers favor keeping interlock option, limit 0.02 rule to alcohol and require data reporting beginning July 1, 2026

Good afternoon. Willa Farrell, attorney general's office, court division of pretrial services, told the Judiciary Committee she recommends limiting the proposed 0.02 impairment expansion to alcohol for now and retaining ignition interlock as an option for older youth while the panel develops data and reporting requirements.

The committee is considering draft 1.2 of legislation that would add a 0.02 impaired-driving-related diversion pathway for youth. Farrell told the committee the Attorney General's Office can work with the Crime Research Group (CRG) to produce outcome measures and that the committee should collect aggregate data on referrals, completions, failures and suspensions. The panel agreed that reporting should begin July 1, 2026, and that the first statutorily required report should include recommendations for outcome measures from the Attorney General's Office in consultation with CRG.

Farrell said she heard testimony about growing impairment concerns but that the committee is not yet equipped to measure non‑alcohol drug impairment in driving. "I listened to the testimony this morning, and I heard a couple of themes that came up... I just think limiting it to alcohol at this point with the 0.02 is as much as I would recommend," she said.

Farrell also urged the committee to keep ignition interlock devices available as a compliance option for older youth who work and need to drive. "That device is a really important tool, for a lot of people. It's an option for those... it provides a way for them to drive legally," she said, while noting that some people will continue to drive under suspension regardless of the option.

Committee members pressed staff for data and technical details about how suspensions and notifications are processed. Farrell described the existing procedure: if a youth completes diversion and is adjudicated at the Judicial Bureau, that bureau nightly transmits suspension notices to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), and the DMV uploads them into its system the following morning. She said court diversion programs should not send suspensions directly to DMV outside that process.

Farrell shared DMV-provided counts for context: in the last fiscal year there were 54 suspensions tied to 0.02‑type violations; 11 were for people ages 16–17 and 43 were for people aged 18 or older. She said there were two second‑violation suspensions last year; both involved 19‑year‑olds. Farrell cautioned the committee that the numbers are small and that the Attorney General's Office and committee may not have in-house research capacity to draw strong conclusions about recidivism without outside analysis.

On fines and fees, Farrell said she had not discussed changes with Attorney General Clark but noted that a fine amount around $300 is substantial for many youth and that about 75–80 percent of participants complete the program and avoid paying the fine. She also confirmed the office was comfortable with a figure raised in committee discussion earlier in the hearing, $91.45, though committee members and staff continued to discuss the appropriate monetary components.

Members asked the Attorney General's Office and CRG to bring recommendations for outcome measures as part of the first statutorily required report. Committee discussion included whether the first report should await a longer data window; Farrell and members agreed the statutory reporting start date should be July 1, 2026, allowing programs time to accumulate and clean data, with the first required report submitted afterward.

Committee staff also raised data and confidentiality issues if the panel ultimately requests name‑matched studies linking diversion referrals to criminal charges; Farrell said that would require adjustments to confidentiality provisions and careful handling and suggested that such analyses are more appropriate for a CRG‑led research project rather than routine annual reporting.

The committee did not take a formal recorded vote on the draft during this session. Members said they will reconvene to review a revised draft and the proposed reporting language and supporting data.

The committee's next steps are to receive the Attorney General's Office and CRG's recommended outcome measures in the first statutorily required report and to resume formal consideration of the draft at a later meeting.