Supporters, opponents clash over bill to let courts issue impaired-driving protection orders

Thurston County Sheriff Derek Sanders told the House Civil Rights & Judiciary Committee that he strongly supports House Bill 1426, saying "this is maybe the most innovative bill I've seen to address impaired driving." Sanders said impaired driving accounts for nearly half of fatal crashes statewide and described practical limits for law enforcement trying to stop repeat offenders before a crash.

The bill would authorize courts to issue an impaired driving protection order (IDPO) on civil petition, allowing measures such as ignition interlocks or bans on driving a particular vehicle when a judge finds the petitioner has shown sufficient evidence. "These impaired driving orders would allow us to run the plate of the vehicle and match that up with what the family has already testified to in court," Sanders said, describing how the orders could create probable cause to stop a vehicle.

Why it matters: supporters say HB 1426 aims to prevent deaths and serious injuries by intervening before crashes occur. Shelley Baldwin, acting director of the Washington Traffic Safety Commission, called the state in a "traffic safety crisis," noting that 809 people died in 2023 in crashes involving impairment and saying interlocks are a proven preventive tool. Chase Glasser of SAFE and other advocates testified that interlock technology has stopped many attempted impaired starts and that early use could save lives.

Not all witnesses agreed. Sergeant Selena Copa warned that the bill would create a civil proceeding with fewer protections than a criminal case and said it could weaken constitutional rights for the accused: "This bill will create a civil case with no right to counsel. ... The 5th, 6th, and 14th rights our constitution guarantees to the accused, would take a weight for impact of Washingtonians." King County District Court Presiding Judge Rebecca Robertson testified that courts are already at capacity for protection‑order calendars and raised concerns about increased workload, monitoring costs, and the risk of abusive litigation if the class of potential petitioners is broad.

Victims and victim‑advocates urged passage. Several family members described fatal or catastrophic crashes that they said could have been prevented if someone had been able to intervene earlier. A representative of Mothers Against Drunk Driving said MADD would back due‑process safeguards while supporting expansion to address drug impairment as well as alcohol.

Details and clarifications offered at the hearing: testimony cited an annual statewide cost from traffic crashes of roughly $20 billion; witnesses said Washington has required interlocks for DUI offenders since 2009 and cited aggregate device records (2006–2020 interlocks reportedly prevented over 1.1 million attempts to drive with BAC over 0.08). Some supporters urged the bill be expanded to cover drugged driving as well.

No formal committee action or vote was recorded during the public hearing. The committee closed public testimony on HB 1426 at the end of the panel and moved to the next bill on the agenda.