Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Impaired Driving Protection Order topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sponsor seeks new civil protection order to curb repeat impaired driving; hearing continued for more review
Summary
Rep. Lauren Davis proposed a new impaired‑driving protection order to let family members, prosecutors or law enforcement petition courts to restrict a person's driving or require monitoring when evidence shows a significant danger; the committee paused the hearing for additional questions and stakeholder follow‑up.
House Bill 1426 would create a new civil protection order, an Impaired Driving Protection Order (IDPO), to allow family members, "interested persons," law enforcement or prosecutors to seek court‑imposed restrictions when a person poses a significant danger of causing injury by driving while impaired.
Sponsor Representative Lauren Davis told the Civil Rights & Judiciary Committee that traffic deaths from impaired drivers are rising and that gaps in prosecution and laboratory backlogs leave communities without timely public‑safety interventions. "Washington recently hit a morbid 30‑year high in traffic fatalities," Davis said, citing 410 impaired‑driver deaths in 2023 and an 80% rise in impaired driving fatalities between 2014 and 2023.
The draft statute borrows structural elements from the state's Extreme Risk Protection Order process. It would allow a court, after notice and a hearing, to issue a full IDPO on a finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent poses a significant danger of causing personal injury by driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The court could order remedies including ignition interlock device installation on vehicles the respondent operates, alcohol monitoring (including the 24/7 sobriety program), substance‑use disorder evaluation and treatment, and restrictions on driving.
The bill also permits the court to enter an ex parte temporary order if the petitioner alleges imminent harm; issuing a full order requires notice and an opportunity to be heard. A person who knowingly files a materially false petition could be guilty of a gross misdemeanor. The bill sets renewal and modification rules, and creates a gross‑misdemeanor enforcement provision for knowingly driving in violation of an IDPO.
Supporters including the Washington Poison Center and the Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs urged the committee to consider the bill, arguing repeat impaired drivers are often not caught and that court‑imposed monitoring tools could prevent fatal crashes. The Poison Center described alcohol as a leading cause of injury and said interlock or monitoring requirements could reduce harm.
Opponents and some committee members raised due‑process concerns about ex parte orders and about how law enforcement interaction with a respondent on public roads would work in practice. Representative Walsh and others asked how the bill balances immediate safety needs with procedural protections; the sponsor said she views the proposal as analogous to existing protection orders and would work with stakeholders to refine definitions (for example, the "interested person" standard) and procedural safeguards.
Because of the bill's novelty and many technical questions, the committee suspended further testimony and scheduled continuation of the bill's hearing for the next day to allow stakeholders to submit written answers and for the committee to obtain additional legal and operational input.
