Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ignition Interlock topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House amends ignition-interlock law to change indigent fee, clarify rules and remove drug-related requirement
Summary
HB 200 passed the House 58–14 after floor debate over cost-shifting and safety; the bill removes a $100 centralized indigent fee, requires installers to absorb indigent costs through pricing, removes interlock requirements for non‑alcohol drug DUIs and clarifies it is illegal to operate an ordered vehicle without an interlock.
The Utah House on Jan. 30 approved HB 200, which makes three primary changes to the state’s ignition-interlock law for repeat DUI offenders. The bill passed 58–14 and will be sent to the Senate.
Representative Tyler, the sponsor, told the House the bill (1) eliminates a $100 fee previously charged to offenders and administered by the Department of Public Safety to pay for interlocks for indigent offenders and instead requires installers to include indigent coverage in their pricing; (2) removes the requirement that ignition interlocks be used for DUIs involving drugs other than alcohol (the devices do not detect nonalcohol drugs); and (3) explicitly makes it a violation for a person ordered to have an interlock to operate a vehicle without one.
Members questioned how installers would set prices and whether costs would be shifted to non-indigent offenders. Representative Lockhart asked why the expense would be shifted to other offenders rather than covered by taxpayers; Tyler said the change preserves the principle that offenders—not the general public—bear the cost while simplifying administration. Representative Cox and others sought clarification on safety concerns after media reports suggesting devices might shut a moving vehicle down; Tyler and others said the interlocks prevent starting a vehicle when alcohol is detected and do not shut down a car while driving.
Representative Daniels urged caution about piling costs on convicted offenders and noted the potential for cumulative financial burdens that could hinder rehabilitation. The sponsor and several supporters noted the number of indigent offenders who would receive free installations is small (the sponsor said roughly three to 10 statewide in a year), and that the change reduces administrative overhead at the Department of Public Safety.
The House approved HB 200 by a recorded vote of 58 yes and 14 no; the bill was referred to the Senate.
