HB 1426
In CommitteeHouse
Impaired driving civil order
Creating a civil protection order to prevent impaired driving.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill creates a new civil protection order—called an impaired driving protection order—to prevent individuals from driving while impaired by alcohol. It allows courts to impose conditions such as ignition interlock devices, alcohol monitoring, and treatment programs, and establishes criminal penalties for violations. The bill also updates related laws to support enforcement and data sharing.
- Creates a new type of civil protection order—the impaired driving protection order—to prevent individuals from driving while impaired by alcohol.
- Allows petitions to be filed by intimate partners, family or household members, law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, or interested persons with credible testimony about the respondent’s alcohol-impaired driving history.
- Permits courts to impose various conditions, including mandatory ignition interlock devices, alcohol monitoring (e.g., breathalyzer or transdermal sensors), 24/7 sobriety program participation, alcohol treatment, and attendance at self-help support groups.
- Establishes procedures for ex parte temporary orders (issued without prior notice to the respondent) and full hearings, with a requirement that full hearings occur within 14 days of filing.
- Creates new criminal penalties: a gross misdemeanor for violating an impaired driving protection order, and a class C felony for individuals with two or more prior violations.
- Requires courts to notify the Department of Licensing when an ignition interlock restriction is imposed, and mandates that the department place a restriction on the respondent’s driving record.
Who is affected
- Respondents — Individuals who are accused of driving while impaired by alcohol and are the subject of a petition filed by a family member, intimate partner, law enforcement, prosecutor, or other interested person.
- Petitioners — Individuals who believe a family member, intimate partner, or others pose a danger to themselves or others due to alcohol-impaired driving and seek court intervention to prevent that risk.
- Law enforcement agencies — Law enforcement officers who must enforce the orders, enter them into state databases, and may take custody of respondents who violate the order.
- Courts — Courts and court staff who process petitions, hold hearings, issue orders, and coordinate with other agencies to implement and enforce the orders.
- People subject to monitoring or device requirements — Individuals required to use ignition interlock devices or participate in alcohol monitoring programs as part of the court order, including those subject to 24/7 sobriety program requirements.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
The bill creates a civil mechanism to prevent alcohol-impaired driving before harm occurs, potentially reducing traffic fatalities and injuries—especially for children, pedestrians, and other drivers—by enabling early intervention by family members, law enforcement, or concerned citizens.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 11(1)(b), (d), (e), (f); Sec. 15(3)(d), (e), (f); Sec. 16(3)(d), (e), (f)Mandatory substance use disorder evaluation and treatment, along with support group attendance, may improve long-term health outcomes for respondents by addressing alcohol use disorders—particularly for those who would otherwise avoid treatment due to stigma or cost.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 11(1)(f), (g); Sec. 15(3)(e), (f); Sec. 16(3)(e), (f)Ignition interlock requirements for all vehicles operated by the respondent significantly reduce the risk of recidivism by physically preventing driving while impaired, and the $21/month fee helps fund the program sustainably.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 11(1)(a); Sec. 46.20.720(1)(f); Sec. 46.20.720(7)The bill includes procedural safeguards: 14-day timelines for full hearings after ex parte orders, clear standards for renewal and termination, and a burden of proof on the respondent to show substantial change in circumstances—balancing public safety with individual liberty.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 14(1); Sec. 15(2); Sec. 16(1)The bill mandates statewide data entry and law enforcement training, which improves coordination across jurisdictions and enhances enforcement capacity—though it shifts administrative costs to local governments without full state funding.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 12(1)-(2); Sec. 14(1); Sec. 20(1)-(3)
Potential Concerns (5)
The $21/month ignition interlock device fee and associated monitoring/treatment costs will be borne by respondents, many of whom have low incomes or are unemployed due to alcohol use disorders; this creates a regressive financial burden that may lead to noncompliance or inability to comply.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 11(1)(a), (c), (d), (e), (g); Sec. 12(3); Sec. 15(3); Sec. 46.20.720(7)The bill creates a new civil restraint that can restrict driving privileges for up to 99 years based on a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard—lower than criminal “beyond a reasonable doubt”—and allows orders to be issued based on third-party reports without direct observation by law enforcement, raising due process concerns.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 15(1); Sec. 16(1); Sec. 14(1)The bill’s heavy reliance on technology (ignition interlock, transdermal sensors) and self-reporting creates opportunities for circumvention or failure, and the lack of funding for robust monitoring infrastructure may reduce effectiveness and create false confidence in safety.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 14(1); Sec. 15(3)(a)-(f); Sec. 16(3)(a)-(f)The bill excludes people subject *only* to impaired driving protection orders from 24/7 sobriety program penalties (e.g., jail for missed tests), creating a two-tiered enforcement system that undermines consistency and may reduce compliance incentives.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 23; Sec. 22(4); Sec. 36.28A.390(4)The employer exemption for ignition interlock devices (Sec. 19(6)(a)) disproportionately benefits large employers and salaried professionals who drive company vehicles, while low-wage workers who commute in personal vehicles face full cost and compliance burdens.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 19(1)(f); Sec. 46.20.720(1)(f)
Who Is Most Affected
Respondents—often individuals with alcohol use disorders—face significant financial, legal, and personal burdens: mandatory monitoring, treatment, and possible jail time for noncompliance. While some may benefit from structure and treatment, many will experience hardship, especially if unemployed or low-income.
Family members, intimate partners, and concerned others gain a legal tool to protect loved ones from imminent harm, but may face emotional strain from initiating court action and may lack resources to follow through on monitoring or support.
Law enforcement gains a new civil tool to intervene before criminal conduct occurs, but must absorb training, enforcement, and database entry costs without additional funding, potentially diverting resources from other priorities.
Courts gain jurisdiction over a new civil proceeding, increasing caseloads and requiring new forms, training, and coordination with DOL and law enforcement—costs not fully offset by the $21/month fee.
People subject to monitoring face daily obligations (breath tests, sobriety program attendance) that may interfere with work, childcare, or privacy—especially burdensome for those without reliable transportation or stable housing.