Title: An act relating to requirements for ignition interlock devices.

Brief Description: Changing requirements for ignition interlock devices.

Sponsors: Senators Kline, Roach, Esser, Prentice, Keiser, Haugen, Fairley, Shin, Hargrove and Rasmussen.

Brief History:

Committee Activity: Judiciary: 2/16/05, 2/23/05 [DP].

SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Majority Report: Do pass.Signed by Senators Kline, Chair; Weinstein, Vice Chair; Johnson, Ranking Minority Member; Carrell, Esser, Hargrove, McCaslin, Rasmussen and Thibaudeau.

Staff: Lidia Mori (786-7755)

Background: An applicant for a temporary restricted driver[rsquo ]s license (TRL) who has had his or her driver[rsquo ]s license suspended or revoked for an implied consent violation must provide proof to the Department of Licensing that a functioning ignition interlock device has been installed on a vehicle owned or operated by the person. The department is required to restrict the person to operating only vehicles equipped with such a device for the remainder of the period of suspension or revocation. There is concern about a certain segment of the population that have had their driver[rsquo ]s license suspended due to an implied consent violation but do not own a personal vehicle, walk or take public transportation to work, and are required to drive an employer[rsquo ]s vehicle during working hours. These people are not currently eligible for an TRL because they do not have an ignition interlock on a personal vehicle. For persons convicted of an alcohol offense, RCW 46.20.720 does not require an ignition interlock device to be installed on vehicles owned by a person[rsquo ]s employer and driven as a requirement of employment during working hours.

Summary of Bill: Proof of an ignition interlock device is not necessary if an applicant for a temporary restricted license provides a declaration that he or she does not own a vehicle and is employed in a position that requires he or she to drive an employer[rsquo ]s vehicle during working hours. The ignition interlock device is not required on vehicles owned by a person[rsquo ]s employer and driven as a requirement of employment during working hours.

Appropriation: None.

Fiscal Note: Not requested.

Committee/Commission/Task Force Created: No.

Effective Date: Ninety days after adjournment of session in which bill is passed.

Testimony For: This bill is more of a procedural fix than a substantive one. There are two ways a person can lose their driver[rsquo ]s license; one is through a criminal conviction for driving under the influence and the other is through an implied consent administrative license suspension. If it is due to a criminal conviction, the person does not have to have an ignition interlock device on his or her employer[rsquo ]s vehicle. As the law stands now, if the license is suspended due to an implied consent violation, the person is required to have an ignition interlock on an employer[rsquo ]s vehicle.

Testimony Against: None.

Who Testified: PRO: Geoffrey Burg, Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.