Ignition interlock limitations; person convicted of DUI required to have device on first offense. (HB2041)
Introduced By
Del. Sal Iaquinto (R-Virginia Beach)
Progress
✓ |
Introduced |
✗ |
Passed Committee |
✓ |
Passed House |
☐ |
Passed Senate |
☐ |
Signed by Governor |
☐ |
Became Law |
Description
DUI ignition interlock limitations. Provides that a person who is convicted of DUI is required to have an ignition interlock on the first offense as a condition of a restricted license. Currently, the requirement for an interlock is only imposed upon a second offense or when the offender's BAC is above 0.15 percent. The bill imposes a $75 administrative fee, up from $20. The bill provides that the monthly operation and maintenance fee is to be paid by the Criminal Fund if the offender is indigent. The bill also provides that anyone who is required to have an interlock may not operate a passenger vehicle that carries more than 15 people. Read the Bill »
Outcome
Bill Has Failed
History
| Date | Action |
|---|---|
| 01/13/2009 | Committee |
| 01/13/2009 | Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/14/09 091502560 |
| 01/13/2009 | Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice |
| 01/21/2009 | Assigned Courts sub: Criminal |
| 01/21/2009 | Subcommittee recommends reporting with amendment(s) |
| 01/23/2009 | Impact statement from DPB (HB2041) |
| 02/04/2009 | Reported from Courts of Justice with substitute (21-Y 1-N) (see vote tally) |
| 02/04/2009 | Committee substitute printed 090894560-H1 |
| 02/06/2009 | Read first time |
| 02/08/2009 | Passed by for the day |
| 02/09/2009 | Read second time |
| 02/09/2009 | Committee substitute agreed to 090894560-H1 |
| 02/09/2009 | Amendment by Delegate Iaquinto agreed to |
| 02/09/2009 | Engrossed by House - committee substitute with amendment HB2041EH1 |
| 02/09/2009 | Printed as engrossed 090894560-EH1 |
| 02/10/2009 | Read third time and passed House (91-Y 7-N) |
| 02/10/2009 | VOTE: --- PASSAGE (91-Y 7-N) (see vote tally) |
| 02/11/2009 | Constitutional reading dispensed |
| 02/11/2009 | Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice |
| 02/17/2009 | Impact statement from DPB (HB2041EH1) |
| 02/23/2009 | Reported from Courts of Justice with substitute (12-Y 3-N) (see vote tally) |
| 02/23/2009 | Committee substitute printed 091468560-S1 |
| 02/24/2009 | Constitutional reading dispensed (39-Y 0-N) (see vote tally) |
| 02/25/2009 | Read third time |
| 02/25/2009 | Reading of substitute waived |
| 02/25/2009 | Committee substitute agreed to 091468560-S1 |
| 02/25/2009 | Passed by for the day |
| 02/26/2009 | Read third time |
| 02/26/2009 | Motion to recommit to committee agreed to |
| 02/26/2009 | Recommitted to Courts of Justice |
| 02/28/2009 | Left in Courts of Justice |
Comments
Ignition interlocks are dangerous to EVERYONE on the road and should be banned entirely. The last thing we need is something to cause more accidents, which interlocks do when they inevitable malfunction, register false positives, stall cars in the middle of roadways (whether the driver had been drinking or not). Stop the MADDness! Educate yourself at www.ridl.us