DUI ignition interlock; limitations on driver convicted of DUI. (HB1589)

Introduced By

Del. Sal Iaquinto (R-Virginia Beach)


Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law


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 ignition interlock is imposed only upon a second or subsequent offense or when the offender's BAC is above 0.15 percent. The bill also adds passenger vehicles designed to transport more than 15 passengers to the types of vehicles that cannot be operated by a person who is required to have an interlock but who is otherwise permitted to operate a vehicle owned or provided by his employer in the course of his employment. Read the Bill »


Bill Has Failed


01/06/2011Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/12/11 11100399D
01/06/2011Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
01/12/2011Assigned Courts sub: #1 Criminal
01/19/2011Subcommittee recommends reporting with amendment(s) (9-Y 0-N)
01/31/2011Reported from Courts of Justice with substitute (18-Y 2-N) (see vote tally)
01/31/2011Committee substitute printed 11104423D-H1
02/02/2011Read first time
02/03/2011Read second time
02/03/2011Committee substitute agreed to 11104423D-H1
02/03/2011Engrossed by House - committee substitute HB1589H1
02/04/2011Read third time and passed House (75-Y 23-N)
02/04/2011VOTE: PASSAGE (75-Y 23-N) (see vote tally)
02/07/2011Constitutional reading dispensed
02/07/2011Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
02/09/2011Failed to report (defeated) in Courts of Justice (7-Y 7-N) (see vote tally)


This bill was discussed on the floor of the General Assembly. Below is all of the video that we have of that discussion, 2 clips in all, totaling 3 minutes.


stephen writes:

Sal must hate kids to be going so light on drunk drivers, they murder 55o virginians every year sal. Where's your speech now about nothing more important than protecting kids. All mouth no action sal.

Sal Iaquinto writes:


I have no idea what you are talking about. This bill is tougher on people convicted with their first DUI. Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)is in full support of the bill. The bill has died in the past because other legislators thought it was too tough on drunk drivers.

I think you read the bill wrong.

stephen writes:

Your bill is weak, and your co-legislators are cowardly. One DUI should be a life time loss of license. These people murder 550 people every year. While you all claim nothing is more important than protecting kids these drunks are busy out butchering them. At the very least there should be a registry of who they are, so parents can keep there kids out of their cars,and the police can solve some of the hit and runs that I hear on the news every single day.

Waldo Jaquith writes:

One DUI should be a life time loss of license.

I have nothing but contempt for drunk drivers—having been the victim of a hit-and-run by a car full of drunks that totaled my vehicle and landed me in the hospital—but this proposal of yours is way too far. You have every right to hold this opinion, of course, but you should recognize that your position is far, far out of the mainstream of public opinion. As a rule of thumb, if there's an opinion that you hold that not a single member of the General Assembly agrees with you on, it's probably you that's wrong, not them.

stephen writes:

I'm sure the General assembly wouldn't agree with me, being that alcohol is served at campaigns, and alcohol money fuels elections. How many virginians have to be murdered and butchered before the general assembly lives up to it's words of protecting kids. tell us who these murders and butchers are, and will protect are selfs, since your all to cowardly to do it.

Waldo Jaquith writes:

Alright, I think we're done here.

Lloyd Snook writes:

I represent a lot of folks charged with DUI, and a lot of folks who are hurt by drunk drivers. The vast majority of those who are convicted of DUI have not hurt anyone, and most of those who HAVE hurt someone are the repeat offenders -- the ones who ALREADY are required to have ignition interlock before they can drive again. Or they are the people who have high BAC's, who already have to have an ignition interlock device before they can drive again.

There are some "the-devil-is-in-the-details" details with ignition interlock devices (IID's). Many people who are guilty of DUI are not driving a car that they own when they are arrested. Maybe it's their parents' car, or their girlfriend's car, because they don't have a car of their own. Where does the ignition interlock go then? Suppose you are married, and you and your spouse have only one car. Your spouse cannot drive your car while you have an IID on it, so do you buy a second car for 6 months? Or tell your spouse that he/she can't drive for the next 6 months? Some folks have a work vehicle as well as a personal vehicle; now we need 2 IID's. This bill would add about $700 in costs per IID to someone who is convicted of a first offense DUI. That may not seem like a lot to folks who have computers and the luxury of the opportunity to comment on sites like this, but believe me -- it is a lot of money to a lot of people who get DUI's. And one thing that is something of an unintended consequence of the way that the present law is worded -- you cannot get out of the requirement of an ignition interlock device for 6 months by simply agreeing to have your license completely suspended (no restricted license) for that 6 month period. So whenever you decide you want to have the right to drive again, you will have to put an IID on your car for the first 6 months of driving.

I fully support having a requirement for IID's for repeat offenders; just not for first offenders with a relatively low BAC.