Requires proof of installation, maintenance and regular use of ignition interlock devices when use of such a device is ordered by a court; extends the period of suspension and revocation of a license until such proof is provided.
NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF LEGISLATION submitted in accordance with Assembly Rule III, Sec 1(f)
BILL NUMBER: A2703A
SPONSOR: Woerner TITLE OF BILL:
An act to amend the vehicle and traffic law, in relation to ignition
interlock devices
PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL:
This bill requires compliance with a court order to install, maintain
and regularly use an ignition interlock device, absent a finding of good
cause for a defendant's inability to do so.
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:
Sections 1 and 2 amend Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1193 to require that
interlock ignition devices (IIDs) be regularly used by defendants
ordered to install and maintain them and to clarify that a driver who
provides proof of regular IID use for at least six continuous months
shall qualify for a reduction to their mandated period of use unless the
court specifically ordered otherwise.
Section 3 makes technical amendments to Vehicle and Traffic Law §
1193(1- a)(c).
Section 4 amends Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1193(2)(e)(7)(d) and (e) to
state that no conditional license or extreme hardship privilege issued
during a period of license suspension pending prosecution shall be valid
for the operation of a taxicab or any other motor vehicle used for
transporting passengers for compensation.
Sections 5 amends Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1196(7)(g) to state that no
conditional license or privilege conferred in connection with partic-
ipation in an alcohol and drug rehabilitation program within the Depart-
ment of Motor Vehicles shall be valid for the operation of any motor
vehicle used for transporting passengers for compensation.
Section 6 makes technical amendments to Vehicle and Traffic Law §
1198(1).
Section 7 makes technical amendments to Vehicle and Traffic Law §
1198(2)(a) and (b) and adds a new paragraph (d) to direct the commis-
sioner to require proof of compliance and regular use of an IID prior to
restoring full license privileges to any driver ordered to install,
maintain and regularly use a functioning IID as a condition of a period
of probation or conditional discharge.
Section 8 amends Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1198(3)(a) to require proof
of compliance and regular use of an IID prior to having full license
privileges restored upon termination of a period of probation or condi-
tional discharge, and makes technical amendments to (d).
Section 9 makes technical changes to Vehicle and Traffic Law §
1198(4)(a), plus limits the grant of a good cause exception for failure
to install an IID to drivers who do not now own a car, did not own a car
at the time of their arrest, are not married to someone who owns a car
they drive at least occasionally, and are not an adjudicated youthful
offender who resides with a parent or legal guardian who owns a car they
drive at least occasionally; requires proof of compliance and regular
use of an IID from a driver prior to removing any court-ordered IID
mandate imposed as a condition of probation or conditional discharge.
Section 10 adds § 1198(5)(c) to allow people, once a court-ordered IID
is installed, to start their parked cars during periods of license
suspension or revocation to preserve the battery life of their vehicles.
Section 11 adds Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1198(11) to direct the commis-
sioner to establish minimum standards for the continuous and regular use
requirements of § 1198.
Section 12 provides an effective date and authorizes the addition,
amendment and/or repeal of any rule or regulation necessary to implement
the legislation on its effective date.
JUSTIFICATION:
Research shows that use of an IID following a DWI arrest or conviction
lowers the likelihood of repeat offenses.1 New York's ignition interlock
law, known as "Leandra's Law," contains a significant loophole. Enacted
in 2009, "Leandra's Law" sought to ensure that as a condition of
probation or conditional discharge, all DWI offenders would install and
maintain an IID for a period of at least 12 months in any vehicle they
owned or operated, with compliance earning early release after 6 months.
Despite the law's intention, New York's IID installation rate remains
persistently low at only 25% of drivers convicted statewide (see
https://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/opca/ignition.htm). In NYC, the rates
are even worse, with only 6% of convicted drivers installing an IID
between 2010 and 2023.
Despite the existing IID mandate, DWI defendants who "give away" their
car prior to sentencing - usually to a family member - often avoid the
IID requirement through the law's "good cause" exception. This bill
further restricts the "good cause" exception to circumstances where a
defendant can avow to not owning a car at the time of their drunk driv-
ing arrest, not having a spouse whose car they drive at least occa-
sionally, and, in the case of an adjudicated youthful offender, not
being the child of a parent or legal guardian who owns a car the defend-
ant drives at least occasionally. This stricter "good cause" exception
eliminates a defendant's ability to defeat the IID mandate by simply
transferring the title to their car to a spouse after their arrest or by
never having held title to a car they share with their spouse, parent or
legal guardian.
This bill also stops DWI offenders sentenced to conditional discharge
from simply "waiting out" their mandated 6 - 12 month IID sentence.
Rather than automatically allowing a person to begin driving again
following the IID period, despite never having installed and driven with
an IID, this bill requires DWI offenders ordered to install an IID in a
car they own or operate to also "regularly use" the car with an IID as a
condition for getting their license back.
Finally, current law requires DWI offenders with a suspended or revoked
license to install an IID in their car immediately, but also prohibits
them from even starting their car during such time. This scenario is
problematic, because a failure to periodically start a car attached to
an IID inevitably leads to the car's battery dying. When that happens,
it appears to the monitor of the IID (typically a probation officer),
that the IID has been disabled, a scenario which then leads to fines or
other penalties being imposed on the car's owner for failure to comply
with the IID order. To avoid that scenario, this bill permits DWI offen-
ders with suspended or revoked licenses to start their parked cars and
run them in place during the period of license suspension or revocation
to preserve the car's battery life and to avoid any fees and/or penal-
ties associated with non-compliance with the court's IID order.
PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
New bill.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS FOR STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:
None.
EFFECTIVE DATE:
This act shall take effect on the ninetieth day after it shall have
become law, provided, however, that the amendments to section 1198 of
the vehicle and traffic law made by sections five, six, seven and eight
of this act shall not affect the expiration and repeal of such section
and shall be deemed repealed therewith. Effective immediately, the
addition, amendment and/or repeal of any rule or regulation necessary
for the implementation of this act on its effective date are authorized
to be made and completed on or before such date.
(1) In a recent study comparing two states that have IID compliance-
based removal laws with two states that do not, the Governor's Highway
Safety Association found a significant decrease in DWI recidivism in the
states that had IID compliance-based removal laws compared to the states
that did not. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
observed that states with stringent IID laws experience a 15% decrease
in DWI-related traffic deaths compared to states lacking such laws. Once
installed, IIDs reduce DWIs by approximately 70%. IIDs also provide an
effective behavioral feedback mechanism to educate drivers about their
fitness to drive. IIDs are the only available technology to stop people
from driving while drunk. See https://www.ghsa.org/resourcehub/impact-
compliance-based-removal-laws and
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/judicial/resources/highway-justice/ig
nition-interlocks-provenstrategy-curb-dui-recidivism/. Accessed
11.25.25.
