Utah’s ignition interlock laws are primarily found in Utah Code § 41-6a-518, § 41-6a-518.1, and § 41-6a-518.2. These statutes are part of Utah’s DUI statutory scheme and govern when an ignition interlock device is required, how long a driver may be restricted, exceptions to the restriction, and the criminal consequences of driving without a required interlock.
Utah DUI law changes regularly, so a person dealing with a DUI conviction or ignition-interlock restriction should always confirm the version of the statute applicable to the particular conviction and restriction.
What Is an Ignition Interlock Device?
An ignition interlock device, commonly called an IID or simply an interlock, is an alcohol-monitoring device installed in a motor vehicle.
Utah law defines an “ignition interlock system” as a certified monitoring device that prevents a motor vehicle from being started or continuously operated without first determining the driver’s breath-alcohol concentration. Utah Code § 41-6a-518(1)(c).
In practical terms, the driver must provide a breath sample before operating the vehicle. A Utah interlock system is required to prevent the vehicle from starting when the driver’s breath-alcohol concentration exceeds .02. The system must also be capable of detecting attempted circumvention or tampering and recording attempts to start the vehicle when alcohol is detected.
Court-Ordered Interlock Requirements After a Utah DUI
A DUI conviction most often results in an ignition interlock requirement as a condition of probation. There are exceptions.
Under Utah Code § 41-6a-518(2), when a person is convicted of DUI under § 41-6a-502 and receives probation, the court generally requires the person not to operate a motor vehicle during probation unless it is equipped with a functioning, certified ignition interlock system. The statute does, however, permit the court to decline to impose that requirement if the court determines and states on the record that an interlock is not necessary for community safety and that dispensing with it is in the interests of justice.
The rule is stricter for some defendants. For example, if the person was younger than 21 years old when the DUI occurred, the court is required to order an ignition interlock as a condition of probation.
For a DUI committed within ten years of a prior qualifying DUI conviction, the court must order an ignition interlock, at the driver’s expense, on vehicles registered to or operated by that person.
The Difference Between a Court Interlock Order and Being an “Interlock Restricted Driver”
One of the most important concepts in Utah interlock law is the legal status of an “interlock restricted driver.”
Under Utah Code § 41-6a-518.2, an interlock restricted driver includes a person who has been ordered by a court or the Utah Board of Pardons and Parole, as a condition of probation or parole, not to operate a motor vehicle without an ignition interlock system. The statute also identifies several other circumstances that can independently result in interlock-restricted status, including specified DUI convictions, repeat offenses, felony DUI convictions, certain alcohol-related automobile-homicide convictions, and administrative revocations for refusal to submit to a chemical test.
This distinction matters because an interlock restriction generally follows the driver, not merely the driver’s personal vehicle.
You cannot simply install an interlock in one car and assume that you are free to drive another car without one.
How Long Is an Ignition Interlock Required in Utah?
The length of an ignition interlock restriction depends upon the reason the driver became interlock restricted.
Under Utah Code § 41-6a-518.2, the statutory restriction periods include:
- 18 months for certain offenses described in § 41-6a-518.2(1)(b)(ii)(A);
- two years for specified repeat offenses, certain other qualifying convictions, and chemical-test refusal revocations;
- three years for specified felony offenses; and
- four years for a conviction under Utah Code § 76-5-207.
The particular statutory category matters, so the correct restriction cannot be determined merely by saying that someone has “a DUI.”
There is another critically important point: for the categories described in the statute, the end of the restriction is tied to the driver providing proof that the interlock has been installed and reinstating the driving privilege.
A person should therefore not assume that the interlock clock has been running simply because time has passed since the DUI conviction.
Removing the Interlock Early Can Extend the Restriction
Utah law specifically addresses what happens when a required ignition interlock is removed before the restriction has expired.
If the interlock is removed from the vehicle before the statutory restriction period ends, the restriction period is extended by the number of days that the interlock was removed from the person’s vehicle. Utah Code § 41-6a-518.2(2)(c).
This is one reason a restricted driver should confirm the Utah Driver License Division records before removing an interlock device.
Medical Exception to Utah’s Ignition Interlock Restriction
Utah law recognizes that some medical conditions may make it impossible for a person to provide the deep-lung breath sample required by an ignition interlock system.
Under Utah Code § 41-6a-518.2(9), a person with an interlock restriction may petition the Driver License Division to remove the restriction if the person has a medical condition preventing the person from providing the required breath sample.
The exception is not automatic. The driver must provide documentation from a physician describing the medical condition and addressing whether the condition prevents the person from providing a deep-lung breath sample. If the Division establishes that the person is medically unable to provide the required sample, it may remove the restriction.
DUI Cases That Did Not Involve Alcohol
Utah’s DUI statute covers more than alcohol. A person can be convicted of DUI based upon drugs or other substances even when alcohol played no role in the offense.
Utah’s ignition interlock statutes specifically recognize this distinction.
Section 41-6a-518 states that its court-ordered interlock provisions do not apply to a DUI conviction that does not involve alcohol.
Section 41-6a-518.2 also provides mechanisms for removing an interlock restriction when the underlying DUI offense did not involve alcohol. In some circumstances the convicting court may notify the Driver License Division at sentencing that the offense did not involve alcohol. The statute separately allows a person with an interlock restriction to petition the Division for removal when the offense did not involve alcohol.
This can be particularly important in a drug-only DUI case which can occur in a Section 502 or 517 DUI convictions.
The Employer-Vehicle Exception
Utah law contains a limited exception for certain employer-owned vehicles.
An interlock-restricted employee may be able to operate an employer’s vehicle without an interlock when the vehicle is being driven in the course and scope of employment, the employer has been notified of the restriction, and the employee possesses the required employer verification.
This exception has important limitations.
It does not apply when the employer’s vehicle is made available to the restricted driver for personal use. It also does not apply merely because someone operates a vehicle owned by his or her own company. A vehicle owned by a business that is entirely or partially owned or controlled by the restricted driver does not qualify for the employer exception.
Driving Without an Interlock Is a New Criminal Offense
A Utah ignition interlock restriction is not merely an administrative inconvenience.
Under Utah Code § 41-6a-518.2(5), an interlock-restricted driver who operates or is in actual physical control of a vehicle in Utah without the required ignition interlock system is guilty of a class B misdemeanor.
This means someone who has already completed the criminal proceedings on an original DUI can face an entirely new criminal case for driving a vehicle without the required interlock.
Notice also that the statute applies not only to “driving,” but to being in “actual physical control” of the vehicle. That distinction can become important in defending an interlock charge.
You Cannot Have Someone Else Blow Into Your Interlock
Utah law also criminalizes attempts to defeat or circumvent an ignition interlock.
A person may not:
- circumvent or tamper with an ignition interlock;
- knowingly provide an interlock-restricted driver with a vehicle that does not have the required interlock;
- blow into an interlock or start an interlock-equipped vehicle for the purpose of allowing the restricted driver to operate it; or
- engage in certain other prohibited conduct involving an interlock system.
An interlock-restricted driver also may not rent, lease, or borrow a vehicle without the required system or ask another person to blow into the interlock for the restricted driver’s benefit. Utah Code § 41-6a-518.1.
Violating these provisions is a class B misdemeanor.
Utah Interlock Cases Can Be More Complicated Than They Look
Ignition interlock law involves the intersection of the criminal court, probation requirements, the Utah Driver License Division, the driver’s prior DUI history, the nature of the underlying offense, and the dates upon which the interlock was installed and the driver’s privilege was reinstated.
For that reason, a driver should not assume that an interlock can be removed merely because a probation period has ended or a certain amount of time has passed since the DUI conviction.
Likewise, being charged with driving without an interlock does not automatically mean the State can prove the charge. The prosecution still must establish that the defendant was an interlock restricted driver at the relevant time and that the defendant operated or was in actual physical control of a vehicle without the interlock required by Utah law.
The exact dates, Driver License Division record, underlying conviction, court sentencing order, and any applicable statutory exception can make a significant difference in an ignition-interlock case.