What's happening
This bill strengthens New York's ignition interlock program, requiring stricter, longer use of ignition interlock devices for DWI offenders and updates compliance, monitoring, and sentencing procedures.
Why it matters
Closes major loopholes in compliance. The bill addresses the low rate of ignition interlock device (IID) installation among convicted DWI offenders in New York by removing previous ambiguities and requiring written, sworn statements from offenders who claim they do not have access to a vehicle, making it harder to evade IID requirements.
Extends and standardizes IID usage periods. It mandates longer and more consistent IID installation periods, not only during license revocation but also after license restoration, ensuring offenders demonstrate a sustained period of sober driving before regaining full driving privileges.
Defines and enforces strict compliance criteria. The bill sets out detailed definitions of non-compliance events (such as failed or missed IID tests, tampering, or missed service visits) and requires that any such violations reset the compliance period, meaning offenders must maintain a clean record for an uninterrupted period before IID restrictions are lifted.
Creates clearer pathways and incentives for rehabilitation. By offering alternatives to license revocation for offenders who comply with IID requirements, and by providing mechanisms for restoration of licenses and refunding certain fees upon successful compliance, the bill incentivizes sustained responsible behavior and reduces barriers for those who demonstrate rehabilitation.
Albany, before your first meeting.
Every bill that moved yesterday, summarized in a sentence and ranked by impact. The Albany Scorecard follows on Sundays.
Free. Unsubscribe in one click. Want alerts on specific bills? Create an account.
Who cares
Headline styles
Tighten Ignition Interlock Rules
Plain English, a few words. Used as the page title.
Sponsors
3 Co-sponsors
History
- Reported and committed to finance
- Referred to transportation
- Referred to transportation
Full text
13 pagesUnderlined is new[Struck] is removedOfficial text on nysenate.gov ↗
STATE OF NEW YORK
343
2025-2026 Regular Sessions
IN SENATE (Prefiled)
January 8, 2025
Introduced by Sens. COONEY, FERNANDEZ, MARTINEZ, MAYER -- read twice and ordered printed, and when printed to be committed to the Committee on Transportation
AN ACT to amend the vehicle and traffic law and the penal law, in relation to the ignition interlock program
The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows:
Section 1. Legislative findings. The legislature hereby finds and declares:
1. In 2009, New York adopted "Leandra's Law" to require, as a condition of sentence, that all individuals convicted of the crime of driving while intoxicated install an ignition interlock device (IID) for a specified time in any vehicle they own or operate. Fifteen years later, despite the mandate, only three in ten offenders actually install an IID.
2. In addition, although the penalty model based predominantly on license revocation persists, far too many offenders continue to drive even after losing their license privilege, and a significant number of them continue to drive under the influence of alcohol. The consensus among highway safety experts is that well over fifty percent, and as many as eighty percent, of revoked drivers continue to drive while unlicensed.
3. IIDs are designed to do two things: (1) protect the public by preventing drunk driving events; and (2) alter driver behavior to reduce recidivism. Numerous studies have shown IIDs to be overwhelmingly effective on both counts:
(a) Public safety. Between December 1, 2006 and December 31, 2020, IID installation stopped 3.8 million drivers nationally from attempting to drive while legally intoxicated (.08+) and foiled an additional 25.4 million drivers from attempting to drive after consuming enough alcohol
EXPLANATION--Matter in italics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
[ ] is old law to be omitted.
LBD00901-01-5
to trigger the IID's set point. Over the same time period in New York - even despite the poor compliance rate - IIDs prevented more than 111,000 legally drunk drivers and foiled an additional 439,427 attempts by convicted drunk drivers who attempted to start a vehicle after consuming alcohol.
(b) Reduced recidivism. A 2016 University of Pennsylvania study found that alcohol-related fatalities decreased by 15% in states with all-offender interlock laws. Similarly, a 2016 California study concluded that ignition interlock devices are seventy-four percent more effective in reducing DWI recidivism than license suspension alone during the first six months after conviction and forty-five percent more effective over the course of a year.
4. Given the empirical data that favors the use of the IID as a condition of sentence, either in conjunction with or instead of license revocation, the legislature finds that New York has fallen significantly behind other states that utilize IIDs to promote public safety and support rehabilitative efforts. Accordingly, the legislature declares that to further advance public safety, New York must adopt best practices consistent with the data for model use of the ignition interlock device as a proven method for saving lives and promoting rehabilitation.
§ 2. Paragraph (c) of subdivision 1 of section 1193 of the vehicle and traffic law, as amended by chapter 169 of the laws of 2013, and subparagraph (ii-a) as added by chapter 191 of the laws of 2014, is amended to read as follows:
(c) Felony offenses. (i) A person who operates a vehicle (A) in violation of subdivision two, two-a, three, four or four-a of section eleven hundred ninety-two of this article after having been convicted of a violation of subdivision two, two-a, three, four or four-a of such section or of vehicular assault in the second or first degree, as defined, respectively, in sections 120.03 and 120.04 and aggravated vehicular assault as defined in section 120.04-a of the penal law or of vehicular manslaughter in the second or first degree, as defined, respectively, in sections 125.12 and 125.13 and aggravated vehicular homicide as defined in section 125.14 of such law, within the preceding ten years, or (B) in violation of paragraph (b) of subdivision two-a of section eleven hundred ninety-two of this article shall be guilty of a class E felony, and shall be punished by a fine of not less than one thousand dollars nor more than five thousand dollars or by a period of imprisonment as provided in the penal law, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
(ii) A person who operates a vehicle in violation of subdivision two, two-a, three, four or four-a of section eleven hundred ninety-two of this article after having been convicted of a violation of subdivision two, two-a, three, four or four-a of such section or of vehicular assault in the second or first degree, as defined, respectively, in sections 120.03 and 120.04 and aggravated vehicular assault as defined in section 120.04-a of the penal law or of vehicular manslaughter in the second or first degree, as defined, respectively, in sections 125.12 and 125.13 and aggravated vehicular homicide as defined in section 125.14 of such law, twice within the preceding ten years, shall be guilty of a class D felony, and shall be punished by a fine of not less than two thousand dollars nor more than ten thousand dollars or by a period of imprisonment as provided in the penal law, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
(ii-a) A person who operates a vehicle in violation of subdivision two, two-a, three, four or four-a of section eleven hundred ninety-two of this article after having been convicted of a violation of subdivision two, two-a, three, four or four-a of such section or of vehicular assault in the second or first degree, as defined, respectively, in sections 120.03 and 120.04 and aggravated vehicular assault as defined in section 120.04-a of the penal law or of vehicular manslaughter in the second or first degree, as defined, respectively, in sections 125.12 and 125.13 and aggravated vehicular homicide as defined in section 125.14 of such law, three or more times within the preceding fifteen years, shall be guilty of a class D felony, and shall be punished by a fine of not less than two thousand dollars nor more than ten thousand dollars or by a period of imprisonment as provided in the penal law, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
[(iii) In addition to the imposition of any fine or period of imprisonment set forth in this paragraph, the court shall also sentence such person convicted of, or adjudicated a youthful offender for, a violation of subdivision two, two-a or three of section eleven hundred ninety-two of this article to a period of probation or conditional discharge, as a condition of which it shall order such person to install and maintain, in accordance with the provisions of section eleven hundred ninety-eight of this article, an ignition interlock device in any motor vehicle owned or operated by such person during the term of such probation or conditional discharge imposed for such violation of section eleven hundred ninety-two of this article and in no event for a period of less than twelve months; provided, however, that such period of interlock restriction shall terminate upon submission of proof that such person installed and maintained an ignition interlock device for at least six months, unless the court ordered such person to install and maintain a ignition interlock device for a longer period as authorized by this subparagraph and specified in such order. The period of interlock restriction shall commence from the earlier of the date of sentencing, or the date that an ignition interlock device was installed in advance of sentencing. Provided, however, the court may not authorize the operation of a motor vehicle by any person whose license or privilege to operate a motor vehicle has been revoked pursuant to the provisions of this section.]
§ 3. Paragraph (g) of subdivision 1 of section 1193 of the vehicle and traffic law, as amended by section 57 of part A of chapter 56 of the laws of 2010, is amended to read as follows:
(g) Condition of probation and conditional discharge; ignition interlock device requirements; alternative sentence authorized. (1) Definitions. For the purposes of paragraphs (g) through (m) of this subdivision, the terms defined in subdivision one-a of section eleven hundred ninety-eight of this article shall be applicable.
(2) Ignition interlock device; sentence. In addition to the imposition of any fine or period of imprisonment as set forth in this subdivision and to any license sanction imposed pursuant to subdivision two of this section, the court shall sentence such person convicted of, or adjudicated a youthful offender for, a violation of subdivision two, two-a, three or four-a of section eleven hundred ninety-two of this article to a period of probation or conditional discharge, the conditions of which shall include the following:
(i) an express prohibition on the operation of any motor vehicle without a functioning ignition interlock device from a qualified manufacturer for a period of twelve months or longer, pursuant to the requirements of this paragraph and paragraph (c) of subdivision one-a of this section, and which shall run concurrently with any period of license sanction; and
(ii) such person shall install and maintain in accordance with the provisions of section eleven hundred ninety-eight of this article, an ignition interlock device in any motor vehicle operated by such person for a period of twelve months or longer as set forth in subparagraph four of this paragraph, including the one hundred eighty days after a license has been restored; provided, however, a certificate of completion certifying that such person has operated such motor vehicle free of any events as set forth in paragraph (j) of this subdivision for a period of one hundred twenty consecutive days after the restoration of the operator's license, shall be deemed to have satisfied the conditions of probation or conditional discharge relating to the ignition interlock requirements set forth in this paragraph. The period of interlock restriction shall commence on the date that such ignition interlock device shall have been installed.
(3) Ignition interlock device; alternative sentence. Notwithstanding the provisions of subparagraph two of this paragraph and subdivision two of this section relating to license sanctions, a court may, upon motion of the defendant, impose an alternative sentence upon such person convicted of, or adjudicated a youthful offender for, a violation of subdivision two, two-a, three or four-a of section eleven hundred ninety-two of this article, a period of probation or conditional discharge, the conditions of which shall include the following:
(i) a conditional waiver of the license sanction provisions of subdivision two of this section;
(ii) an express prohibition from operating any vehicle without a functioning ignition interlock device for a period of twelve months or longer pursuant to the requirements of this paragraph and paragraph (c) of subdivision one-a of this section; and
(iii) an order that such person install and maintain, in accordance with the provisions of section eleven hundred ninety-eight of this article, an ignition interlock device in any motor vehicle owned or operated by such person for a period of twelve months or longer, as set forth in subparagraph four of this paragraph; provided, however, a certificate of completion certifying that such person has operated the motor vehicle free of any events as set forth in paragraph (j) of this subdivision for a period of three hundred consecutive days shall be deemed to have satisfied the conditions of probation or conditional discharge relating to the ignition interlock requirements as set forth in this paragraph. The period of interlock restriction shall commence on the date that such ignition interlock device shall have been installed. The alternative sentence set forth herein may be revoked by the court for cause. This sentence not be imposed on any offender who is subject to the additional penalties set forth in paragraph (a) or (b) of subdivision one-a of this section or who shall have also been convicted of a violation of any provision of article one hundred twenty or one hundred twenty-five of the penal law involving the operation of a motor vehicle.
(4) License restoration. When a sentence is imposed pursuant to subparagraph two or three of this paragraph, in no event shall the commissioner restore the license of any such person until the commissioner receives a certificate of completion certifying that such person has operated the motor vehicle free of any events set forth in paragraph (j) of this subdivision for the applicable time periods imposed pursuant to subparagraphs two and three of this paragraph. Non-compliance with the ignition interlock requirements set forth in paragraph (j) of this subdivision shall cause the respective period of operation to reset from the date of any such violation.
Reflowed for reading: line numbers and page breaks removed. Cite the official text.
Sponsor's memo
Title of bill
An act to amend the vehicle and traffic law and the penal law, in relation to the ignition interlock program
Purpose or general idea of bill
To establish standards and incentives for increased utilization of the ignition interlock device (IID) to protect the public and reduce reci- divism in a manner consistent with best practices.
Summary of provisions
Section 1: Sets forth the Legislative Findings.
Read the full memo (1,922 words)
Section 2. Deletes subsection (iii) of paragraph (c) of subdivision 1 of § 1193 of the Vehicle & Traffic Law (VTL), which is incorrectly located in the felony penalty provision of that section. The provision is modi- fied and placed in paragraph (g) of subdivision 1 of
§ 1193 of the VTL.
Section 3: Adds a new paragraph (g) to VTL § 1193(1) to:
(1) Cross-reference the applicable definitions from VTL § 1198;
(2) Require a court - in addition to any fine, period of imprisonment, or license sanction imposed - to sentence any driver convicted of a misdemeanor-level violation of subdivision (2),(2-a),(3) or (4-a) of VTL § 1192 to a period of probation or conditional discharge which expressly prohibits the person from operating any motor vehicle without an IID for at least twelve months and requires the person to install and maintain an IID in any motor vehicle the person operates for at least 180 days after the driver's license is restored. As an incentive for compliant use, once the ignition interlock monitor declares 120. consecutive days of violation-free usage, the mandated period of IID usage will be deemed satisfied;
(3) Upon motion of a defendant, permit the court, in lieu of suspending or revoking the driver's license, to impose an alternative sentence for conviction of a violation of subdivision (2),(2-a),(3) or (4-a) of VTL § 1192 to a period of probation or conditional discharge which prohibits the person from operating any motor vehicle without an IID for twelve months or more and requires the person to install and maintain an IID in any motor vehicle the person operates during a period of at least twelve months. As an incentive for compliant use, once the ignition interlock monitor declares 300 consecutive days of violation-free usage, the mandated period of IID usage will be deemed satisfied. An alternative sentence may not be imposed on any person subject to additional penal- ties under subdivision 1-a or who has also been convicted of a violation of any provision of article one hundred twenty or one hundred twenty- five of the penal law involving the operation of a motor vehicle; and
(4) prohibit the commissioner from restoring a person's license unless and until the ignition interlock monitor declares the person to have operated the motor vehicle substantially violation-free for the period of IID usage. If a person fails to operate the motor vehicle free of any prohibited violation, the mandated period of IID usage shall reset from the date of such violation.
*Adds a new paragraph (h) to VTL § 1193(1) to provide that whenever a person charged with a misdemeanor violation of subdivision (2), (2-a),(3) or (4-a) of VTL § 1192 enters into a plea reduction to a traf- fic infraction under subdivision (1) of VTL § 1192, and such person has either a prior conviction under VTL § 1192 within the previous 10 years; or has a BAC of .13 or more; or has refused a breathalyzer test; or the underlying charge involved the combined use of drugs and alcohol, then a condition of such plea must include use of an IID for a period of 6 months regardless of any other sanction. As an incentive for compliant use, once the ignition interlock monitor declares 90 consecutive days of violation-free usage, the mandated period of IID usage will be deemed satisfied;
*Adds a new paragraph (i) to:
-permit certain persons subject to lifetime revocation to obtain a post- revocation conditional license, provided their license has been revoked for at least 5 years, they have not been convicted of a moving violation during those 5 years, and they have not been involved in a crash result- ing in a conviction under the Penal Law.
-requires the Commissioner Of Motor Vehicles, upon application (which shall also include documentation that all other sanctions have been satisfied) to provide a post-revocation conditional license which includes conditions expressly prohibiting operation of any motor vehicle without an IID for a period of twenty-four months and requires the person to install and maintain an IID in any motor vehicle the person operates for a period of twenty-four months. Following twenty-four months of substantially violation-free IID usage, there will be a rebuttable presumption that the person is rehabilitated and may petition the commissioner to restore their license. During the mandated period of IID usage, certain violations will result in immediate revocation, including operating a vehicle with a suspended or revoked license, any violation of VTL § 1192, or a refusal to submit to a chemical test;
*Adds a new paragraph (j) to VTL § 1193(1) to set forth the specific actions and non-actions constituting non-compliance with the terms of IID usage.
*Adds a new paragraph (k) to VTL § 1193(1)' to address those cases where the duration of the ignition interlock requirement exceeds the period of probation or conditional discharge by transferring jurisdiction to the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles.
*Adds a new paragraph (i)stating that when a sentence imposed under this subdivision includes a sentence of imprisonment, such term shall. not reduce or limit the IID requirements.
*Adds a new paragraph (m) to provide that a person who successfully completes the ignition interlock requirement will no longer be subject to, and the commissioner shall refund payment of, the driver responsi- bility fee imposed pursuant to VTL § 1199 ($250/year for three years).
Section 4: Amends paragraph (c) of subdivision 1-a of VTL § 1193 relat- ing to felony DWI to require the court to, as a condition of sentence, order installation of an IID during the period of license revocation and to impose a post-revocation period of IID usage of not less than 12 months. Such period of mandatory IID usage may not be reduced or limited by satisfying any period of imprisonment.
Section 5:
*Amends subdivisions 1, 2 and 3 of VTL § 1198 to conform them with the amendments to § 1193(1).
*Adds a new subdivision 1-a to set forth the definitions of terms appli- cable to VTL § 1198 and subdivision 1 or VTL 1193
*Amends subdivision 4 of VTL § 1198 to set forth the process by which an offender may demonstrate good cause for not installing an IID pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.
*Amends subdivision 5 of VTL § 1198 to add a new paragraph (c) to clari- fy that failure to install an IID, failure to appear for service, or circumvention or tampering with the device, will be deemed a violation of the person's condition of sentence, probation or conditional discharge.
Section 6: Amends subdivision k-1 of § 65.10 of the Penal Law to author- ize use of the IID as a condition of sentence for a violation of VTL § 1192(1), making it consistent with new paragraph (h) of VTL
§ 1193(1), which permits use of the IID as a condition of a plea from a misdemeanor to a traffic infraction.
Section 7: Requires the Division of Criminal Justice'Services (DCJS) to compile and publish annually a report on its website of the total number of repeat convictions with respect to violations for the 5 years follow- ing and the 5 years preceding the effective date.
Section 8: Authorizes DCJS in consultation with DMV to promulgate neces- sary rules for the implementation of this act.
Section 9: Establishes the effective date.
Justification
New York has made significant progress to remove impaired drivers from the roads by addressing both enforcement and rehabilitation efforts. Ignition interlock devices (IIDs) represent an important tool to be used in both efforts. IIDs protect the public from drunk driving events and also alter driver behavior to reduce recidivism. This bill seeks to enhance New York's existing IID law by promoting expanded usage to reflect what the data overwhelmingly demonstrates: all persons convicted of alcohol-related traffic offenses should be required to utilize an IID for a specified minimum period of time.
Despite significant empirical data supporting the effectiveness of IID usage, IIDs remain vastly underutilized in New York. Indeed, although current law mandates misdemeanor/felony-level DWI offenders to install and maintain a functioning IID for a set post-revocation period, only 26% of such offenders actually install the device. This abysmal partic- ipation rate undermines clear legislative intent and forfeits an effec- tive method for achieving NY's dual goals of advancing public safety and reducing recidivism.
Protecting the public and saving lives
*Nationally, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) reports that between December 1, 2006 and December 31, 2020, 3.8 million attempts to drive while legally intoxicated (.08+) were stopped by the IID. In additional, 25.4 million attempts were foiled for persons who had been drinking.
*Over the same time-period in New York, MADD reports IIDs prevented more than 111,000 drunk driving attempts, and an additional 439,427 attempts by convicted drunk drivers who attempted to start a vehicle after consuming alcohol.
*A 2016 University of Pennsylvania study found that alcohol-related fatalities decreased by 15% in states with all-offender interlock laws. A similar study in 2018 by the Insurance Institute for Auto and Highway Safety came to a similar conclusion: a decrease in alcohol-related traf- fic deaths of 16%.
Reducing recidivism
*A 2016 California study concluded that IIDs are 74% more effective in reducing DWI recidivism than license suspension alone during the first six months after conviction and 45% more effective over the course of a year.
*The same study notably found that IIDS are 70% more effective than license suspension alone in preventing repeat offenses among second-time offenders for the first year after conviction and 58% more effective over two years. Third-time offenders who only suffered license action were 3.4 times as likely to commit a fourth offense when compared with those offenders subject to IID.
*A NHTSA study found that the record of breath tests logged via the IID is effective at predicting future recidivism risk.
*A 2016 study published in the International Review of Law and Economics concluded that the potential for IID programs to prevent alcohol involved driving and alcohol-related crashes is most significant when the program is applied to a broader cross-section of offenders and a higher proportion of offenders have the IID installed.
This bill will increase interlock usage across all offenders, dras- tically reduce grounds for avoiding the sanction, make first offenders subject to IID usage when they enter into a plea reduction, and provide incentives for violation- free use of the device, including reduced mandatory time periods for usage and a refund of the "driver responsi- bility fee."
Prior legislative history
2023-2024: A.4171 - referred to Transportation S.775A - passed Senate on 5/16/23
2021-2022: A.1325-B - referred to Transportation S.6598-A - passed Senate on 6/1/22
2019-2020: A.7494a - referred to Transportation S.5671a - passed Senate on 6/18/19 and 7/21/20
Fiscal implications for stategovernments
None
Effective date
This act shall take effect on the first of November next succeeding the date on which it shall have become a law, provided, however, that the amendments to section 1198 of the vehicle and traffic law made by section five of this act shall not affect the repeal of such section and shall be deemed repealed therewith.
Summaries, headlines and scores are AI-generated from the official bill text. How we score bills. Source: NYS Open Legislation.