Effective July 2, 2009, many new laws came into effect. Now, anyone convicted of a DUI, whether it be a first offense or a subsequent offense, will be required to have an ignition interlock device placed on their car. The ignition interlock business is going to be making a lot of money on this deal. Lawyers will need to be fighting DUI cases. There is no reason to plead people guilty with these consequences. The device is expensive, it has problems being accurate, and it interferes with life.
Here is the outline of what is required:
Ignition Interlock
41-6A-518.2
The Adult
- 18 Months for first time offense
- 3 years for Second offense (Includes Driving While Impaired or Alcohol Related Reckless)
- Driving without Ignition interlock (3 year requirement)
- Refusal (3 years)
- Felony Conviction (6 years)
- Automobile Homicide (10 years)
- Ignition Interlock does not include:Person’s conviction is not a 41-6a-517 (metabolite DUI) ANDall of the person’s prior convictions are convictions under 517
- Plea and Abeyance: is a conviction
When can you get out of an ignition interlock???
- Vehicle owned by employer
- written notice to employer of interlock requirement
- On person or vehicle, proof of given notice to employer and
- operation was in scope of employment
- Doesn’t apply to personal use or self employed
If you are a Minor:
- 3 years if under age 21
Law Office of Glen Neeley 
3 responses to “New Utah DUI Laws: Ignition Interlock”
I work at a company that has plenty of vehicles to drive. Is it possible for me to operate the vehicles here without having to have an interlock installed? What is the ruling on that and what do I need to do to show my company that I am allowed to operate the vehicles
LikeLike
Below are the requirements from 41-6a-518
(7) (a) If a probationer is required in the course and scope of employment to operate a motor vehicle owned by the probationer’s employer, the probationer may operate that motor vehicle without installation of an ignition interlock system only if:
(i) the motor vehicle is used in the course and scope of employment;
(ii) the employer has been notified that the employee is restricted; and
(iii) the employee has proof of the notification in the employee’s possession while operating the employer’s motor vehicle.
(b) (i) To the extent that an employer-owned motor vehicle is made available to a probationer subject to this section for personal use, no exemption under this section shall apply.
(ii) A probationer intending to operate an employer-owned motor vehicle for personal use and who is restricted to the operation of a motor vehicle equipped with an ignition interlock system shall notify the employer and obtain consent in writing from the employer to install a system in the employer-owned motor vehicle.
(c) A motor vehicle owned by a business entity that is all or partly owned or controlled by a probationer subject to this section is not a motor vehicle owned by the employer and does not qualify for an exemption under this Subsection (7).
LikeLike
Several individuals I know who have gotten DUIs since mid 2009 never became “interlock restricted drivers,” presumably because of differing information/timing from both their court sentencing and when their licenses were renewed. Is 41-6a-518 enforced through the justice court or is it handled civilly through the drivers license division? Could one feasibly not have this restriction placed on their license/driving record if the license is renewed before sentencing?
LikeLike