Washington aims to curb drunk driving with bold civil protection orders
Jan 28, 2025, 6:30 PM | Updated: Feb 3, 2025, 6:14 pm
Olympia, Washington. (Photo: Julia Dallas, MyNorthwest)
(Photo: Julia Dallas, MyNorthwest)
Imagine a world where someone known to drive under the influence could be legally stopped before ever getting behind the wheel intoxicated again.
That’s the bold idea behind Washington House Bill 1426, a groundbreaking proposal that had its first public hearing Tuesday in front of the House Civil Rights and Judiciary Committee.
If passed, the bill would create an entirely new kind of legal tool: the Impaired Driving Protection Order (IDPO).
This isn’t just another law targeting DUI offenders; it’s a proactive approach aimed at saving lives and preventing harm before it happens. Advocates, including the bill’s sponsor Representative Lauren Davis, D-Shoreline, are calling it a potential game-changer in the fight against impaired driving.
“You have a family or household member that is acutely aware that a loved one is repeatedly driving impaired and there are there’s no legal mechanism for intervention,” Davis told the committee.
Other news: Tacoma Police Department Chief Avery Moore resigns
What’s an IDPO? Let’s break it down
So, what is an IDPO? Think of it as a civil protection order with one goal: keeping people at significant risk of driving impaired from causing harm. It’s similar in concept to restraining orders but tailored to address the dangers of driving under the influence.
The bill allows petitions for an IDPO to be filed by people close to the respondent — such as an intimate partner or family member — or even by law enforcement and prosecutors. Davis told lawmakers of a family member who has an alcohol substance abuse issue and knowingly drives drunk on highways and school zones.
“And here I am a sitting lawmaker who works only on issues of behavioral health and public safety, and I have zero legal recourse to do anything about this until she kills or maims someone,” Davis said.
To issue one, the court must determine the individual poses a serious risk of driving while intoxicated. And once granted, these orders pack a punch:
- Ignition interlocks: Respondents could be required to install devices in their cars that won’t let the engine start if alcohol is detected on their breath.
- Alcohol monitoring: They might need to wear devices that track alcohol consumption.
- 24/7 sobriety program: Daily or regular check-ins to ensure they’re staying sober could become part of their routine.
- Mandatory evaluations: Courts could order substance use evaluations and treatment plans to help respondents get the help they need.
These orders could last a year or more, with options for renewal if the court believes the risk is ongoing. However, there were questions about the subject’s civil rights being violated especially since they never had been arrested or convicted of driving under the influence.
“Now we’re moving this all the way up to a pre-arrest,” Representative Brian Burnett (R-Wenatchee) said. “I think we need to address that because you have somebody that has potential their rights taken away, more than somebody that’s already been arrested for this with probable cause.”
More politics: Federal judge temporarily blocks Trump administration freeze on federal grants and loans
What makes this Washington bill unique?
Washington already has laws allowing protection orders for situations like domestic violence or stalking, but this would be the first time the state has created a civil order specifically designed to stop impaired driving.
And it’s not just a reaction to someone getting caught driving drunk — it’s a preventive measure that could be put in place before someone even commits a crime. While several states have strict DUI laws, including mandatory ignition interlock devices after convictions, few — if any — have taken this kind of preemptive approach.
“We’re not aware of any other jurisdiction that’s even considered something like this,” James McMahan of the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs told the committee said. “We are willing to try it. We don’t know, frankly, whether it will work, but we know what we’re doing now isn’t working, so let’s try something new.”
How would it work?
Courts would have the power to issue temporary IDPOs quickly, even without a hearing, if there’s evidence that the person poses an immediate danger.
“If the court did issue that, and the person were pulled over and they were ordered, for example, to have an ignition interlock device installed and they did not have one installed, that would be a violation,” Davis said.
Violating an IDPO would be a gross misdemeanor and any false petitions filed out of malice would carry similar penalties. Full orders would require notice and a hearing, where evidence, like a history of DUI convictions or alcohol misuse, would be considered.
The law would also notify the Washington State Department of Licensing about any restrictions, ensuring that ignition interlock requirements are properly enforced. For those who show they’ve turned things around — by staying sober, complying with monitoring programs, and completing treatment — there’s a path to modify or terminate the order.
House Bill 1426 will be debated again on Wednesday during another meeting of the House Civil Rights and Judiciary Committee.
More on MyNW: Trump says Microsoft is one of the companies eyeing TikTok
Matt Markovich often covers the state legislature and public policy for KIRO Newsradio. You can read more of Matt’s stories here. Follow him on X, or email him here.
