Austin DWI Defense Lawyers
Ignition Interlock Devices
An ignition interlock device, commonly referred to as an IID or a BIID (Breath alcohol Ignition Interlock Device), is a device similar to a breathalyzer that is installed in the dash of a car. The purpose of the device is to prevent individuals who have previously been convicted of driving while intoxicated from driving when they have been drinking.
Before a vehicle which has been fitted with an IID can be started, the driver must provide a breath sample to the car. If the sample of air indicates a BAC over the programmed level, the vehicle will not start. Once the car is started, the driver is still not completely free to drive. The IID will ask for random samples even once the car has been started and is moving. The purpose of this is to ensure that the restricted driver didn’t have a friend start the car then drive away drunk. If the driver does not provide the car with a sample, or if the sample indicates a BAC above the programmed level, the car will record the event and then start off an alarm. The alarm will continue to go off until the car is turned off.
There is a common misconception that the interlock device will simply turn off the car; however, this is not true. The car will not simply be turned off because that creates a dangerous situation for the driver. In addition, the manufacturer of the IID would be exposed to considerable liability.
If you have been charged with Driving While Intoxicated, contact the Austin DWI defense lawyer Ian Inglis at 512-472-1950 to discuss your case and to determine the best plan for your defense.
The Ian Inglis Law Office web site is designed to provide educational information only and is not intended to offer legal advice. Information contained in this website is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship, nor does it constitute legal advice to any person reviewing such information. No electronic communication with the Ian Inglis Law Office on its own will generate an attorney-client relationship, nor will it be considered an attorney-client privileged communication.