Ignition interlock requirements in Washington

Washington's interlock section does not contain a sentence you can quote a duration out of. It contains a list of circumstances in which the Department of Licensing must impose the restriction — and the published copy carries a header saying it is effective only until 1 January 2026. Both of those facts change how you should read any summary of it, including this one.

A list of triggers, not a rule

The section works by enumeration. The department must require that a person drive only a vehicle fitted with a functioning ignition interlock device on receipt of notice from a court that a restriction has been imposed on pretrial release; as a condition of issuing an ignition interlock driver's license; on notice that the person is participating in a deferred prosecution; and in further listed circumstances.

What follows from that structure is practical. There is no single Washington interlock term to look up, because the trigger determines the shape of the obligation. Your own order or notice names which limb of the section you are under, and that is the document to read.

The version problem, stated plainly

The text read for this page is headed, in the code itself, (Effective until January 1, 2026.). That header exists because a successor version has been enacted. Which version governs you depends on your offense date and on the transitional provisions, neither of which this site has read.

So this page states the structure and declines to state a duration, a cost or a removal condition. That is not caution for its own sake: publishing a term from the expiring version to a reader whose offense falls under the successor would be worse than publishing nothing.

The employer question, and why it is in the section at all

The heading of the Washington section lists, among its subjects, an employer exemption. It is worth knowing the concept exists even though this page does not state its terms.

The problem it addresses is ordinary. A restriction that attaches to the driver rather than to a vehicle would otherwise reach every vehicle that driver operates, including a works van, a truck or a bus that the employer owns and that is fitted with nothing. Legislatures generally deal with this by carving out a vehicle owned by an employer and driven in the course of employment, on conditions — usually notice to the employer and a record of it.

What the Washington conditions currently are, and whether they survive into the successor version of the section, are questions this site has not read the answer to. So it does not answer them. If you drive for a living, that is the first thing to put to whoever issued your order, because it is the difference between a restriction that is an inconvenience and one that costs you the job.

Removal, credit and the rest of the section heading

The same heading also names duration, removal requirements, credit and a fee. Four more subjects, none of which this page states.

The one worth flagging is credit. Where a statute provides credit, it is usually recognising time already served under a device — for instance under a pretrial restriction — against a term imposed later. If that applies to you, it is time you have already spent and would otherwise spend again, and nobody is obliged to volunteer it.

The reason all four are absent here is the same as for everything else on this page: the copy read is marked as effective only until 1 January 2026, and a removal condition or a credit rule from an expiring version, quoted to somebody whose offense falls under the successor, would be worse than silence. The section heading tells you the subjects exist. Your notice, and the version that applies to your offense date, tell you the terms.

Where this does connect to the filing

The financial-responsibility side of a Washington case is separate, is in a different chapter, and has been read in full. The filing period is three years from the date proof was required, and the release requires the preceding three years to be clean of any conviction, bail forfeiture or infraction finding that would require or permit another suspension.

That look-back structure is the reason the two obligations can end years apart. An interlock condition satisfied does nothing for the filing, and a new infraction during the filing period can push the release date out well past the device coming off the car. The Washington SR-22 page covers it properly.

Three routes into the same restriction

The listed triggers are not variations on one process. They come from different stages and they behave differently, which is why a single “Washington interlock rule” does not exist.

Pretrial release. A court imposes the restriction as a condition of release, before anything has been decided. It attaches to a charge rather than to a conviction, and it can therefore begin months before any outcome.

The interlock driver’s license. Here the restriction is a condition of a license being issued at all. This is the route that lets somebody drive during a period when the ordinary license is not available, and the restriction is the price of it.

Deferred prosecution. The restriction follows participation in a program rather than a sentence, so its shape is set by the program.

What follows for a reader is practical: the answer to “how long” depends on which of these you are in, and the document that put you there is the one that says.

Two chapters, and why they never agree

Washington splits this across the code in a way that produces most of the confusion.

The interlock restriction lives in the licensing chapter, and it is about what vehicle you may drive. The financial-responsibility requirement lives in a different chapter entirely, and it is about whether an insurer has told the state your cover exists. Different chapters, different triggers, different release tests, different end dates.

Nothing in the code requires the two to line up, and in practice they do not. A person can finish an interlock term and still be two years from the earliest release of their filing — particularly in this state, where the filing release depends on a clean rolling three-year look-back rather than on time served. The reverse also happens.

The mistake worth avoiding is treating one document as evidence about the other. The device coming off the car says nothing about the certificate, and a released certificate says nothing about the device.

What the filing certifies while all this is going on

$25,000 per person / $50,000 per accident / $10,000 property damage — 25/50/10, under RCW 46.29.090(1). The property-damage figure is the lowest of any state on this site, and it is worth a moment's thought before buying at the floor for three years.

Common questions