WeVote
Log In

Bill

WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 789

Summary — HB 789: Mitigating Factor for Pretrial Use of Ignition Interlock Device

Status: Introduced (North Carolina) — Committee substitute versions filed.
Effective date (as enacted): December 1, 2025 (applies to offenses on or after that date).

Main purpose

HB 789 creates a new, discretionary mitigating factor for judges to consider at sentencing when a person charged with impaired driving (DWI) voluntarily equips and operates a motor vehicle with an approved ignition interlock device (IID) prior to trial. The bill also (1) adds a related mitigating factor tied to continuous alcohol monitoring and a substance‑abuse assessment, and (2) addresses affordability by allowing certain defendants to apply to IID vendors for a partial cost waiver.

Key provisions

  • Adds a mitigating factor in G.S. 20‑179(e)(6b) when, prior to trial, a defendant:
    • Was charged under G.S. 20‑138.1 (impaired driving);
    • Installed an IID of a type approved by the Commissioner (no later than 45 days after charge);
    • Operated only the designated vehicle equipped with the IID for a minimum of six months;
    • Produced evidence satisfactory to the judge that they did not start the vehicle with an alcohol concentration > 0.02 and did not violate IID policies or related statutes;
    • Met all eligibility criteria: vehicle not involved in a crash causing serious injury/death; valid driver’s license (or expired <1 year); no unresolved impaired‑driving charge or impaired‑driving conviction within prior 5 years; BAC at time of offense < 0.15; operated under a valid limited driving privilege or while license not revoked/suspended.
  • Adds G.S. 20‑179(e)(6a): a separate mitigating factor for completion of a substance‑abuse assessment (and compliance with recommendations) together with 60 days continuous abstinence demonstrated by an approved continuous alcohol monitoring system.
  • Amends G.S. 20‑179.5 (Affordability of IID):
    • Costs for voluntary IID installation/monitoring remain the responsibility of the person installing it.
    • A person who meets the 6b eligibility criteria and cannot afford an IID may apply to an authorized vendor for a partial cost waiver.
  • The mitigating factors are discretionary — the judge must determine whether they apply and weigh their significance at sentencing.

Who is affected

  • Defendants charged with impaired driving who meet the bill’s strict eligibility and compliance conditions (primarily first-time or non‑recent offenders without high BAC or serious-crash involvement).
  • Courts and judges — new sentencing considerations and evidentiary showings required.
  • IID vendors — increased pretrial installations and potential vendor-administered waiver processes.
  • Probation/supervision and monitoring entities approving devices (standards must be approved by relevant agencies).

Expected impact

  • Policy goal: incentivize early installation/use of IIDs and alcohol monitoring as an intervention to reduce repeat impaired‑driving and to demonstrate accountability prior to sentencing.
  • Practical effects: may reduce recidivism for eligible defendants who comply; shifts costs to individuals but provides a vendor waiver route (no state funding mandated); requires courts to evaluate pretrial monitoring evidence; may increase demand for approved IID and monitoring services.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.