DUI Offenses - As enacted, requires an ignition interlock provider to permit a person to appear for calibration, monitoring, or inspection of the device at any time within a two-week period; authorizes a court to order reinstatement of a person’s driver license if the person has no other revocations or suspensions on the person’s driving record and the person’s only noncompliance with ignition interlock requirements has been with regard to the required calibration, monitoring, or inspection of the ignition interlock device; makes various other changes in regard to ignition interlock devices and the ignition interlock usage period. - Amends TCA Section 55-10-417 and Section 55-10-425.

114th Regular Session (2025-2026) Introduced by William Lamberth

Tennessee law now requires ignition interlock providers to offer flexible two-week appointment windows and permits license reinstatement for DUI offenders whose only violation is missing device maintenance appointments.

Comp. became Pub. Ch. 184

#duioffenses

Legislative bill overview

HB 1315 modifies Tennessee's ignition interlock device (IID) requirements for DUI offenders by requiring providers to offer calibration appointments within two-week windows rather than fixed schedules, and allows courts to reinstate driver's licenses for individuals whose only IID non-compliance is missing required maintenance appointments. The bill also makes additional adjustments to IID usage periods and related procedures.

Why is this important

Ignition interlock devices are critical DUI safety tools that prevent impaired driving by requiring breath tests before vehicle operation. This bill attempts to balance public safety with practical accessibility—many offenders struggle to meet rigid appointment schedules due to work, transportation, or childcare constraints. However, it also creates potential loopholes where non-compliance with device maintenance could be overlooked despite indicating broader responsibility issues.

Potential points of contention

Safety vs. leniency trade-off: Reinstating licenses based solely on missing calibration appointments (rather than actual device tampering or failed tests) may reduce deterrence and monitoring effectiveness for individuals who have already violated DUI laws.

Two-week window adequacy: While more flexible than fixed appointments, a two-week window may still be insufficient for marginalized populations with transportation or work schedule barriers, potentially criminalizing poverty rather than non-compliance.

Reinstatement criteria: Allowing reinstatement without reviewing the broader pattern of responsibility raises questions about whether courts have sufficient discretion to assess individual risk factors and whether this inadvertently rewards organizational non-compliance.