WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SB 1097

DUI Offenses - As enacted, requires the state treasurer to deem a person ordered by a court to use a functioning ignition interlock device to be indigent and unable to pay the costs of the device if the person receives funds from the supplemental nutrition assistance, temporary assistance for needy families, or state medicaid program; removes the requirement that a court determine whether a person asserting inability to pay for a functioning ignition interlock device is indigent; revises other provisions relative to the electronic monitoring indigency fund. - Amends TCA Section 55-10-419.

114th Regular Session (2025-2026)

Tennessee law now automatically classifies SNAP/TANF/Medicaid recipients as unable to pay for DUI ignition interlock devices, eliminating case-by-case indigency determinations.

Pub. Ch. 269
#duioffenses
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SB 1097

Legislative bill overview

SB 1097 automatically classifies individuals receiving SNAP, TANF, or Medicaid as indigent for purposes of paying for court-ordered ignition interlock devices. The bill eliminates the requirement for judges to make individual indigency determinations and modifies the electronic monitoring indigency fund to cover these costs.

Why is this important

DUI offenders required to use ignition interlock devices face significant costs (typically $60-100+ monthly), which can be prohibitive for low-income individuals and may prevent compliance with court orders. This bill removes a procedural barrier and ensures that financial inability doesn't prevent people from meeting their legal obligations, while also potentially reducing recidivism through guaranteed device access.

Potential points of contention

  • Funding mechanism: The bill reallocates costs to the electronic monitoring indigency fund, which could strain existing budgets or require new funding sources to avoid shortfalls
  • Breadth of eligibility: Using enrollment in assistance programs as a proxy for indigency eliminates individualized assessment and may cover some who could pay, or miss others in hardship not captured by these programs
  • Administrative efficiency vs. due process: Automatic indigency determination streamlines courts' workload but removes judicial discretion to evaluate individual circumstances

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

Sign in to ask a question.