WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 1814

DUI Offenses - As introduced, allows a person convicted of driving under the influence of an intoxicant involving alcohol or opioids to agree to receive naltrexone injections at the person's own expense for a period of 12 continuous months in lieu of being required to operate only a motor vehicle equipped with an ignition interlock device. - Amends TCA Title 39; Title 40 and Title 55, Chapter 10.

114th Regular Session (2025-2026) Introduced by Lowell Russell

Tennessee bill lets DUI offenders choose 12-month naltrexone injections instead of ignition interlock devices, prioritizing addiction treatment over technology-based impairment prevention.

Action def. in Judiciary Committee to 3/25/2026
#duioffenses
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 1814

Legislative bill overview

HB 1814 allows DUI offenders convicted of driving under the influence involving alcohol or opioids to substitute a 12-month naltrexone injection program (paid out-of-pocket) for the mandatory ignition interlock device requirement. The bill amends Tennessee's traffic safety and criminal sentencing statutes to create this alternative compliance pathway.

Why is this important

This addresses a practical challenge in DUI sentencing: ignition interlock devices are expensive, inconvenient, and sometimes unavailable in rural areas, while naltrexone is an FDA-approved medication that reduces cravings and addresses underlying substance use. However, the bill shifts enforcement focus from preventing driving while impaired to treating addiction, raising questions about public safety prioritization and whether treatment compliance ensures safe driving.

Potential points of contention

  • Public safety trade-off: An ignition interlock physically prevents an impaired person from driving; naltrexone only reduces cravings and doesn't prevent operation of any vehicle if someone relapses or doesn't comply with injections
  • Equity concerns: Requiring offenders to pay for naltrexone "at their own expense" may create a two-tier system where only affluent offenders can afford the option, potentially creating equal protection questions
  • Monitoring and enforcement: The bill doesn't specify how compliance with the 12-month injection schedule would be verified or what happens if someone misses injections mid-program
  • Scope ambiguity: Unclear whether opioid-involved DUIs (which may indicate pain medication use rather than recreational impairment) should have identical alternatives as alcohol-impaired driving

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

Sign in to ask a question.