Legislative Analysis
Phone: (517) 373-8080
SPECIALTY COURT IGNITION INTERLOCK PROGRAM
http://www.house.mi.gov/hfa
Senate Bill 134 as reported from House committee Analysis available at
Sponsor: Sen. Ruth Johnson http://www.legislature.mi.gov
Senate Bill 135 as reported from House committee
Sponsor: Sen. Kevin Hertel
House Committee: Criminal Justice
Senate Committee: Civil Rights, Judiciary, and Public Safety
Revised 6-27-23
(Enacted as Public Acts 124 and 125 of 2023)
SUMMARY:
Senate Bill 134 would amend the Revised Judicature Act to expand the current DWI/Sobriety
Court Interlock Program 1 into the Specialty Court Interlock Program. The expanded program
would include other specialty courts in addition to DWI/sobriety courts, which would allow
eligible participants in other certified specialty courts to have a vehicle they own or operate
equipped with an ignition interlock device and to obtain a restricted driver license pertaining
to that vehicle. (An ignition interlock device measures a driver’s alcohol concentration before
the vehicle can be started.) The bill would replace several references to DWI/sobriety court
with specialty court in provisions addressing the ignition interlock program.
Specialty court would mean a drug treatment court, a DWI/sobriety court, a hybrid of
a drug treatment court and a DWI/sobriety court, a mental health court, or a veterans
treatment court.
The bill would also prohibit a mental health court that is not certified to operate as a mental
health court by the Supreme Court Administrative Office (SCAO) from certifying to the
secretary of state that an individual is eligible to receive a restricted license under the ignition
interlock program.
In addition, under current law, all DWI/sobriety courts that participate in the interlock program
must comply with “The Ten Guiding Principles of DWI Courts” as published by the National
Center for DWI Courts. 2 The bill would require all DWI/sobriety courts to comply with the
guidelines. (Another provision of current law already requires all DWI/sobriety courts to
comply with those guidelines.)
MCL 600.1084 and 600.1091
Senate Bill 135 would amend the Michigan Vehicle Code to do all of the following:
• Apply the current definition of specialty court program to both that term and the term
specialty court. (The current definition is the same as the one provided above.)
1
https://www.courts.michigan.gov/4ad93d/siteassets/court-administration/best-practices/psc/faqinterlock.pdf
2
https://allrise.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Guiding_Principles_of_DWI_Court.pdf
House Fiscal Agency Page 1 of 2
• Define specialty court interlock program to mean the ignition interlock program
proposed by SB 134.
• Replace references to “DWI/sobriety court program” with “specialty court program”
and delete the current definitions of “DWI/sobriety court” and “DWI/sobriety court
program.”
• Delete obsolete provisions pertaining to driver responsibility fees assessed for a
conviction that led to a restricted license.
MCL 257.83 and 257.304
Neither bill can take effect unless both bills are enacted.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The bills would not have a significant fiscal impact on the Department of State (DOS), the state
department responsible for administering the duties associated with the Breath Alcohol Ignition
Interlock Device (BAIID) program. The expansion of the current program may result in
additional participants in the BAIID program and marginally increased costs to DOS. These
costs would be expected to be supported through DOS’s base ongoing appropriations. The
elimination of provisions pertaining to driver responsibility fees under SB 135 would have no
impact on DOS, as driver responsibility fees were phased out starting in 2018.
POSITIONS:
A representative of the Michigan Association of Treatment Court Professionals testified in
support of the bills. (6-27-23)
The following entities indicated support for the bills (6-27-23):
• State Court Administrative Office
• State Bar of Michigan
• Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan (PAAM)
Legislative Analyst: Susan Stutzky
Fiscal Analysts: Robin Risko
Michael Cnossen
■ This analysis was prepared by nonpartisan House Fiscal Agency staff for use by House members in their
deliberations and does not constitute an official statement of legislative intent.
House Fiscal Agency SBs 134 and 135 as reported from House committee Page 2 of 2
Statutes affected: Senate Introduced Bill: 257.83, 257.304
As Passed by the Senate: 257.83, 257.304
As Passed by the House: 257.83, 257.304
Public Act: 257.83, 257.304
Senate Enrolled Bill: 257.83, 257.304