Skip to content
Bills from the 2009–10 session

Assembly Bill 17

Requiring ignition interlock devices for certain motor vehicle violations, granting rule-making authority, making an appropriation, and providing a penalty

Topics: Drunken driving, Forfeiture, Implied consent or alcohol concentration, Judge, Motor vehicle: Equipment

Stopped before the full Assembly voted

The recommended passing it, but the full Assembly never voted on it. To try again, a lawmaker would have to start a new bill.

  1. Introduced, passed

    Feb 3, 2009

  2. Committee, passed

    Approved

  3. Assembly vote, stopped here

    Stopped here. The full Assembly never voted on it.

  4. Senate vote, not reached

  5. Governor, not reached

  6. Law, not reached

Latest entry in the official record, Apr 28, 2010: “Failed to pass pursuant to ⁠”

Read the bill

Following saves it on this device. New actions show on your Following page. You can also get updates in a feed reader.

What it would have done

Summary by the , the Legislature's nonpartisan drafting office. It's their wording, not ours.

Under current law, if a person is convicted of a second offense relating to operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited alcohol concentration (in most cases, a concentration of 0.8 or higher) or under the influence of an intoxicant (OWI-related offense), a judge may immobilize the person's motor vehicles or require that the person's operating privilege be limited to operating vehicles that are equipped with an ignition interlock device. If a person is convicted of a third or subsequent OWI-related offense within five years, a judge must limit the person's operating privilege to operating vehicles that are equipped with an ignition interlock device unless the judge orders that the person's motor vehicles be immobilized or seized and sold at auction.

Current law requires the person to pay for the costs of installing and monitoring the ignition interlock device on every motor vehicle he or she owns. If the judge determines that this would work a hardship to the person, current law allows the judge to require an ignition interlock device on some, but not all, of the person's motor vehicles.

Read the full summary

Under current law, no one may remove, disconnect, tamper with, or otherwise circumvent the operation of an ignition interlock device. A person who does so may be required to forfeit not less than $150 nor more than $600 for the first offense and, for a second or subsequent offense within five years, may be fined not less than $300 nor more than $1,000, or imprisoned for not more than six months, or both.

This bill eliminates the option of ordering the person's vehicle to be immobilized or seized and sold at auction. The bill makes it mandatory for a judge to require that the person's operating privilege be limited, for a minimum of one year, to operating vehicles that are equipped with an ignition interlock device if either of the following are true: 1) the person commits a first OWI-related offense with an alcohol concentration of 0.15 or more; or 2) the person commits a second OWI-related offense.

Under the bill, the judge must order that every motor vehicle the person owns be equipped with an ignition interlock device. If the judge determines that the person's income is at or below 150 percent of the federal poverty level, the person is required to pay a $50 surcharge upon the installation of the first ignition interlock device and, for each ignition interlock device, half of the installation cost, and $1 per day toward the cost of monitoring the ignition interlock device. A person whose income is above 150 percent of the federal poverty level is required to pay the surcharge and assume the full cost of installing and monitoring each ignition interlock device. Under the bill, if a person who is ordered to do so fails to pay the surcharge or fails to have an ignition interlock device installed, he or she may not obtain an occupational license.

Under the bill, a court may order a person who removes, disconnects, tampers with, or otherwise circumvents the operation of an ignition interlock device to be imprisoned for not more than six months for a first offense. The bill also subjects a person who fails to have an ignition interlock device installed as ordered by the court to the same penalties as a person who removes, disconnects, tampers with, or otherwise circumvents the operation of an ignition interlock device.

Who's behind it

20 lawmakers are its ⁠. 10 are Democrats, 7 are Republicans and 1 is a Independent. 2 have no party on record.

8 more lawmakers ⁠.

See all 28 names

Authors (20)

Signed on in support (8)

What it would cost

State agencies filed a . Each opens as a PDF from the Legislature.

Versions and amendments

Every text the Legislature printed for this bill, including proposed changes. Each opens on the Legislature's site.

How lawmakers voted

There was one vote on this bill.

Assembly Committee on Public Safety vote on an amendment

Passed, 8 to 0 · May 21, 2009

No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Official motion: “Report Assembly Amendment 1 to Assembly Amendment 1 adoption recommended by committee on Public Safety, Ayes 8, Noes 0”. Official record · This vote on its own page

What happened

  1. Apr 28, 2010

    The session ended, and the bill died with it.

  2. May 21, 2009

    Sent to the Assembly Committee on Rules.

  3. May 21, 2009

    The committee voted to recommend passing it, 8 to 0.

  4. Mar 11, 2009

    A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.

  5. Mar 3, 2009

    The committee held a public hearing.

  6. Feb 3, 2009

    Sent to the Assembly Committee on Public Safety.

  7. Feb 3, 2009

    Introduced in the Assembly.

See the official record, word for word
  1. Feb 3, 2009 · Assembly

    Introduced by Representatives Staskunas, Kaufert, Smith, Jorgensen, Sherman, Ziegelbauer, Davis, Hebl, Berceau, A. Ott, Cullen, Townsend, Roth, Spanbauer, Richards, Shilling, Soletski, Barca, Gunderson and Turner;Cosponsored by Senators Plale, Leibham, Lehman, Carpenter, Darling, Harsdorf, A. Lasee and Schultz

  2. Feb 3, 2009 · Assembly

    Read first time and referred to committee on Public Safety

  3. Mar 3, 2009 · Assembly

    Public hearing held

  4. Mar 11, 2009 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  5. May 15, 2009 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 1 offered by Representative Staskunas

  6. May 18, 2009 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 1 to Assembly amendment 1 offered by Representative Staskunas

  7. May 19, 2009 · Assembly

    Executive action taken

  8. May 21, 2009 · Assembly

    Report Assembly Amendment 1 to Assembly Amendment 1 adoption recommended by committee on Public Safety, Ayes 8, Noes 0

  9. May 21, 2009 · Assembly

    Report Assembly Amendment 1 adoption recommended by committee on Public Safety, Ayes 8, Noes 0

  10. May 21, 2009 · Assembly

    Report passage as amended recommended by committee on Public Safety, Ayes 8, Noes 0

  11. May 21, 2009 · Assembly

    Referred to committee on Rules

  12. Apr 28, 2010 · Assembly

    Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1

Terms on this page

Committee

A small group of lawmakers that looks at a bill first. Most bills never leave committee.

More in the glossary

Senate Joint Resolution 1

The session's calendar. Any bill not passed by its last voting day dies.

Official term: Failed to pass pursuant to SJR 1. More in the glossary

Legislative Reference Bureau

The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.

Official term: LRB analysis. More in the glossary

Author

A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.

Official term: Author, coauthor. More in the glossary

Signed on in support

Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.

Official term: Cosponsor. More in the glossary

Cost estimate

A state agency's estimate of what a bill would cost or save.

Official term: Fiscal estimate. More in the glossary

Roll call

A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.

Official term: Roll call vote. More in the glossary

From the Wisconsin Legislature's official record, checked Sep 15, 2026. See the source

Committee

A small group of lawmakers that looks at a bill first. Most bills never leave committee.

Senate Joint Resolution 1

The session's calendar. Any bill not passed by its last voting day dies.

Official term: Failed to pass pursuant to SJR 1

Legislative Reference Bureau

The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.

Official term: LRB analysis

Author

A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.

Official term: Author, coauthor

Signed on in support

Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.

Official term: Cosponsor

Cost estimate

A state agency's estimate of what a bill would cost or save.

Official term: Fiscal estimate

Roll call

A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.

Official term: Roll call vote