Traffic Safety Facts 

Traffic Tech – Technology Transfer Series 

Number 352 January 2009 

Update of Vehicle Sanction Laws 

And Their Application
 

Because	 of	 the	 high	 number	 of	 suspended	 DWI	 offenders	 

driving	illegally	and	the	limited	enforcement	resources	available	to	deal	with	the	problem,	many	States	and	the	Federal	 

government	have	enacted	legislation	directed	at	the	vehicles	 

owned	 by	 offenders	 to	 limit	 their	 unlawful	 driving.	 Such	 

legislation	 falls	 primarily	 into	 three	 broad	 categories:	 (1)	 

programs	that	require	special	plates	on	the	vehicles	of	DWI	 

offenders	 and/or	 confiscate	 the	 vehicle	 plates	 and	 vehicle	 

registration;	(2)	programs	that	require	installation	of	devices	 

in	the	vehicle	that	prevent	it	from	operating	if	the	driver	has	 

been	drinking	(alcohol	ignition	interlocks);	and	(3)	programs	 

that	impound,	immobilize,	confiscate,	or	forfeit	the	vehicle.	 

This	report	updates	a	1992	National	Highway	Traffic	Safety	 

Administration	(NHTSA)	sponsored	study	of	vehicle	sanctions.	 That	 study	 found	 relatively	 few	 jurisdictions	 with	 

active	 vehicle	 sanction	 programs.	Although	 32	 States	 were	 

found	to	have	laws	providing	for	various	vehicle	sanctions,	 

in	 most	 States	 these	 sanctions	 were	 rarely	 used.	 This	 current	study	updates	that	effort	as	of	2004	with	a	contemporary	overview	of	vehicle	sanction	laws	and	their	application.	 

It	goes	beyond	the	earlier	study	by	incorporating	a	review	 

of	 ignition	 interlock	 devices	 (not	 considered	 in	 the	 earlier	 

study),	and	providing	a	more	recent	list	of	vehicle	sanctions	 

on	a	State-by-State	basis. 

Information	 on	 each	 State’s	 vehicle	 sanction	 laws	 was	 collected	 primarily	 from	 NHTSA’s	 Digest	 of	 State	 AlcoholSafety	 Related	 Legislation	 (NHTSA,	 2003).	 Additionally,	 

information	 was	 obtained	 from	 Mothers	 Against	 Drunk	 

Driving’s	 (MADD’s)	 “Rating	 the	 States”	 report	 for	 2002,	 

and	from	the	2003	edition	of	the	Sourcebook	for	the	Century	 

Council’s	 “National	 Hardcore	 Drunk	 Driver	 Project”	 (The	 

Century	Council,	2003).	State	officials	were	asked	to	identify	 

any	 corrections	 or	 clarifications	 needed	 in	 the	 documentation	of	States’	vehicle	sanctions	laws	that	were	sent	to	them.	 

Interview	discussions	also	included:	(a)	the	extent	to	which	 

individual	vehicle	sanction	laws	were	being	used;	(b)	if	laws	 

were	not	being	used,	why	not;	(c)	the	extent	to	which	they	 

were	aware	of	any	successes	or	problems	associated	with	the	 

enforcement	of	the	laws;	and	(d)	knowledge	of	any	studies	of	 

the	effectiveness	of	the	vehicle	sanction	programs.	Data	collected	for	the	report	were	current	as	of	2004. 

Update: In order to provide a more contemporary listing of 

vehicle sanction laws, State laws were updated as of 2008 

for this Traffic Tech. 

Special License Plates: This	sanction	includes	placing	special	 

markings	or	designations	on	the	license	plate	that	alert	police	 

that	a	convicted	DWI	offender	is	in	a	family	or	group	that	 

drives	this	vehicle.	The	purpose	of	this	sanction	is	to	allow	 

other	family	members	access	to	the	vehicle,	even	while	limiting	the	convicted	offender’s	ability	to	drive	it.	Six	States	(GA,	 

HI,	 MI,	 MN,	 NJ,	 OH)	 had	 laws	 permitting	 special	 license	 

plates	for	impaired-driving	offenses.	 

Alcohol Ignition Interlocks:	 This	 sanction	 requires	 the	 

offender	to	take	an	alcohol	breath	test	prior	to	starting	his	or	 

her	vehicle.	If	the	offender	is	sober,	the	car	operates	normally,	 

but	if	the	offender	takes	the	test	and	his	or	her	blood	alcohol	concentration	(BAC)	is	above	a	set	threshold,	the	vehicle	 

will	not	start.	Rolling	retests	may	also	be	required.	Forty-six	 

States	(AK,	AR,	AZ,	CA,	CO,	CT,	DE,	FL,	GA,	IA,	ID,	IL,	IN,	 

KS,	KY,	LA,	MA,	MD,	ME,	MI,	MN,	MO,	MS,	MT,	NC,	ND,	 

NE,	NH,	NJ,	NM,	NV,	NY,	OH,	OK,	OR,	PA,	RI,	SC,	TN,	TX,	 

UT,	VA,	WA,	WI,	WY,	WV)	and	the	District	of	Columbia	had	 

laws	permitting	interlocks	for	impaired	driving.	In	six	States	 

(NM,	AZ,	IL,	LA,	NE,	WA)	the	law	was	mandatory	for	first	 

time	offenders	with	a	BAC	of	.08	grams	per	deciliter	(g/dL)	 

or	greater.	 

License Plate Actions: These	actions	target	the	license	plates	 

of	offenders’	vehicles	and	are	intended	to	prevent	anyone	 

from	 driving	 that	 vehicle	 since	 the	 plates	 are	 physically	 

removed	 from	 the	 vehicle	 or	 the	 plates	 are	 suspended	 by	 

the	State.	Twenty-nine	States	(AL,	AR,	DE,	GA,	HI,	IL,		IN,	 

IA,	KS,	KY,	ME,	MD,		MA,	MI,	MN,	NE,	NV,	NH,	NJ,	NY,	 

NC,	ND,	OH,	OR,	RI,	SC,	SD,	VA,	WY)	and	the	District	of	 

Columbia	had	laws	permitting	license	plate	and/or	registration	 confiscation/suspension	 for	 impaired	 driving	 and/or	 

DWS	offenses).	 

Immobilization:	 This	 sanction	 prevents	 the	 vehicle	 from	 

being	 driven	 by	 immobilizing	 it	 via	 the	 installation	 of	 a	 

“boot”	 or	 “club.”	 The	 vehicle	 can	 be	 immobilized	 on	 the	 

offender’s	 property	 and	 does	 not	 need	 to	 be	 taken	 to	 an	 

U.S. Department of Transportation	 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
impound	 lot.	 Sixteen	 States	 had	 laws	 permitting	 vehicle	 

immobilization	 as	 a	 sanction	 for	 impaired	 driving	 and/or	 

DWS	offenses	(FL,	IA,	IL,	KS,	MD,	MI,	MS,	MT,	NE,	NM,	 

OH,	OR,	PA,	VA,	VT,	WI).	 

Vehicle Impoundment:	Twenty-seven	States	(AL,	AZ,	CA,	 

CT,	DE,	FL,	IL,	IA,	KS,	ME,	MD,	MA,	MI,	MN,	MS,	MT,	NE,	 

NJ,	NY,	NC,	OH,	OR,	UT,	VT,	VA,	WA,	WI)	and	the	District	of	 

Columbia	had	laws	permitting	vehicle	impoundment.	 

Forfeiture:	This	sanction	allows	for	confiscation	and	sale	of	 

the	offender’s	vehicle.	Thirty-five	States	had	laws	permitting	 

vehicle	forfeiture	for	impaired	driving	and/or	DWS	offenses	 

(AK,		AR,	AZ,	CA,	CO,	FL,	GA,	HI,	IA,	IL,	IN,	LA,	MA,	ME,	 

MI,	MN,	MO,	MS,	MT,	NC,	ND,	NM,	NY,	OH,	OK,	OR,	PA,	 

RI,	SC,	TN,	TX,	VT,	VA,	WA,	WI).	 

Vehicle Sanctions in Other Countries 

Officials	from	other	countries	(Australia,	Belgium,	Canada,	 

Denmark,	 New	 Zealand,	 Norway,	 Spain,	 Sweden,	 and	 the	 

United	Kingdom)	were	contacted.	As	of	2004	it	was	found	 

that,	 except	 for	 alcohol	 ignition	 interlock	 programs	 which	 

are	popular	in	Canada	and	Australia,	vehicle	sanctions	were	 

rarely	 used.	 Impoundment	 and	 forfeiture	 were	 considered	 

too	harsh	and	too	much	of	a	hardship	for	family	members.	 

The	one	exception	was	New	Zealand	which	had	a	comprehensive	vehicle	impoundment	and	confiscation	program.	 

Barriers to Implementing 

Vehicle Sanction Programs 

Alcohol Ignition Interlock Programs:	 Contacts	 with	 State	 

officials	indicated	that	only	 a	 relatively	 small	 percentage	 –	 

generally	less	than	10%	of	eligible	offenders	–	participate	in	 

interlock	programs.	Barriers	include	claims	by	offenders	that	 

they	do	not	own	the	vehicle;	concerns	about	the	cost	of	installation	and	maintenance	over	the	course	of	the	intervention;	 

and	ensuring	offenders	assigned	interlocks	actually	have	the	 

interlocks	installed.	 

Vehicle Impoundment, Immobilization, and Forfeiture 

Vehicle	 impoundment,	 immobilization,	 and	 forfeiture	 sentences	 remain	 a	 problem	 when	 a	 family	 has	 only	 a	 single	 

vehicle	and	it	would	be	a	hardship	if	a	vehicle	sanction	was	 

applied.	Another	problem	with	vehicle	impoundment	is	the	 

costs	 of	 storage	 may	 exceed	 the	 value	 of	 the	 impounded	 

vehicle,	resulting	in	added	expenses	to	the	jurisdiction.	 

 

 

 

 

Conclusions 

Currently,	every	State	in	the	United	States	adopted	at	least	 

one	 law	 allowing	 for	 vehicle	 sanctions	 for	 DWI	 or	 DWS	 

offenders	and	several	States	permitted	multiple	vehicle	sanctions.	In	many	States,	however,	it	was	found	that	these	laws	 

are	not	being	used	often.	Administrative	application	of	these	 

sanctions	improved	applicability	but	there	are	still	a	number	 

of	barriers	that	need	to	be	overcome.	Family	hardship	issues	 

and	the	monitoring	of	compliance	with	sanctions	are	significant	system	problems	that	need	to	be	addressed.	A	number	 

of	strategies	that	may	increase	the	use	and	effectiveness	of	 

vehicle	sanctions	are	discussed	in	the	report. 

Update 

Since	this	study	was	completed	momentum	has	been	building	on	the	use	of	ignition	interlocks	nationwide.	In	almost	 

every	 State,	 except	 Alabama,	 Hawaii,	 South	 Dakota	 and	 

Vermont,	 judges	 can	 order	 interlocks	 for	 impaired-driving	 

offenders.	In	August	2007,	the	NHTSA	Administrator	held	a	 

meeting	with	judges,	court	professionals,	safety	equipment	 

manufacturers,	and	national	safety	advocates	to	discuss	the	 

use	of	ignition	interlocks.	 

As	part	of	its	Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving,	MADD	 

is	 encouraging	 States	 to	 enact	 model	 laws	 that	 require	 

alcohol	 ignition	 interlock	 devices	 for	 all	 convicted	 drunk	 

drivers.	Other	efforts	are	focusing	on	emerging	technologies.	 

NHTSA	along	with	MADD,	the	auto	industry,	the	Insurance	 

Institute	for	Highway	Safety,	and	others,	formed	a	cooperative	 research	 initiative	 on	 advanced	 impairment-detection	 

technology.	The	goal	of	this	initiative	is	to	develop	advanced	 

technologies	that	require	no	deliberate	action	by	the	driver	 

and	could	be	used	on	a	widespread	voluntary	basis	to	prevent	or	reduce	the	occurrence	of	drunk	driving.	 

How to Order 

To	order	Update of Vehicle Sanction Laws and their Application	(2	volumes),	write	to	the	Office	of	Behavioral	Research,	 

NHTSA,	NTI-130,	1200	New	Jersey	Avenue	SE.,	Washington,	 

DC,	20590,	fax	202-366-7394,	or	download	from	www.nhtsa. 

dot.gov.	Marvin	Levy,	Ph.D.,	was	the	contract	manager. 

TRAFFIC TECH	is	a	publication	to	disseminate	information	about	 

traffic	safety	programs,	including	evaluations,	innovative	programs,	 

and	new	publications.	Feel	free	to	copy	it	as	you	wish.	If	you	would	 

like	to	receive	a	copy,	contact	Dr.	Angela	Eichelberger,	Editor,	fax	 

202-366-7394,	e-mail:	angela.eichelberger@dot.gov. 

1200	New	Jersey	Avenue	SE.,	NTI-130 

Washington,	DC	20590