Disclaimer: This article is not intended to be a recommendation. The author is not responsible for any resulting actions of the company during your trading experience. The information provided in this article may not be accurate or up-to-date. Any trading or financial decision you make is your sole responsibility, and you must not rely on any information provided here. We do not provide any warranties regarding the information on this website and are not responsible for any losses or damages incurred as a result of trading or investing.
While it may not seem obvious to you or me, ignition interlock programs operate on the principles of a chain of trust. A state certifies an interlock device, authorizes an approved provider to install and monitor interlock clients, and relies upon that approved provider to accurately gather data on interlock subjects and forward it to the state in a timely fashion. For one reason or another, when any link in this chain fails, the weak link’s failures typically are visited upon the innocent interlock client, not the vendor.
This is important to understand for advocates of drivers, for those who are managing a number of monitoring cases, and for those running service centers and trying to coordinate with the courts and other service centers.
Approval is what makes your data admissible
Logs from an interlock provided outside of a state’s approved vendors in no way constitute proof of compliance and would not be accepted by a state monitoring authority. In most cases, such devices have not been certified to a technical standard. Likewise, the approved provider(s) may have specialized communication needs with regards to log upload that an unapproved provider would not. Heated audits have been known to thoroughly review an approved provider’s compliance as it relates to a defendant’s case as well.
The importance of this point is highlighted in contested cases where a driver challenges a liquor offenders program (LIP) interlock violation. The log for the violation, the interlock’s calibration history and any images captured by the interlock’s camera by which the violation was triggered are all introduced into evidence and relied upon by the reviewing authority.
What certification actually covers
- Device accuracy tolerances and the alcohol-specific sensor technology permitted
- Anti-circumvention features, including retest intervals and image capture
- Tamper detection and the events the device must record without user input
- Data transmission format, frequency, and the deadline for reporting flagged events
- Technician training, service center standards, and calibration schedules
Reporting obligations sit with the provider, not the driver
You may be surprised to learn that most of the issues that create entries on an interlock log are outside of your client’s control. These include missed calibration appointments, a failed startup test, retest failures, and power interruptions of various lengths. Each of these must be reported to the appropriate monitoring authority and accepted within a specified time frame, typically days as opposed to weeks.
An approved provider has created systems around the deadlines for the provider and thus has a means to report in a timely fashion. An unapproved provider has no reporting relationship and thus the state receives nothing, silence in an interlock file equals noncompliance.
The reconciliation problem
Late or incomplete reporting can have even more serious unintended consequences after the fact. Log gaps between calibration dates create uncertainty as to whether a vehicle was monitored during that time. Typically, such a gap is remedied by extending the Term of the restriction to cover the time period that was not verified to have been monitored. Often this would add additional months to what would otherwise have been nearing completion of the restriction Term.
Comparing provider positions on a file
| Factor | State-approved provider | Non-approved or out-of-state vendor |
| Log acceptance | Transmitted directly to the monitoring authority | Generally rejected or requires manual petition |
| Violation dispute | Formal review process with documented service history | Little basis for challenge, burden falls on the driver |
| Time toward restriction | Counts from installation date | Often disregarded, term restarts |
| Service network | Certified technicians within required travel distance | Variable, may not meet calibration frequency rules |
| Program removal | Provider issues the required completion documentation | No standing to certify completion |
Cross-jurisdiction cases need extra scrutiny
Please note that approval of an interlock provider can be jurisdiction specific and one provider approved in one state may not be approved in a neighboring state. Even if there are reciprocity agreements in place with other states, these agreements do not always extend to the approval of specific devices to be used in interlock services in those states.
A short verification sequence
- Identify the jurisdiction that issued the restriction and holds the monitoring file
- Check that provider against the current published list for that jurisdiction, not a cached copy
- Confirm the specific device model is certified, since approval is granted by model
- Verify the service center handling installation is authorized, not just the parent company
- Get written confirmation of the reporting arrangement before installation
Directories maintained by manufacturers and associations in the interlock industry such as SMART (colocated with NATS) can help identify certified providers that operate in a particular jurisdiction. For a client restricted in Northern Virginia, for example, it is worth starting with an ASAP approved interlock in Manassas Virginia so the installation and reporting relationship is settled from day one. Although these lists may not always reflect providers that currently are certified (e.g., due to a recent change in certification), they can serve as a resource to identify approved providers listed by jurisdiction and compare to marketing web sites that may not reflect current certification status of a provider.
Building approval checks into your process
This information should be listed as a standing step in your workflow. This means that, similar to how the lists of certified ignition systems and certified screening products change from time to time (as providers lose approval, add new devices, close service centers, etc.), the lists of approved providers for installation for interlocks for a given state also change from time to time, often while a client who was installed under last year’s list of approved providers is still under restriction.
If a dispute should arise, it is helpful to have in your file a copy of the applicable certification list and the date that it was verified. This can provide a quick means of resolving the matter and avoid extending the client’s term of prohibition.
