Daniel Foreman — Senator Shippey is the member asking to confirm how the device currently handles readings at or above .026.
Daniel Foreman — Senator Kaiser is addressed in the exchange about whether the interlock company already has the data.
Daniel Foreman — An unnamed senator asks about repeated attempts after waiting for alcohol to wear off.
Daniel Foreman — Senator Kaiser asks whether every attempt would be reported to the prosecuting authority.
Daniel Foreman — Concludes that the bill is simple and adds accountability; begins addressing a question about evidence and statistics.
Daniel Foreman — Referenced as having introduced the interlock legislation in the past.
Daniel Foreman — Referenced in the discussion of the bill's changes and notification provisions.
Daniel Foreman — Praised for his work, but the speaker says they cannot support the motion.
Daniel Foreman — His comments about intervention are acknowledged during debate.
Daniel Foreman — Senator Foreman is noted multiple times as seconding motions during the meeting, including Senate Bill 1308 and Senate Bill 1309. He is also referenced again in the closing exchange as the meeting concludes, alongside thanks to Senator Shippey and the return of the gavel to Senator Lakey.
Dave Lent — Recognized as asking questions about the bill.
Dave Lent — Questioned whether the installation company, rather than the convicted person, should bear the notification requirement.
Dave Lent — Argued that the convicted person should bear the responsibility rather than the company.
Dave Lent — Explained that the convicted person currently bears installation and monitoring costs and that some companies already provide information voluntarily.
Dave Lent — Asked about the genesis of the bill.
Dave Lent — The chair invited questions from Senator Lent after the testimony.
Dave Lent — Asked whether a person could be prosecuted for delaying installation and what would happen with the information.
Dave Lent — A follow-up question was directed to Senator Lent.
Dave Lent — Asked whether the person could drive another car without an interlock.
Dave Lent — Introduced a follow-up question about whether the measure is an effective early intervention and safety tool.
Dave Lent — During consideration of Senate Bill 1309, Senator Dave Lent was first asked if he had any questions, then was called on to make a motion. He moved to send the bill to the Senate floor with a due-pass recommendation. After the motion, the chair asked if there was any further discussion, and the committee moved toward a vote.
Melissa Wintrow — Said she would wait to ask her question until the witness testifies.
Melissa Wintrow — Senator Wintrow discussed the bill as a potential accountability and early-intervention measure for drunk-driving safety, then asked whether the reporting requirement would create little additional burden for companies, and finally questioned whether there is data showing the bill actually improves safety by reducing accidents or fatalities.
Melissa Wintrow — Senator Melissa Wintrow is referenced as having raised an earlier question about evidence and statistics, then as seconding the motion, and finally as speaking in support of it. In her comments, she emphasizes accountability, prevention, and safety as reasons to support the motion.
Melissa Wintrow — Commented that treatment courts are under threat in the budget cycle and thanked the witness for explaining their value.
Matt Condi — Called forward as the next witness.
Matthew Condi — Matthew Condi testified in support of the bill on behalf of AAA Idaho, explaining that it is intended to improve ignition interlock reporting by requiring the overarching vendor—not the installer—to compile and send data to the appropriate authorities. He argued the bill closes loopholes, helps prevent circumvention, and is mainly a reporting change rather than a change to thresholds or enforcement standards. Condi said prosecutors would still retain discretion over how to respond to the information, and that the goal is to ensure reports go to the right places promptly so violations are identified earlier and enforcement gaps are reduced.
Shawn Dygert — Noted he was less familiar with the code section and began a question about current practice.
Mr. Condi — Mr. Condi discusses how ignition interlock devices work, including that they can prevent a vehicle from starting and include a camera for verification. He explains that interlock companies must provide proof of calibration and meet department tolerances, though he cannot state an exact false positive rate. He says false positives should be rare, but if an anomaly occurs the person would still have a hearing and could challenge it, while prosecutors retain discretion and are unlikely to pursue isolated low readings. He further explains that the bill is intended to ensure the data is reported to the proper prosecuting authority, making reporting easier for interlock companies and directing the information to the right recipients, with repeated attempts or higher readings potentially strengthening a case more than a single low reading.
Doug Ricks — Makes the motion to send Senate Bill 1311 to the floor with a due pass recommendation.
Doug Ricks — Made the motion to send Senate Bill 1308 to the floor with a do-pass recommendation.
Glenneda Zuiderveld — Expressed support for the accountability and proof-of-installation provisions, but said she wanted more data on the interlocking system and would be against the bill.
Melda Lopez — Introduced as the Fourth District deputy trial court administrator who will discuss court assistance services for self-represented litigants.
Chris Paulson — Introduced as the Third District deputy trial court administrator who will discuss family court services and financial assistance.
Chris Paulson — Chris Paulson, Deputy Trial Court Administrator in Idaho’s Third Judicial District, introduces himself and explains that he is speaking about family court services based on his experience as the District 3 Family Court Services Manager from 2022 to 2024. He notes that his perspective is limited to the Third Judicial District and that other districts may differ in fees, processes, or services. In the Q&A, he is asked what percentage of cases settle in mediation and responds that he does not have a precise figure, but mediation is worthwhile and often ordered.
Israel Enriquez — Introduced as the Fifth District district treatment court manager who will present on treatment courts.
Israel Enriquez — Israel Enriquez is introduced to the committee and then begins his testimony by identifying himself as the treatment court manager in the Fifth Judicial District, along with background from his Army service and experience in Idaho's criminal justice system.
Ms. Lopez — The chair welcomed Lopez and asked her to state her name for the record and begin her presentation.
Imelda Lopez — Imelda Lopez, Deputy Trial Court Administrator for the Fourth Judicial District, presents on court assistance offices and their role in helping self-represented litigants. She explains that while officers cannot assist in contested legal matters, they can still help with response forms, direct people to legal research resources, and refer parties to court programs such as family court services and mediation. She adds that after parties reach a resolution, they can return for help finalizing their case, and she notes that she will also address outreach efforts and service costs. In closing, she acknowledges the dedicated statewide staff and invites questions. During follow-up, she explains that some counties offer free legal advice clinics and that court assistance offices can provide process information. She also notes that forms are available to both attorneys and self-represented litigants, but they are not one-size-fits-all and may not fit every situation.
Mr. Enriquez — Mr. Enriquez was thanked for his testimony, his service to the country and community, and his participation in the hearing.
Mr. Spellman — Thanked the committee for the opportunity to present and invited follow-up questions.
Todd Lakey — Hazel refers to Senator Lakey as the person who sponsored her, and the earlier mention similarly notes that the speaker had the pleasure of sponsoring her. Together, the mentions establish Senator Lakey as Hazel's sponsor.
Todd Lakey — Senator Lakey is repeatedly thanked and acknowledged during a brief follow-up exchange in the hearing, as the discussion continues into questions about interlock device accuracy.
Todd Lakey — Senator Todd Lakey introduced two courts-related bills in sequence: Senate Bill 1308, which concerns the courts’ annual review of code defects, and Senate Bill 1309, another courts measure involving juvenile cases.
Hazel Stevens — Introduced herself as a student from Kuna High School who likes government and wants to attend NNU to become a lawyer.
Hazel Stevens — Said she would travel to a bunch of different places if she had a week with nothing to do.
Daniel Foreman — Senator Dan Foreman is identified as the sponsor and presenter of Senate Bill 1311, introduces himself, and explains the bill during questioning. He responds to concerns from other senators, notes that some historical context may be provided by another witness, and says the bill was informed by his law enforcement background and intended to improve highway safety. The exchange concludes with questions ending and Foreman being thanked and released from the witness table.
Daniel Foreman — Senator Shippey is being addressed in the discussion about ignition interlocks and whether a person could avoid the device by using another vehicle.
Daniel Foreman — Senator Shippey asks whether a person could use another vehicle to avoid the interlock and avoid notification to the prosecutor.
Daniel Foreman — Senator Shippey asks about false positives and whether a failed start could be reported to the prosecutor.