Todd Lakey — Addressed as chairman at adjournment.
Hazel — Introduced as the committee's new page and invited to share her background.
Hazel Stevens — Introduced herself, said she is from Kuna High School, likes government, and wants to attend NNU to become a lawyer.
Hazel Stevens — Answered that she would travel to many different places if she had a week with nothing to do.
James Ruchti — Mentioned as someone who could also talk to Hazel about becoming a lawyer.
James Ruchti — Referenced in the ongoing questioning about ignition interlocks and whether a person could avoid notification by using another vehicle.
Brandon Shippy — Asked Hazel what she would do if she had one week with nothing to do.
Brandon Shippy — Identified as the next senator to question the witness.
Brandon Shippy — Expressed reservations about the bill, citing concerns about efficacy, surveillance, and unintended harm.
Brandon Shippy — Senator Shippy was thanked for presiding over the committee and handling the meeting as it concluded and adjourned.
Daniel Foreman — Daniel Foreman was introduced as the sponsor of Senate Bill 1311 and presented the bill. He explained that the legislation would have no negative impact on the general fund and was intended to close a compliance gap in current law by adding accountability to the ignition interlock installation process. In response to Senator Lent’s questions, he described how a convicted person could otherwise circumvent the requirement, noted that the bill would improve accountability, and said he did not know the full history behind the issue but that others present could speak to it. He added that the bill was brought to him through his law enforcement background and could help make highways safer, then was thanked and excused.
Daniel Foreman — Asked whether someone could avoid notification by using another vehicle not equipped with an interlock.
Daniel Foreman — Raised a question about the accuracy of interlock devices and the possibility of false positives.
Daniel Foreman — Continued to be addressed in the questioning about false positives.
Daniel Foreman — Was addressed in the response about false positives and probation violations.
Daniel Foreman — Said the bill is simple and straightforward and adds accountability; began addressing Senator Wintrow's question about evidence and statistics.
Daniel Foreman — Referenced positively for his work while the speaker explains opposition to the motion.
Daniel Foreman — Referenced as having argued that some people are looking for intervention.
Daniel Foreman — Senator Foreman was identified as seconding motions during the committee’s consideration of Senate bills, including the motion on Senate Bill 1308 and a later motion to advance Senate Bill 1309 to the floor with a due pass recommendation.
Dave Lent — Dave Lent questioned Senator Foreman about the notification requirement tied to the bill, asking who is responsible for notifying the prosecutor and what happens if notice is not given. He then raised concern that the bill may be shifting responsibility from the convicted person to the installer, arguing that the obligation should remain with the person convicted of the crime. He noted that some installation companies already voluntarily provide information, but not all do, reinforcing his point about where the legal duty should rest.
Dave Lent — Senator Lent was engaged in a brief procedural exchange during consideration of the motion: he was asked if he had any questions, then checked whether anyone in the audience wanted to testify, and the motion then moved forward to a vote with no further discussion.
Brian Lenney — Asked about the origin or genesis of the bill.
Brian Lenney — Opposed the motion, arguing that 0.025 is not drunk driving and expressing concern about reporting law-abiding citizens.
Melissa Wintrow — Senator Melissa Wintrow said she would wait to ask her question until the witness testifies, noting the issue of the accountability gap.
Melissa Wintrow — Senator Wintrow was identified as the next questioner and then asked a series of related questions about the bill, characterizing it as an accountability measure, confirming that the reporting burden on companies is minimal and intended to support safety enforcement, and asking whether there is data showing the bill would improve safety by reducing accidents or fatalities.
Melissa Wintrow — Melissa Wintrow is referenced in the course of the committee’s discussion of the bill and motion: first as having raised a question about whether there is evidence, proof, and statistics; then as the senator who seconded the motion to send Senate Bill 1311 to the floor with a due pass; and finally as speaking in support of the motion, emphasizing accountability, prevention, and the need to stop fatalities.
Melissa Wintrow — Expressed appreciation for the testimony and noted concern that treatment courts may be threatened in the budget.
Matt Condi — Introduced as the next witness to testify.
Matthew Condi — Matthew Condi of AAA Idaho testified in support of the bill and explained that interlock manufacturers are able to communicate reports, with reporting destinations varying by state.
Matthew Condi, AAA Idaho — Matthew Condi of AAA Idaho explained that the bill is primarily a reporting fix for ignition interlock devices: the obligation should fall on the overarching vendor that compiles and aggregates the data, not the physical installer. He said the measure closes loopholes, clarifies unclear and murky reporting channels, and directs information to prosecutors while preserving their discretion. Condi also framed the bill as a safety tool meant to help people manage alcohol-related driving risks, noted that it does not change existing thresholds, and emphasized the importance of getting the tool in place immediately so gaps do not occur. He added that all vehicles operated must have interlocks under current law, including some work vehicles, and suggested better reporting could reveal issues that are currently being missed.
Doug Ricks — Senator Lent questioned the witness about the code’s consequences and practical implications, asking whether someone could be prosecuted for delaying installation and whether anything would prevent that person from driving another car.
Doug Ricks — Made the motion to send Senate Bill 1311 to the floor with a due pass recommendation.
Doug Ricks — Doug Ricks asked follow-up questions about how self-represented litigants can navigate the process, including what resources are available to pro se individuals and whether they can access the same information and documents that attorneys can. Ms. Lopez responded that some information and resources are available to self-represented people, though only to a certain extent, and the exchange concluded with acknowledgment from Ricks.
Doug Ricks — Moves to send Senate Bill 1308 to the floor with a due pass recommendation.
Mr. Condi — Mr. Condi discussed the interlock system and the bill’s reporting framework. He explained that an interlock can prevent a vehicle from starting, uses a camera to verify the user, and is intended as a balanced measure that protects public safety while allowing some mercy. He then addressed concerns about accuracy, saying companies must prove calibration and meet departmental tolerances, false positives should be rare, and any disputed result would still be subject to a hearing where the person could challenge it. He also noted prosecutors would likely exercise discretion and focus more on readings near the legal limit or repeated attempts, rather than isolated very low readings. Finally, he explained that the data already exists with interlock companies, but the bill is meant to ensure it is routed to the prosecuting authority so repeated alcohol detections can be considered as possible probation violations.
Josh Keyser — Senator Kaiser asked to confirm that when someone blows into the device and the reading is .026 or above, the company already has that data. The response indicated that this was the understanding, and the discussion continued with whether each attempt would be reported and whether repeated attempts would strengthen the case, with the answer again indicating yes.
Josh Keyser — Said he supports the accountability aspect of the bill and the subsection requiring proof of installation, but wanted more data on the interlocking system and would vote against it.
Jason Spillman — Jason Spillman, legal counsel at the Administrative Office of the Courts at the Idaho Supreme Court, introduced the court-side presentation and explained that the committee would hear from court administrators rather than the usual panel of magistrate and district judges.
Melda Lopez — Melda Lopez, the Fourth District deputy trial court administrator, is introduced as the witness who will discuss court assistance services for self-represented litigants, and the chair then invites her to come forward to begin her presentation.
Chris Paulson — Introduced as the Third District deputy trial court administrator who will discuss services and financial assistance for family law court participants.
Chris Paulson — Chris Paulson was introduced to the committee and then identified himself as the Deputy Trial Court Administrator in the Third Judicial District. He began his presentation on Family Court Services, explaining the structure of the offices and noting that he previously served as the District 3 Family Court Services Manager from 2022 to 2024.
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, identifying himself as the treatment court manager in the Fifth Judicial District and describing his background in the Army and Idaho criminal justice system.
Imelda Lopez — Imelda Lopez, Deputy Trial Court Administrator for the Fourth Judicial District, introduced herself and described the role of court assistance offices in helping self-represented litigants. She explained that court assistance officers can help with response forms, legal research locations, and referrals to Family Court Services and mediation-related resources, but cannot provide legal advice. She also noted that once parties reach a resolution, they can return for help completing forms to finalize their case, and that these offices are staffed by dedicated public servants. In response to questions, she said most states have similar court assistance offices and that Idaho was an early adopter. She further explained that, depending on the county, legal advice clinics may be available, sometimes by phone, and that court forms are generally available to both attorneys and unrepresented parties, though not every form fits every situation.
Mr. Paulson — Mr. Paulson concludes his remarks and responds to questions about mediation, explaining that he does not have a reliable percentage for how often mediated cases settle, but believes mediation is worthwhile and is ordered in most or nearly all cases because it is often effective.
Mr. Enriquez — The committee thanked Mr. Enriquez for his testimony and service to the country and community, then reiterated appreciation and asked whether he had any concluding remarks.
Mr. Spellman — Thanked the committee for the opportunity to present and invited follow-up questions.
Todd Lakey — Was thanked by the prior speaker before the questioning continued.
Todd Lakey — The chair turns the gavel over to the vice chair and notes that a couple of bills will be heard.
Todd Lakey — Introduces himself as State Senator from District 23 and begins presenting Senate Bill 1308.