Interlock Device Bypassed – NY VTL § 1198(7)(b) makes it a crime to help a convicted DWI offender avoid using a court-ordered ignition interlock device. In simple terms, this law prohibits anyone from knowingly lending, renting, or leasing a vehicle to a driver who is required to use an ignition interlock, unless that vehicle has the interlock or a secondary interlock device installed. New York Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1198(7)(b) is often referred to as an “interlock device bypass” because it involves bypassing the safety requirement meant to prevent drunk driving.
Violations of New York Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1198(7)(b) carry serious legal and personal consequences that can jeopardize your freedom, finances, and future. If you are accused of bypassing an ignition interlock device or helping someone circumvent this requirement, you need a dedicated and knowledgeable advocate by your side. At the Law Offices of Jason Bassett, P.C., experienced Long Island DWI and DUI defense attorney Jason Bassett can help protect your rights, working diligently to build a strong defense tailored to the circumstances of your case.
Take the first step toward safeguarding your future by contacting our office today. Call us today at (631) 259-6060 for a consultation to discuss your case and explore the legal options available to you. We are here to help you move forward with confidence and clarity.
President of the Suffolk County Criminal Bar Association - 2024-2025
Jason Basset was the greatest I must say! All of my concerns were dealt with and most of all he did his best to make sure I was happy with the decision. The respect and hard work he did for me will never go unnoticed.
New York has several related offenses to ensure drivers do not circumvent ignition interlock device (IID) requirements.
These laws, all found in Vehicle and Traffic Law (VTL) §1198, were enacted in 2010 as part of the provisions under Leandra’s Law, mandating IID installation for most DWI offenders
All of the above are criminal misdemeanors designed to enforce IID compliance. Notably, the law even requires IID-restricted drivers to inform anyone who might lend them a car about the restriction
To secure a conviction under VTL §1198(7)(b), prosecutors must prove each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The statute’s language provides the framework:
“No person shall knowingly rent, lease, or lend a motor vehicle to a person known to have had his or her driving privilege restricted to vehicles equipped with an ignition interlock device unless the vehicle is so equipped.”
Breaking this down, the key elements are:
While the statute itself doesn’t use the word bypass, this offense is commonly described as bypassing the interlock requirement – essentially helping a driver get around the IID restriction. The law uses the term “circumvent” for related offenses (for example, VTL §1198(9)(c) prohibits tampering to “circumvent” an IID
In everyday language, to bypass or circumvent the interlock means to avoid or get around the device, either by using a vehicle with no device or by tricking/altering the device. VTL §1198(7)(b) specifically addresses bypassing the IID by providing an unrestricted vehicle to a restricted driver. It targets deliberate evasion: the person lending the car is essentially enabling the IID-restricted driver to drive without the safeguard.
It’s important to note that intent matters. The word “knowingly” in the statute means it’s not a strict liability offense – a person must knowingly aid the bypass. Accidentally lending a car, or lending it without knowledge of the IID requirement, is not a crime. In practice, if someone is charged under §1198(7)(b), authorities believe they were aware of the IID order and still chose to provide a non-equipped car
Mr Basset has shown me both compassion & care. He is easy to talk to & easy to contact. I am totally happy that contacted & hired him to represent me in present case. Very professional & gives me confidence he will fight for me. Highly recommend !!!!
Jane was convicted of a DWI in New York and as a result, her license now has a restriction requiring an ignition interlock device on any vehicle she drives. Her driver’s license carries a notation of this restriction (often a code indicating “interlock device required”). Despite this, Jane’s brother Mike lets her borrow his second car, which does not have an interlock, so she can run errands. Mike knows about Jane’s DWI and the interlock requirement – he was in court when she was ordered to install the IID – but he figures “one short drive won’t hurt.” Jane is pulled over for a broken taillight. The officer runs her license and sees she’s restricted to interlock vehicles, yet she’s driving one without the device. Jane tells the officer that it’s her brother’s car.
In this situation, both may be charged: Jane for operating a vehicle without an interlock (VTL §1198(9)(d)), and Mike for knowingly lending his car to an interlock-restricted driver in violation of VTL §1198(7)(b).
Schedule a free consultation
Jason was attentive, respectful and made me feel like I made the right choice in hiring him as an attorney from the start.
Being charged with Interlock Device Bypassing (VTL 1198(7)(b)) does not guarantee a conviction. There are several defenses a person might raise, both procedural and substantive:
| Penalty Type | Details |
|---|---|
| Jail Time | – Up to 1 year if classified as a Class A misdemeanor. – Up to 30 days if treated as an unclassified misdemeanor. – Shorter sentences or no jail time are common for first-time offenders. |
| Fines | – Ranges from several hundred dollars up to $1,000. – Additional mandatory state surcharge of around $175. |
| Probation or Conditional Discharge | – Probation typically lasts 3 years and includes supervision and driving restrictions. – Conditional discharge requires compliance with court-ordered conditions, such as community service or attending a DWI victim impact panel. |
| Driver’s License Consequences | – Possible suspension or revocation of the driver’s license. – If under an ignition interlock order, the IID requirement may be extended or lead to full license revocation. |
The most common defense is arguing that you did not know the driver was under an interlock restriction. If you genuinely weren’t aware of the court order, then you didn’t “knowingly” lend your vehicle to a restricted driver.
For example, if Jane never told Mike about her IID requirement, despite the law’s instruction that she should, Mike could argue he had no idea. The burden is on the prosecution to prove Mike knew. Simply showing that Jane had the restriction isn’t enough – they must show Mike was aware of it
Another defense is that you did not actually rent/lease/lend the vehicle in the legal sense. Perhaps the person took the car without your permission. In our example, if Jane grabbed Mike’s keys and took the car while Mike was unaware, Mike hasn’t “lent” it to her at all. Lack of consent or authorization can negate the act of lending. Similarly, if you’re a car rental agent and the customer deceived you by presenting a seemingly valid license (the license might have an interlock code, but perhaps you overlooked it unintentionally), you might argue you didn’t willfully rent to a restricted driver.
A defendant could claim a reasonable mistake of fact that, if true, means no crime occurred. For instance, maybe you believed the vehicle did have an interlock device installed. Imagine a scenario where an IID was removed without your knowledge – you thought the car was interlock-equipped when lending it. If you can show you honestly and reasonably believed the device was in place (perhaps a mechanic removed it improperly), that could negate the “knowingly lending a non-equipped vehicle” element.
In extreme cases, one might argue that lending the car was justified by an emergency – the so-called “necessity” defense. For example, if the restricted driver had a medical emergency and no other immediate transportation was available, lending the car might be seen as a lesser evil to prevent harm. This defense is hard to prove and not routinely successful, but it could be raised if facts warrant.
Learn More
Violating VTL §1198(7)(b) is a misdemeanor, which means a conviction will leave you with a criminal record. The law designates it simply as “a misdemeanor”
Here’s what that means in terms of penalties:
As with any misdemeanor, a conviction is part of your permanent criminal record. This can impact employment opportunities (especially jobs that involve driving or responsibility for vehicles), professional licenses, and insurance rates. Auto insurance in particular may rise if you have a misdemeanor on your record indicating you facilitated unsafe driving.
Additionally, if you are on probation for a prior offense, a new conviction can trigger a violation of probation. Judges will consider factors like your prior record, whether anyone was harmed, and how blatant the bypass was. If this offense is paired with other charges (for instance, the driver you helped also got a new DWI or was unlicensed), the overall situation becomes more serious and can influence the sentence.
No person shall knowingly rent, lease, or lend a motor vehicle to a person known to have had his or her driving privilege restricted to vehicles equipped with an ignition interlock device unless the vehicle is so equipped. Any person whose driving privilege is so restricted shall notify any other person who rents, leases, or loans a motor vehicle to him or her of such driving restriction.
Schedule a free consultation
An ignition interlock violation under VTL § 1198(7)(b) is more serious than it may initially appear. What might seem like a harmless favor, such as lending your car to a friend, can quickly escalate into a criminal conviction with far-reaching consequences for your record, finances, and driving privileges. If you’ve been charged with an interlock bypass, it’s critical to seek legal counsel. A skilled attorney can evaluate whether the evidence truly proves you knowingly violated the law, challenge the prosecution’s case, and work to reduce or eliminate the potential penalties. With New York’s strict enforcement of DWI-related offenses, proactive and effective legal representation is essential to defending your rights.
At the Law Offices of Jason Bassett, P.C., we provide dedicated legal support to those facing ignition interlock violation charges. If you’ve been accused, don’t face this alone—reach out to our office today. We will carefully review your case, explain your options, and fight to achieve the best possible outcome for your situation. Call now to take the first step toward protecting your future.
Practice Areas
Contact Info
Disclaimer: The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation. Contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not send any confidential information to us until such time as an attorney-client relationship has been established. Please be advised that the results achieved in any given case depend upon the exact facts and circumstances of that case. The Law Office of Jason Bassett, P.C. cannot guarantee a specific result in any legal matter. Any testimonial or case result listed on this site is based on an actual legal case and represents the results achieved in that particular case, and does not constitute a guarantee, warranty or prediction of the outcome of any other legal matter. Privacy Policy | Terms of Service.
