DUI Probation and Conditions

Not necessarily. A DUI can involve separate tracks. The license case concerns driving privileges and has its own forum, trigger and procedure under the law of the state involved. The criminal court case is where probation and its conditions are set as part of a sentence. Probation conditions and license sanctions come from different sources of law.

Pennsylvania's agency guidance, PennDOT Driver’s Manual, Chapter 4: Pennsylvania’s Point System, explains that when a driving privilege is going to be suspended, revoked or disqualified, a written notice is mailed listing the date the sanction begins. The sanction may be appealed in the Court of Common Pleas (Civil Division) in the driver's county of residence, within a period measured from the mailing date of the notice. The guidance adds that, in addition to serving the sanction, all restoration requirements must be satisfied before the privilege is restored.

Michigan's MCL 257.625e provides that when a person refuses a chemical test under the provisions it references, the peace officer must immediately give written notice that a hearing may be requested within a period measured from the date of the notice. The notice must also state that failing to request a hearing will result in suspension. In Texas, Tex. Transp. Code § 724.045 states that a suspension under its chapter may not be probated.

Probation is a sentence, or part of one, under which a person convicted of an offense remains in the community subject to conditions set by the court. What happens when a violation is alleged is a separate subject with its own procedures.

Supervision can be a statutory default. Arizona's A.R.S. § 28-1387 provides that if a person is placed on probation for violating the DUI provisions that subsection references, the probation shall be supervised. The exceptions are when the court finds supervised probation is not necessary or when the court does not have supervisory probation services. The same section also addresses jail time alongside work or school. It applies to persons sentenced under provisions it identifies, after a specified period of consecutive jail time and confirmation that the person is employed or a student. In that situation, the court shall provide that the person may continue the employment or schooling within limits the statute sets. The court can decline only if it finds good cause not to allow the release and places those findings on the record.

The conditions in any case come from the law of the state where it is pending and from the court's order. Those sources say which conditions are mandatory, which are discretionary, and which can be waived.

Arizona's A.R.S. § 28-1387 provides that, in addition to any other penalties, the judge shall order a person convicted under the DUI provisions it references to complete alcohol or other drug screening. The screening must come from a facility approved by the department of health services, the United States department of veterans affairs or a probation department. If the judge determines that further education or treatment is needed, the person may be required by court order to obtain it under the court's supervision from an approved facility.

The facility reports to the court whether the person successfully completed the program. The person pays the costs unless the court waives all or part of them after considering the person's ability to pay.

North Carolina's N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-179.1 handles the assessment step differently. After a conviction of an offense involving impaired driving, the trial judge may request a presentence investigation. Its purpose is to determine whether the person would benefit from treatment for habitual use of alcohol or drugs. If the person objects, no presentence investigation may be ordered. The judge still retains the power to order suitable treatment as a condition of probation, and must do so when required by statute.

Community service, as a sentence condition, refers to work a person is ordered to perform for the community. Arizona's statutes use the term community restitution, and A.R.S. § 28-1387 addresses it in two ways.

The section first deals with civil liability. A political subdivision that processes or uses the services of a person ordered to perform community restitution does not incur civil liability to that person as a result. That protection does not apply if the political subdivision or its agent or employee acts with gross negligence. The section also covers alternatives. For community restitution ordered under certain provisions it identifies, the court may order alternative sanctions if it determines that education, treatment or other alternative sanctions are more appropriate.

The same section gives Arizona courts a similar choice for program orders. If a person has previously been ordered to complete screening, education or treatment under that section, the judge shall order the person to complete a program again, unless the court determines that alternative sanctions are more appropriate. A lawyer licensed in the state where the case is pending can explain what a particular order requires and whether an alternative is available.

Alcohol monitoring conditions restrict drinking and use equipment or testing to check compliance. Ohio Rev. Code § 4511.198 is an example that applies while a charge is pending, not as probation after conviction. It covers a person alleged to have committed the operating-while-impaired offense it references who has been granted limited driving privileges by a court. For persons in a defined category, the court may prohibit the person from consuming beer or intoxicating liquor and require the person to wear a monitor that provides remote continuous alcohol monitoring. For persons in a separately defined category, the court shall impose those conditions unless it determines otherwise.

The monitor stays on until the person is convicted, pleads guilty, is found not guilty, or the charges are dismissed. Any consumption before then is grounds for the court to revoke the limited driving privilege. The person pays all costs associated with the monitor, including remote monitoring.

Arizona's A.R.S. § 28-3319 describes another form of monitoring. A person may be required to use a certified ignition interlock device but have a medical condition that prevents its use for the entire required period. In that case, the department shall require recurring alcohol and drug screening instead, based on satisfactory evidence from an authorized physician or physician assistant.

Ignition interlock requirements restrict a person to operating vehicles equipped with a certified device. The authority imposing them is not always the criminal court. In Arizona, A.R.S. § 28-3319 provides that the department acts on receipt of a court's report of conviction for a violation that involved intoxicating liquor or that specifically requires a certified ignition interlock device. The department shall then require any motor vehicle the person operates to be equipped with a functioning device. The statute sets the required periods by offense and prior convictions. The requirement begins when the person completes the required screening, education or treatment and is otherwise eligible to reinstate. The statute also provides for deferring part of the period when listed conditions are met.

Texas's Tex. Transp. Code § 521.246 provides that the judge shall restrict a person to vehicles equipped with an ignition interlock device in either of the circumstances it lists. The first is when the person is already under such an order, including an order imposed as a condition of bond. The second is when the license was suspended, revoked or canceled after a conviction for specified Penal Code offenses. The court may waive that requirement on findings about community safety and the interest of justice. The section also contains an exception for employer-owned vehicles driven for work when listed conditions are met.

Program conditions and the license track can intersect even when they come from different authorities. Arizona's A.R.S. § 28-3319 covers a person whose license is suspended or revoked under the provisions it lists and who is ordered to attend alcohol or other drug screening, education or treatment. The department shall not terminate the suspension, or issue a special ignition interlock restricted driver license, until proof is provided that the person has completed the program or is participating satisfactorily. After a revocation, a new license requires proof that the person completed the court-ordered program. The same section also requires proof of financial responsibility.

Ohio Rev. Code § 4510.038 sets conditions for retaining or reinstating driving privileges after the suspensions and limited privileges it describes. The person must complete a remedial driving course approved by the director of public safety, with instruction on driver attitude and on alcohol, drugs and vehicle operation. The person must also pass an examination by the registrar of motor vehicles and give and maintain proof of financial responsibility.

In Texas, Tex. Transp. Code § 521.245 applies when a petitioner's license has been suspended under the circumstances it lists. The court shall require attendance at a court-approved alcohol dependence counseling and rehabilitation program unless it waives that requirement for good cause. If the person is not attending, the court may revoke the order granting the occupational driver's license or add an interlock restriction.

Deadlines, limits and penalty ranges are set by each state’s statutes, so this page does not state them. Each state page shows them with the official source and the date they were verified — or says plainly that a figure has not been confirmed yet.