Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 9-30-5-8 (2025)
Ignition interlock device offenses; tampering
✓ 2025 Indiana Code: the 2026 session is not included
Sec. 8. (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally tampers with an ignition interlock device for the purpose of:
(1) circumventing the ignition interlock device; or
(2) rendering the ignition interlock device inaccurate or inoperative;
commits a Class B misdemeanor.
(b) A person who solicits another person to:
(1) blow into an ignition interlock device; or
(2) start a motor vehicle equipped with an ignition interlock device;
for the purpose of providing an operable vehicle to a person who is restricted to driving a vehicle with the ignition interlock device commits a Class C infraction.
[Pre-1991 Recodification Citation: 9-11-2-8.]
As added by P.L.2-1991, SEC.18. Amended by P.L.76-2004, SEC.5.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases, 1995–2011 · leading case: Woodward v. State, 798 N.E.2d 260 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
Woodward v. State, 798 N.E.2d 260 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). “See I.C. § 9-30-5-8. Both such offenses would be clearly related to each other even though both are unrelated to the instant offense.”
Pennington v. State, 821 N.E.2d 899 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). “Ind.Code § 9-30-5-8. He was sentenced to a term of three years, with six months suspended.”
Beldon v. State, 926 N.E.2d 480 (Ind. 2010). “The trial court merged Counts I, II, III, and IV with Counts IA, IIA, IIIA, and IVA for purposes of sentencing; the trial court entered a single conviction on Count IIA, a Class D felony (I.C. § 9-30-5-8). 5 *482 The court sentenced Beldon to three years on that count, which the…”
Morphew v. State, 672 N.E.2d 461 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996). “See IC. § 9-30-5-8. Therefore, the State concludes that because IC.”
Puckett v. State, 843 N.E.2d 959 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “§§§ 9-30-5-8; 9-30-10-16; 35-50-2-7. Thus, Puckett was sentenced to a total of six years imprisonment, which is contrary to 1.”
State v. Akins, 795 N.E.2d 1093 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). “§ 9-30-5-8 to encompass convictions for conduct requiring a lower degree of intoxication than do our [prior] alcohol-related driving statutes and would be contrary to the well-settled precept that penal statutes be strictly construed against the State to avoid enlarging them…”
State v. Renzulli, 935 N.E.2d 200 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “§ 9-30-5-8. On September 3, 2009, Renzulli filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained after the stop of her vehicle.”
Beldon v. State, 906 N.E.2d 895 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). “On April 10, 2008, the trial court merged Counts I, II, III, IV and Counts IA, IIA, IIIA, IVA for purposes of sentencing, and entered a single conviction for Count IIA, operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated in a manner that endangers a person with a prior conviction, a…”
State v. Eichorst, 957 N.E.2d 1010 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). “08 percent charge on the basis that the lan *1012 guage of Indiana Code section 9-30-5-8 should be read so that the five-year period runs from occurrence to occurrence and not from conviction to occurrence.”
Devore v. State, 650 N.E.2d 37 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995). “However, under Indiana Code § 9-30-5-8, if a person has a previous conviction for operating while intoxicated within the preceding five years, the misdemeanor is enhanced to a Class D felony.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.