Pa. Cons. Stat. » 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. (VEHICLES) / Chapter 38
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3808 (2026)

 Illegally operating a motor vehicle not equipped with ignition interlock.

✓ current as of May 2026 Cite as: 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3808 (2026)
Coverage note: this corpus holds the consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check palegis.us.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section PA-LEGpalegis.us JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 3808.  Illegally operating a motor vehicle not equipped with ignition interlock.

(a)  Offense defined.--

(1)  An individual required to only drive, operate or be in actual physical control of the movement of a motor vehicle equipped with an ignition interlock system under any of the following who drives, operates or is in actual physical control of the movement of a motor vehicle within this Commonwealth without such a system commits a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction, be sentenced to pay a fine of not less than $300 and not more than $1,000 and to imprisonment for not more than 90 days:

(i)  Section 1556 (relating to ignition interlock limited license).

(ii)  Section 3805 (relating to ignition interlock).

(iii)  A requirement by another jurisdiction to operate only a vehicle with an ignition interlock system.

(2)  An individual required to only drive, operate or be in actual physical control of the movement of a motor vehicle equipped with an ignition interlock system under any of the following who drives, operates or is in actual physical control of the movement of a motor vehicle within this Commonwealth without such a system and who has an amount of alcohol by weight in his blood that is equal to or greater than 0.025% at the time of testing or who has in his blood any amount of a Schedule I or nonprescribed Schedule II or III controlled substance, as defined in the act of April 14, 1972 (P.L.233, No.64), known as The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, or its metabolite commits a misdemeanor of the third degree and shall, upon conviction, be sentenced to pay a fine of $1,000 and to undergo imprisonment for a period of not less than 90 days:

(i)  Section 1556.

(ii)  Section 3805.

(iii)  A requirement by another jurisdiction to operate only a vehicle with an ignition interlock system.

(b)  Tampering with an ignition interlock system.--A person that tampers with an ignition interlock system required by law commits a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction, be sentenced to pay a fine of not less than $300 nor more than $1,000 and to undergo imprisonment for not more than 90 days. An offense under this subsection shall be deemed to have been committed at either the location where tampering occurred or the place where the vehicle containing the ignition interlock system required by law is registered. The term "tampering," in addition to any physical act which is intended to alter or interfere with the proper functioning of an ignition interlock system required by law, shall include attempting to circumvent or bypass or circumventing or bypassing an ignition interlock system by:

(1)  means of using another individual to provide a breath sample; or

(2)  providing a breath sample for the purpose of bypassing an ignition interlock system required by law.

(c)  Suspension of operating privilege.--Notwithstanding section 3805(c) and (i):

(1)  If a person who is required to only drive, operate or be in actual physical control of the movement of a motor vehicle equipped with an ignition interlock system violates this section, upon receipt of a certified record of the conviction, the department shall not issue a replacement license to the person under section 1951(d) (relating to driver's license and learner's permit) that does not contain an ignition interlock restriction for a period of one year from the date of conviction until the person has complied with the requirements of section 3805.

(2)  Upon receipt of a certified record of a second conviction of a violation of this section committed by a person who is required to only drive, operate or be in actual physical control of the movement of a motor vehicle equipped with an ignition interlock system which occurred during the same ignition interlock restricted license period, the department shall suspend the person's operating privileges for a period of one year and recall the ignition interlock restricted license, and the person shall surrender the ignition interlock restricted license to the department. Following completion of the suspension period, the department shall require that the person comply with the requirements of section 3805 prior to being eligible to receive a replacement license under section 1951(d) that does not contain an ignition interlock restriction.

(d)  Applicability.--Notwithstanding section 3101 (relating to application of part), this section shall apply in all areas throughout this Commonwealth; however, it shall not apply to persons installing, maintaining or inspecting ignition interlock devices in the course and scope of their employment.

(Nov. 29, 2004, P.L.1369, No.177, eff. imd.; May 25, 2016, P.L.236, No.33, eff. 15 months; July 20, 2017, P.L.333, No.30, eff. 15 months)

 

2017 Amendment.  Act 30 amended subsec. (c)(2).

2016 Amendment.  Act 33 amended subsecs. (a), (b) and (c)(1).

Cross References.  Section 3808 is referred to in sections 1541, 1542, 1547, 3805, 3811, 3812, 6506 of this title; section 8137 of Title 35 (Health and Safety); sections 1515, 1725.3 of Title 42 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2005–2024 · leading case: Com. v. Edwards, M.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Com. v. Edwards, M. (2020) pasuperct · cites it 2× “75 Pa.C.S. § 3808(b). - 17 - J-A24007-19 Conversely, the Commonwealth attacks Appellant’s argument that Section 3304(a)(2) requires proof that he committed acts of an intentional, surreptitious, or dishonest nature, asserting that “the plain language of the statute expressly…”
Com. v. Peralta, J. (2024) pasuperct · cites it 2× “Appellant was convicted of one count of illegally operating a motor vehicle not equipped with ignition interlock, 75 Pa.C.S. § 3808, as well as the summary offenses of unlawfully operating a vehicle without an emission inspection sticker and unlawfully operating a vehicle…”
Commonwealth v. Sarapa (2011) pasuperct “Chapter 38, or 75 Pa.C.S. § 3808(a)(2) (Illegally Operating a Motor Vehicle Not Equipped with Ignition Interlock).”
Com. v. Peralta, J. (2024) pasuperct · cites it 2× “Appellant was convicted of one count of illegally operating a motor vehicle not equipped with ignition interlock, 75 Pa.C.S. § 3808, as well as the summary offenses of unlawfully operating a vehicle without an emission inspection sticker and unlawfully operating a vehicle…”
Com. v. Edwards, M. (2020) pasuperct · cites it 2× “75 Pa.C.S. § 3808(b). - 17 - J-A24007-19 Conversely, the Commonwealth attacks Appellant’s argument that Section 3304(a)(2) requires proof that he committed acts of an intentional, surreptitious, or dishonest nature, asserting that “the plain language of the statute expressly…”
Com. v. Myers, N. (2016) pasuperct · cites it 3× “1 75 Pa.C.S. §§ 3808(a)(1) and 1543(b)(1), respectively.”
Sfida v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (2005) pacommwct “§ 3802 (relating to driving under the influence of alcohol or controlled substance) or 75 Pa.C.S. § 3808(a)(2) (relating to illegally driving a motor vehicle not equipped with ignition interlock) may be requested to submit to chemical testing, and if testing is refused, an…”
Com. v. Crews, R. (2018) pasuperct “§ 1543(b)(1), and operating a vehicle without ignition interlock, 75 Pa.C.S. § 3808(a)(1). The latter two charges, however, were nolle prossed by the Commonwealth.”
Com. v. Weiner, C. (2018) pasuperct “6 75 Pa.C.S. § 3808(a)(1). -3- J-S20027-18 Our standard of review of the trial court’s suppression ruling is well settled: When the Commonwealth appeals a suppression order, we consider only the evidence from [Appellee’s] witnesses together with the portion of the Commonwealth’s…”
Com. v. Morrison, R. (2018) pasuperct “”); 75 Pa.C.S. § 3808(a)(1) (driving without required ignition interlock: “An individual required to only drive, operate or be in actual physical control of the movement of a motor vehicle equipped with an ignition interlock system under any of the following who drives, operates…”
Com. v. Henderson, W. (2018) pasuperct “§ 3802(a)(1); 75 Pa.C.S. § 3808(a)(1); 75 Pa.C.S. § 3743(a); and 75 Pa.”
D. Zarrilli v. Bureau of Driver Licensing (2019) pacommwct “1) or 75 Pa.C.S. § 3808(c). Section 4 of the Act of May 25, 2016, P.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3808(a) — 2 cases
Com. v. Peralta, J. (2024) pasuperct “Appellant was convicted of one count of illegally operating a motor vehicle not equipped with ignition interlock, 75 Pa.C.S. § 3808, as well as the summary offenses of unlawfully operating a vehicle without an emission inspection sticker and unlawfully operating a vehicle…”
Com. v. Peralta, J. (2024) pasuperct “Appellant was convicted of one count of illegally operating a motor vehicle not equipped with ignition interlock, 75 Pa.C.S. § 3808, as well as the summary offenses of unlawfully operating a vehicle without an emission inspection sticker and unlawfully operating a vehicle…”
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3808(a)(1) — 6 cases
Com. v. Myers, N. (2016) pasuperct “1 75 Pa.C.S. §§ 3808(a)(1) and 1543(b)(1), respectively.”
Com. v. Crews, R. (2018) pasuperct “§ 1543(b)(1), and operating a vehicle without ignition interlock, 75 Pa.C.S. § 3808(a)(1). The latter two charges, however, were nolle prossed by the Commonwealth.”
Com. v. Weiner, C. (2018) pasuperct “6 75 Pa.C.S. § 3808(a)(1). -3- J-S20027-18 Our standard of review of the trial court’s suppression ruling is well settled: When the Commonwealth appeals a suppression order, we consider only the evidence from [Appellee’s] witnesses together with the portion of the Commonwealth’s…”
Com. v. Morrison, R. (2018) pasuperct “”); 75 Pa.C.S. § 3808(a)(1) (driving without required ignition interlock: “An individual required to only drive, operate or be in actual physical control of the movement of a motor vehicle equipped with an ignition interlock system under any of the following who drives, operates…”
Com. v. Henderson, W. (2018) pasuperct “§ 3802(a)(1); 75 Pa.C.S. § 3808(a)(1); 75 Pa.C.S. § 3743(a); and 75 Pa.”
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3808(a)(2) — 2 cases
Commonwealth v. Sarapa (2011) pasuperct “Chapter 38, or 75 Pa.C.S. § 3808(a)(2) (Illegally Operating a Motor Vehicle Not Equipped with Ignition Interlock).”
Sfida v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (2005) pacommwct “§ 3802 (relating to driving under the influence of alcohol or controlled substance) or 75 Pa.C.S. § 3808(a)(2) (relating to illegally driving a motor vehicle not equipped with ignition interlock) may be requested to submit to chemical testing, and if testing is refused, an…”
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3808(a)(l) — 1 case
Com. v. Myers, N. (2016) pasuperct “1 75 Pa.C.S. §§ 3808(a)(1) and 1543(b)(1), respectively.”
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3808(b) — 2 cases
Com. v. Edwards, M. (2020) pasuperct “75 Pa.C.S. § 3808(b). - 17 - J-A24007-19 Conversely, the Commonwealth attacks Appellant’s argument that Section 3304(a)(2) requires proof that he committed acts of an intentional, surreptitious, or dishonest nature, asserting that “the plain language of the statute expressly…”
Com. v. Edwards, M. (2020) pasuperct “75 Pa.C.S. § 3808(b). - 17 - J-A24007-19 Conversely, the Commonwealth attacks Appellant’s argument that Section 3304(a)(2) requires proof that he committed acts of an intentional, surreptitious, or dishonest nature, asserting that “the plain language of the statute expressly…”
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3808(c) — 1 case
D. Zarrilli v. Bureau of Driver Licensing (2019) pacommwct “1) or 75 Pa.C.S. § 3808(c). Section 4 of the Act of May 25, 2016, P.”
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.