Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 343.301 (2026)
Installation of ignition interlock device
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
343.301(1g)(a)2.2. The person violated s. 346.63 (1) or (2), 940.09 (1), or 940.25 and either of the following applies:
343.301(1g)(a)2.a.a. The person had an alcohol concentration of 0.15 or more at the time of the offense.
343.301(1g)(a)2.b.b. The person has a total of one or more prior convictions, suspensions, or revocations, counting convictions under ss. 940.09 (1) and 940.25 in the person’s lifetime and other convictions, suspensions, and revocations counted under s. 343.307 (1).
343.301(1g)(am)1.1. That the person’s operating privilege for the operation of “Class D” vehicles be restricted to operating vehicles that are equipped with an ignition interlock device and, except as provided in sub. (1m), shall order that each motor vehicle for which the person’s name appears on the vehicle’s certificate of title or registration be equipped with an ignition interlock device.
Effective date noteNOTE: Subd. 1. is amended by 2025 Wis. Act 210 eff. on the first day of the 12th month beginning after the date specified in the Department of Transportation notice published in the Wisconsin Administrative Register under 2025 Wis. Act 210, section 17 (2), to read:
Effective date text1. That the person’s operating privilege for the operation of “Class D” vehicles be restricted to operating vehicles that are equipped with an ignition interlock device, that the person be prohibited from operating “Class M” vehicles, and, except as provided in sub. (1m), that each motor vehicle for which the person’s name appears on the vehicle’s certificate of title or registration be equipped with an ignition interlock device.
343.301(1g)(am)2.2. That the person participate in a program described in s. 165.957 or that meets the definition of a 24-7 sobriety program under 23 USC 405 (d) (7) (A) and regulations adopted thereunder. If the court enters an order under this subdivision, when the person completes or otherwise does not participate in the program, the court shall order that the person’s operating privilege for the operation of “Class D” vehicles be restricted to operating vehicles that are equipped with an ignition interlock device, shall specify the duration of the order, shall, except as provided in sub. (1m), order that each motor vehicle for which the person’s name appears on the vehicle’s certificate of title or registration be equipped with an ignition interlock device, and shall notify the department of such order.
343.301(1m)(a)(a) If equipping each motor vehicle with an ignition interlock device under sub. (1g) would cause an undue financial hardship, the court may order that one or more vehicles described in sub. (1g) not be equipped with an ignition interlock device.
343.301(1m)(b)(b) An order under sub. (1g) does not apply to a vehicle for which the department has not approved an ignition interlock device capable of being installed on the vehicle.
343.301(2m)(a)(a) If the court enters an order under sub. (1g) (am) 1., the restriction of the person’s operating privilege under the order under sub. (1g) (am) 1. shall begin on the date the order under sub. (1g) (am) 1. is issued and extend for a period of not less than one year after the date the department issues any license granted under this chapter nor more than the maximum operating privilege revocation period permitted for the refusal or violation after the date the department issues any license granted under this chapter except that if the maximum operating privilege revocation period is less than one year, the restriction of the person’s operating privilege under sub. (1g) (am) 1. shall extend for a period of one year after the department issues any license granted under this chapter. If the court enters an order under sub. (1g) (am) 1., the court may specify the date by which an ignition interlock device under sub. (1g) (am) 1. shall be installed.
343.301(2m)(b)(b) If the court enters an order under sub. (1g) (am) 2. that does not restrict a person’s operating privilege for the operation of “Class D” vehicles to operating vehicles that are equipped with an ignition interlock device while he or she participates in a program, the court shall order that the time period during which the person participates in a program, combined with the time period for which the person’s operating privilege is restricted under sub. (1g) (am) 2. equals not less than one year nor more than the maximum operating privilege revocation period permitted for the refusal or violation, except that if the maximum operating privilege revocation period is less than one year, the time period shall equal one year. The time period for which the person’s operating privilege is restricted under sub. (1g) (am) 2. begins on the date the department issues any license granted under this chapter. The court may order the person to install an ignition interlock device under sub. (1g) (am) 2. immediately after his or her participation in the program ends or while the person completes the program and for the additional period of time required under this paragraph, and shall notify the department of the date the person’s participation ended and the duration of the order restricting the operating privilege. A person subject to an order requiring installation of an ignition interlock device shall, within 2 weeks after the date on which installation of the ignition interlock device is required under the order, submit proof to the sheriff in his or her county of residence that an ignition interlock device has been installed in each motor vehicle to which the order applies.
343.301(3)(a)(a) Except as provided in par. (b), if the court enters an order under sub. (1g), the person shall be liable for the reasonable cost of equipping and maintaining any ignition interlock device installed on his or her motor vehicle.
Effective date noteNOTE: Par. (a) is amended by 2025 Wis. Act 210 eff. on the first day of the 12th month beginning after the date specified in the Department of Transportation notice published in the Wisconsin Administrative Register under 2025 Wis. Act 210, section 17 (2), to read:
Effective date text(a) Except as provided in par. (b), if the court enters an order under sub. (1g), the person shall be liable for the reasonable cost of equipping and maintaining any ignition interlock device installed on his or her motor vehicle. If the person removes the ignition interlock device without providing documentation from the department indicating that their operating privilege has been restored, the person shall be responsible for the costs of reinstallation of an ignition interlock device.
343.301(3)(b)(b) If the court finds that the person who is subject to an order under sub. (1g) has a household income that is at or below 150 percent of the nonfarm federal poverty line for the continental United States, as defined in 42 USC 9902 (2), the court shall limit the person’s liability under par. (a) to one-half of the cost of equipping each motor vehicle with an ignition interlock device and one-half of the cost per day per vehicle of maintaining the ignition interlock device.
343.301(4)(4) A person to whom an order under sub. (1g) applies violates that order if he or she fails to have an ignition interlock device installed as ordered, removes or disconnects an ignition interlock device, requests or permits another to blow into an ignition interlock device or to start a motor vehicle equipped with an ignition interlock device for the purpose of providing the person an operable motor vehicle without the necessity of first submitting a sample of his or her breath to analysis by the ignition interlock device, or otherwise tampers with or circumvents the operation of the ignition interlock device.
343.301(5)(5) If the court enters an order under sub. (1g), the court shall impose and the person shall pay to the clerk of court an ignition interlock surcharge of $50. The clerk of court shall transmit the amount to the county treasurer.
343.301(6)(a)(a) In this subsection, “violation” means a breath sample that is above the alcohol setpoint of 0.020 grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath or failure to provide a passing breath sample within the retest window. “Violation” does not include a detectable breath sample that passes a test immediately following a failed test or in response to a bypass or circumvention attempt.
343.301(6)(b)(b) Notwithstanding sub. (2m) (a) and (b), and subject to par. (c), the restriction of a person’s operating privilege under an order under sub. (1g) (am) 1. shall be extended by 180 days for each occurrence of any of the following events that occurs 60 days or more after the installation of an ignition interlock device:
343.301(6)(b)3.3. Failure to service an ignition interlock device that results in the ignition interlock device entering lockout mode.
343.301(6)(b)4.4. Any attempt to start a motor vehicle with a breath alcohol concentration of 0.020 or more.
343.301(6)(b)5.5. Failure to take a random breath test unless a review of the digital image confirms that the motor vehicle was not occupied by the person at the time of the missed test.
343.301(6)(c)(c) The department shall determine that a person did not commit a violation upon receipt of documentation or information, provided by the person’s ignition interlock device provider, indicating that a reported violation resulted from a malfunction of the ignition interlock device for which the person was not responsible.
343.301(6)(d)(d) The department shall develop an electronic process by which an approved ignition interlock device provider may identify the start date of the restriction of a person’s operating privilege under sub. (2m) and provide to the department real-time notice of usage and violations and a final compliance report.
Effective date noteNOTE: Sub. (6) is created by 2025 Wis. Act 210 eff. on the first day of the 12th month beginning after the date specified in the Department of Transportation notice published in the Wisconsin Administrative Register under 2025 Wis. Act 210, section 17 (2).
343.301(7)(7) A person to whom an order is entered under sub. (1g) shall provide to the ignition interlock device service provider all of the following:
Effective date noteNOTE: Sub. (7) is created by 2025 Wis. Act 210 eff. on the first day of the 12th month beginning after the date specified in the Department of Transportation notice published in the Wisconsin Administrative Register under 2025 Wis. Act 210, section 17 (2).
343.301(8)(8) An ignition interlock device shall conduct a retest after each failed or skipped test. If a person fails or skips a retest, the person is guilty of an ignition interlock device violation.
Effective date noteNOTE: Sub. (8) is created by 2025 Wis. Act 210 eff. on the first day of the 12th month beginning after the date specified in the Department of Transportation notice published in the Wisconsin Administrative Register under 2025 Wis. Act 210, section 17 (2).
343.301(9)(a)(a) When a person to whom an order is entered under sub. (1g) reaches the date on which the order is set to end, the person shall return to the ignition interlock device service provider for final service, data download, and compliance-based review. The service provider shall complete the compliance-based review no later than 7 business days after the data is downloaded from the ignition interlock device, except that a service provider may not begin the compliance-based review until all information required under sub. (7) is provided.
343.301(9)(b)(b) If a service provider conducts a compliance-based review for a person to whom an order is entered under sub. (1g) and determines that an event specified under sub. (6) (b) has occurred, the service provider shall notify the department.
343.301(9)(c)(c) Upon receipt of notice from a service provider that an event specified under sub. (6) (b) has occurred that requires extension of a person’s ignition interlock device order, the department shall extend the person’s order as required under sub. (6) (b), subject to par. (d). The department shall notify the person in writing that the person’s ignition interlock device order is extended, beginning 10 days from the date of the written notice.
343.301(9)(d)(d) A person who receives notice under par. (c) of an extension of their ignition interlock device order may, within 15 business days of the date of the notice, provide the service provider with a written rebuttal of the event that the service provider determines requires an extension. The service provider shall, within 7 business days of the rebuttal, conduct a review of the person’s rebuttal and notify the department and the person of the final determination. If the original determination is confirmed, the department’s extension of the ignition interlock device order shall be upheld. If the original determination is reversed, the service provider shall correct the person’s record and the department shall reverse the extension of the ignition interlock device order.
Effective date noteNOTE: Sub. (9) is created by 2025 Wis. Act 210 eff. on the first day of the 12th month beginning after the date specified in the Department of Transportation notice published in the Wisconsin Administrative Register under 2025 Wis. Act 210, section 17 (2).
343.301 HistoryHistory: 1999 a. 109; 2001 a. 16 ss. 3417m to 3420t, 4060gj, 4060hw, 4060hy; 2001 a. 104; 2009 a. 100; 2013 a. 168; 2015 a. 389; 2017 a. 124; 2019 a. 70; 2021 a. 239; 2025 a. 210.
343.301 AnnotationSub. (1g) (b) 2. requires an order for ignition interlock devices when a person violates s. 346.63 (1) and has one or more prior operating while intoxicated (OWI) convictions. Sub. (1g) (b) 2. provides no restrictions on how to count prior convictions for purposes of ordering ignition interlock devices. The ten-year look-back provision in s. 346.65 (2) (am) 2. for purposes of determining whether to charge or penalize a repeat OWI offender civilly or criminally is independent of and has no effect on orders for ignition interlock devices under this section. Village of Grafton v. Seatz, 2014 WI App 23, 352 Wis. 2d 747, 845 N.W.2d 672, 13-1414.
343.301 AnnotationWisconsin’s New OWI Law. Mishlove & Stuckert. Wis. Law. June 2010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (9 in the last 5 years), 2014–2026 · leading case: State v. Williams, 2017 WI App 46 (Wis. Ct. App. 2017).
State v. Williams, 2017 WI App 46 (Wis. Ct. App. 2017). “This fifty dollar surcharge is paid when a court enters an order under Wis. Stat. § 343.301 (lg) relating to OWI violations.”
State v. Samuel G. Sharpe (Wis. Ct. App. 2024). “§ 343.301—the statute governing the installation of IIDs—is unconstitutional under the dormant Commerce Clause.”
State v. Dominic A. Caldiero (Wis. Ct. App. 2022). “§ 343.301 (2013-14).2 Caldiero was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited blood alcohol concentration, third offense, and he was convicted following a jury trial.”
State v. Devron Michael Green (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). “2 Green argues that the IID order must be reversed because the circuit court did not find that he had improperly refused a test under § 343.”
Vill. of Grafton v. Seatz, 2014 WI App 23 (Wis. Ct. App. 2014). “Seatz appeals from that part of an order requiring him to install ignition interlock devices per Wis. Stat. § 343.301 (lg)(b)2. (2011-12).”
City of Wausau v. Danielle Rae Fischer (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “§ 343.301, the municipal court could order an IID only if Fischer: (1) had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) above 0.”
State v. Thatcher R. Sehrbrock (Wis. Ct. App. 2024). “301, in arguing that the seven-year duration of the condition is harsh and excessive (which we discuss later in this opinion), he does not argue that under this statute, an ignition interlock may only be imposed for the OWI-related offenses expressly enumerated in that statute.”
State v. Catherine Cuskey Large (Wis. Ct. App. 2020). “§ 343.301(1g)(a). 2 No. 2019AP1966-CR 100 milliliters of blood, meaning they may not drive if their blood alcohol concentration meets or exceeds that level.”
State v. Kody R. Kohn (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “This suggests the “other penalties” are likewise non-criminal in nature, particularly where, as here, the warning does not otherwise refer to 10 No. 2020AP2147-CR criminal penalties.”
State v. Mark S. Miller (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “2 Wisconsin’s implied consent law imposes only civil penalties for refusing, such as license revocation and required ignition interlock devices.”
State v. Raul Herrera Rivera (Wis. Ct. App. 2024). “§ 343.301(1g)(a)2.b., (am). He pleaded guilty to this charge and was sentenced based on the resulting conviction before proceeding to trial on the OWI charges.”
State v. Nicholas L. Sparby-Duncan (Wis. Ct. App. 2026). “§ 343.301(1g) (2013-14). ¶6 It is undisputed that, following the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision in Forrett, the State could no longer count Sparby-Duncan’s 2008 refusal as a prior OWI-related offense under WIS.”
— Wis. Stat. § 343.301(1g) — 3 cases
State v. Dominic A. Caldiero (Wis. Ct. App. 2022). “§ 343.301 (2013-14).2 Caldiero was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited blood alcohol concentration, third offense, and he was convicted following a jury trial.”
State v. Devron Michael Green (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). “2 Green argues that the IID order must be reversed because the circuit court did not find that he had improperly refused a test under § 343.”
State v. Nicholas L. Sparby-Duncan (Wis. Ct. App. 2026). “§ 343.301(1g) (2013-14). ¶6 It is undisputed that, following the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision in Forrett, the State could no longer count Sparby-Duncan’s 2008 refusal as a prior OWI-related offense under WIS.”
— Wis. Stat. § 343.301(1g)(a) — 7 cases
State v. Devron Michael Green (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). “2 Green argues that the IID order must be reversed because the circuit court did not find that he had improperly refused a test under § 343.”
State v. Samuel G. Sharpe (Wis. Ct. App. 2024). “§ 343.301—the statute governing the installation of IIDs—is unconstitutional under the dormant Commerce Clause.”
State v. Catherine Cuskey Large (Wis. Ct. App. 2020). “§ 343.301(1g)(a). 2 No. 2019AP1966-CR 100 milliliters of blood, meaning they may not drive if their blood alcohol concentration meets or exceeds that level.”
City of Wausau v. Danielle Rae Fischer (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “§ 343.301, the municipal court could order an IID only if Fischer: (1) had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) above 0.”
State v. Mark S. Miller (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “2 Wisconsin’s implied consent law imposes only civil penalties for refusing, such as license revocation and required ignition interlock devices.”
— Wis. Stat. § 343.301(1g)(am) — 2 cases
State v. Samuel G. Sharpe (Wis. Ct. App. 2024). “§ 343.301—the statute governing the installation of IIDs—is unconstitutional under the dormant Commerce Clause.”
State v. Kody R. Kohn (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “This suggests the “other penalties” are likewise non-criminal in nature, particularly where, as here, the warning does not otherwise refer to 10 No. 2020AP2147-CR criminal penalties.”
— Wis. Stat. § 343.301(2m) — 1 case
State v. Dominic A. Caldiero (Wis. Ct. App. 2022). “§ 343.301 (2013-14).2 Caldiero was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited blood alcohol concentration, third offense, and he was convicted following a jury trial.”
— Wis. Stat. § 343.301(lg) — 1 case
Vill. of Grafton v. Seatz, 2014 WI App 23 (Wis. Ct. App. 2014). “Seatz appeals from that part of an order requiring him to install ignition interlock devices per Wis. Stat. § 343.301 (lg)(b)2. (2011-12).”
— Wis. Stat. § 343.301(lg)(b) — 1 case
Vill. of Grafton v. Seatz, 2014 WI App 23 (Wis. Ct. App. 2014). “Seatz appeals from that part of an order requiring him to install ignition interlock devices per Wis. Stat. § 343.301 (lg)(b)2. (2011-12).”
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.