Home Table of Contents

WPIC 99.02 Operating a Motor Vehicle Without a Functioning Ignition Interlock Device—Elements

11A WAPRAC WPIC 99.02Washington Practice Series TMWashington Pattern Jury Instructions--Criminal

11A Wash. Prac., Pattern Jury Instr. Crim. WPIC 99.02 (5th Ed)

Washington Practice Series TM

Washington Pattern Jury Instructions--Criminal

January 2024 Update

Washington State Supreme Court Committee on Jury Instructions

Part XI. Crimes Involving Operation of Motor Vehicles

WPIC CHAPTER 99. Ignition Interlock

WPIC 99.02 Operating a Motor Vehicle Without a Functioning Ignition Interlock Device—Elements

To convict the defendant of the crime of operating a motor vehicle without a functioning ignition interlock device, [as charged in Count ,] each of the following elements of the crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt:

(1) That on or about (date), the defendant operated a motor vehicle;

(2) That at the time of operating a motor vehicle, there was a notation on the defendant's driving record that required a vehicle operated by the defendant to be equipped with a functioning ignition interlock device;

(3) That the motor vehicle was not equipped with a functioning ignition interlock device; and

(4) That this act occurred in the [State of Washington] [City of ] [County of ].

If you find from the evidence that each of these elements has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, then it will be your duty to return a verdict of guilty.

On the other hand, if after weighing all the evidence you have a reasonable doubt as to any one of these elements, then it will be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty.

NOTE ON USE

Use this instruction when a defendant is charged with operating a vehicle without a functioning ignition interlock device under RCW 46.20.740.

In element (4), choose from among the bracketed phrases depending on whether the case is being heard in superior, municipal, or district court. See WPIC 4.20 (Introduction) and WPIC 190.10 (Special Verdict Form—Jurisdiction).

COMMENT

RCW 46.20.740. This instruction has been revised for this edition to more closely conform to the statute. The word “driving” in subsection (2) of the instruction has been changed to “operating a motor vehicle.” No substantive change is intended.

In cases where the defendant has a device installed in the vehicle that he or she is operating and the question for the jury is whether that device is or is not a “functioning ignition interlock device,” the practitioner might also want to consider further instructing the jury on the definition of “ignition interlock device” in RCW 46.04.215 (“Ignition interlock device means breath alcohol analyzing equipment or other biological or technical device certified in conformance with RCW 43.43.395 and rules adopted by the state patrol and designed to prevent a motor vehicle from being operated by a person who has consumed an alcoholic beverage.”) However, in those cases where the facts show that no device was installed in the vehicle, the WPI Committee does not deem it necessary to further define “ignition interlock device” for the jury.

Effective September 26, 2015, the Legislature identified an exception to this crime. If the driving record has a notation on it requiring an ignition interlock device, it is not a crime when the notation resulted from a restriction imposed as a condition of release and the restriction has been released by the court prior to driving. RCW 46.20.740(2).

[Current as of March 2020.]

End of Document