--- title: "An IID requirement can seem fair and still raise questions about cost" description: "In a survey of 100 California respondents, 52% considered an IID requirement fair and supported help with installation costs. What can those answers tell us?" url: "https://www.thehfirm.com/blog/iid-survey-fairness-affordability" site: "H Law Group" published: "2026-10-08T16:40:00.000Z" --- # An IID requirement can seem fair and still raise questions about cost In a survey of 100 California respondents, 52% considered an IID requirement fair and supported help with installation costs. What can those answers tell us? Category: DUI Author: Nima Haddadi -- One of top-rated California DUI and criminal defense lawyer I keep coming back to one number in The H Firm's ignition interlock device survey: 52%. They considered an IID requirement after a DUI conviction fair. They also supported financial help with installation for people on low incomes. The same 52 people wanted accountability and help paying for it. I don't find that contradictory. A person can agree with a requirement and still think the cost needs attention. Our [California ignition interlock device survey](https://www.thehfirm.com/research/california-ignition-interlock-device-survey) covers 100 respondents whom the survey file lists as California residents. They answered on September 28, 2026. Each person's answers carry equal weight. This is a small, exploratory survey, so I wouldn't use it to speak for all Californians. How much did support for the requirement overlap with support for help paying for it? ## What the 52% tells us On fairness, 74% chose "Yes, it promotes accountability" when asked about requiring an IID after a DUI conviction. Another 7% chose "No, it's an unnecessary burden," and 19% were unsure. On financial assistance, 60% supported help with installation costs for low-income individuals. Fifteen percent said no, and 25% were not sure. We matched each person's answers to those two questions. Fifty-two people answered yes to both. That gives us something more specific than two separate percentages: we know these views coexisted for those respondents. For me, it raises a practical question. If someone agrees that a requirement is fair, how do they think a person with little money should pay for it? We didn't ask how much assistance respondents would support, who should pay for it, or whether help should cover ongoing expenses. We can't turn their answers about installation into support for a particular subsidy program. Even with those limits, I'd want cost on the table when discussing the requirement. ## Two-thirds preferred the IID option Given a choice between an IID requirement and a longer license suspension, 67% chose the IID. Seventeen percent preferred suspension, and 16% were unsure. The preference is clear in this sample. We don't know what drove it. Was it getting to work? Taking care of family? Those would be useful questions to ask next time. This survey didn't ask people why they chose one option over the other, so I can't supply their reasons for them. The question also left out the duration and cost of each option. I'd want to ask it again with those details spelled out. Someone's preference might change depending on how long the requirement lasts or what it costs. ## Start by explaining the term Before the survey, 58% said they had never heard of an ignition interlock device. The other 42% said they had. When asked what they believed an IID does, 59% selected "Prevents the car from starting if alcohol is detected." That question allowed more than one selection. Recognizing a description is different from saying you've heard of a device before. We also don't have the original introductory material or any explanation respondents may have seen. These answers can't tell us whether the survey taught anyone something or changed their mind. I wouldn't assume someone understands a requirement because they've heard the acronym. I'd start with what it involves and leave time for questions, including what they would have to pay. ## What about the people who weren't sure? The unsure answers are worth reading alongside the yes and no responses: - 25% were unsure about financial assistance for installation. - 20% were unsure whether IIDs reduce repeat DUI offenses. - 19% were unsure whether an IID requirement after a DUI conviction is fair. Some people may have been unsure on more than one question, so these percentages don't add up to a separate group. And "unsure" doesn't mean "opposed." Sixty-four percent believed IIDs reduce repeat offenses. That's their assessment of effectiveness. The survey didn't track anyone's driving or repeat offenses, so it can't establish whether devices work. I'd like to ask the uncertain respondents what they need to know. Would details about cost or duration help? Do they have questions about how the device operates, or want evidence about outcomes? We haven't asked those follow-up questions yet. ## What I'd ask next I'd want the next survey to give respondents more detail about the requirement and its costs, then ask them to explain their answers. That would help us understand both the support and the uncertainty we're seeing here. We do know that 52 of these 100 respondents considered the requirement fair and supported installation assistance. That gives us a reason to ask more about how they think assistance should work. The [full survey report](https://www.thehfirm.com/research/california-ignition-interlock-device-survey) has all six questions, charts, and downloadable aggregate results. It also explains the limits of the data and what we don't know about how the survey was conducted. If you're dealing with a DUI case and have questions about your circumstances, you can [contact The H Firm](https://www.thehfirm.com/contact-us). We'll need to discuss the facts of your case to give you advice specific to it. ## About Nima Haddadi Nima Haddadi is a leading California DUI and criminal defense attorney with deep expertise in handling complex cases. Known for strategic defense and courtroom strength, he is a trusted choice for clients facing DUI, felony, and misdemeanor charges. --- ## Contact H Law Group - Phone: (888) 499-4948 (phones answered 24/7) - Email: info@thehlawgroup.com - Free consultation: https://www.thehfirm.com/free-consultation - Contact form: https://www.thehfirm.com/contact-us ### Offices - Los Angeles Branch: 714 W Olympic Blvd Ste, 803, Los Angeles, CA 90015 -- (213) 985-4431 - San Diego Branch: 600 W Broadway, Suite 700, San Diego, CA 92101 -- (619) 716-0968 - San Jose Branch: 333 W San Carlos St, San Jose, CA 95110 -- (408) 869-6572 - Orange County Branch: 2030 Main St, # 1300, Irvine, CA 92614 -- (949) 832-8057 - Riverside County Branch: 41593 Winchester Rd, Suite 200, Temecula, CA 92590 -- (951) 418-3576 - Santa Barbara Branch: 1117 State St, Santa Barbara, CA 93101 -- (888) 499-4948 ### Disclaimer This website provides general legal information only and does not create an attorney-client relationship. For legal advice about your specific situation, contact H Law Group directly.