---
title: "California Vehicle Code 23247: Ignition Interlock Device Violations"
description: "What California Vehicle Code 23247 actually punishes, how a conviction affects your interlock requirement, real defenses, and what to do next."
url: "https://www.thehfirm.com/penal-codes/vc-23247-ignition-interlock-device-violations"
site: "H Law Group"
---

# California Vehicle Code 23247: Ignition Interlock Device Violations

What California Vehicle Code 23247 actually punishes, how a conviction affects your interlock requirement, real defenses, and what to do next.

Topics: Ignition Interlock Device, VC 23247, California DUI Law, IID Violation, License Suspension, Los Angeles Criminal Defense

## What a VC 23247 charge actually mean

If you were ordered to drive with an ignition interlock device and you get charged under [Vehicle Code 23247](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&sectionNum=23247), it's not a DUI charge. It's a separate misdemeanor built entirely around the device itself: whether you tampered with it, drove a car that didn't have one when you were supposed to, or got someone else to blow into it so you could start the engine.

Most often, this charge starts with the device's own data log flagging something that looks like circumvention, or with a probation officer or the DMV noticing a vehicle that was never fitted with an interlock at all. It also comes up when someone reports that a friend or family member blew into the device on the restricted driver's behalf. That last scenario is a specific and separately punishable act under this statute, not just a technical violation of probation.

Because this charge sits on top of whatever got someone the restriction in the first place, usually a DUI, it carries its own jail exposure, its own fine, and its own effect on the driving privilege. A conviction can also convert a limited, interlock-restricted license into a flat suspension or revocation, which is often the part people are least prepared for.

## What VC 23247 actually covers

The statute has six substantive subsections, each aimed at a different piece of interlock-related conduct. All of them apply to a person whose driving privilege has been restricted under one of several code sections, most commonly Vehicle Code 13352, the license suspension or revocation statute tied to a DUI conviction, or Vehicle Code 23575 or 23700.

- Subdivision (a): renting, leasing, or lending a vehicle to someone known to have a restricted license, unless that vehicle already has a functioning, certified interlock device installed. The restricted driver also has a duty to disclose the restriction to whoever is renting or lending them a car.
- Subdivision (b): asking or soliciting someone else to blow into an interlock device, or to start a device-equipped vehicle, so the restricted driver ends up with a car they can drive.
- Subdivision (c): the flip side of (b). Actually blowing into the device or starting the vehicle for someone whose license is restricted, so they get an operable car, is its own violation. Friends and family members who think they're doing someone a favor can be charged under this subdivision.
- Subdivision (d): removing, bypassing, or tampering with an interlock device. This is the broadest subdivision and the one prosecutors reach for when the device's own data shows an attempted circumvention, a disconnected wire, or a filter used to trick the sensor.
- Subdivision (e): operating any vehicle that isn't equipped with a functioning, certified interlock device at all, when the license is restricted. This is the most common version of the charge, and it doesn't require proof of tampering. Driving the wrong car is enough.

Subdivision (f) sets out the penalty, and subdivision (g) sets out what happens to the driving privilege on top of the criminal penalty.

Two more provisions round out the statute. Subdivision (h) lets a certified interlock manufacturer or installer remove the device from a vehicle that's been impounded, during normal business hours, without paying for the privilege or taking on liability for towing and storage costs, as long as they document why the device is coming out. The current version of the law took effect January 1, 2019, and by its own terms is set to sunset January 1, 2033, at which point a slightly narrower successor version already written into the code takes over. The core prohibitions and the penalty don't change between the two versions.

## Penalties for a VC 23247 conviction

- Up to six months in county jail.
- A fine of up to $5,000.
- The court can impose both the jail time and the fine together; it isn't limited to one or the other.
- This is a standalone misdemeanor. It's charged, sentenced, and shows up on the record separately from whatever DUI or prior offense triggered the interlock restriction in the first place.

Beyond the fine set in the statute, California adds penalty assessments and court fees on top of misdemeanor fines generally, so the amount actually owed at sentencing is usually higher than the base number, though the exact multiplier depends on the county and the specific assessments the court applies. A conviction under subdivision (e) also triggers an additional license consequence through the DMV, separate from the jail and fine, covered next.

## How a 23247 conviction affects the interlock requirement

This is where a 23247 charge stops being just another misdemeanor and starts reshaping the rest of a DUI case. The statute treats two categories of restricted drivers differently, depending on where the restriction came from.

If the restriction comes from a DMV administrative action tied to a license suspension or revocation following a DUI conviction, or an administrative per se suspension after a chemical test failure or refusal, a conviction under subdivision (e) does something specific: the court notifies the DMV, and the DMV terminates the interlock-restricted license. Rather than just losing the restricted license, the driver goes back to a full suspension or revocation for whatever time was left on the original order, and stays suspended until every reinstatement requirement is satisfied all over again. In practice, that can mean a restricted license someone was relying on to get to work simply disappears.

If instead the restriction comes from a court-ordered probation condition, the more common path for someone ordered into the interlock program as part of DUI sentencing, a subdivision (e) conviction triggers a flat one-year suspension of the driving privilege, counted from the date of the new conviction. That's a separate suspension stacked on top of whatever the underlying DUI case already required.

There's also broader context worth knowing if the restriction came out of a DUI conviction in the last few years. The [California DMV](https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/driver-education-and-safety/dmv-safety-guidelines-actions/driving-under-the-influence/statewide-ignition-interlock-device-pilot-program/) has been running a statewide interlock program since January 1, 2019, under which courts order interlock installation for a period tied to prior record: roughly one year for a first qualifying offense, two years for a second, and three years for a third or more, with longer periods for cases involving injury or a felony conviction. A 23247 conviction doesn't just extend that clock in some vague sense. It can wipe out progress on it entirely and reset to a full suspension, or add a flat year, depending on which category applies. Confirm the exact math for a specific timeline with an attorney, since it depends on which restriction section applies and how much time had already been served.

## Common defenses to a VC 23247 charge

A charge under this statute isn't automatic just because a device flagged an event or a probation officer noticed the wrong car in a driveway. Several defenses come up regularly, and which one fits depends heavily on which subdivision applies.

The device may have malfunctioned or been improperly calibrated. Interlock devices are required to be serviced roughly every 60 days so the installer can recalibrate them, and they're mechanically imperfect. Mouthwash, certain foods, medical conditions, and simple calibration drift can all produce a false positive that looks like an attempted bypass in the device's data log. If maintenance records show missed service intervals or a documented malfunction, that data can undercut a tampering charge under subdivision (d) built entirely on the device's own readings.

There may have been no knowledge that the restriction applied, or that the vehicle lacked a working device. Subdivisions (a) through (c) all require knowledge or intent. Subdivision (e) is written more broadly, but courts still look at whether the person had actual notice of the restriction. If the order restricting the license was never properly served, or if there was a reasonable belief that a loaner or rental vehicle already had a certified device installed, that gap in knowledge is worth raising.

Mistaken identity or insufficient proof of who did what applies most directly to the blow-for-me subdivisions, (b) and (c), which require the prosecution to prove which person made the request and which person actually blew into the device or started the car. Interlock devices log timestamps and readings, not faces. Without independent evidence like a witness, an admission, or video, the state can struggle to prove which specific person was behind either side of that exchange.

Necessity can apply if a vehicle without a functioning device was driven because of a genuine emergency, a medical crisis, an evacuation order, something urgent and immediate. Courts read this defense narrowly, so it works best when the emergency is documented and the driving was limited to what the emergency actually required.

The vehicle or the restriction period may not actually have been covered. The restriction attaches to vehicles owned or operated by the restricted person, for a specific term set by the court or the DMV. If the vehicle in question falls outside that scope, if the restriction period had already legitimately expired, or if the underlying order was defective or miscalculated, the prosecution's basic premise can fall apart before the facts of the alleged violation even matter.

## How this relates to other charges

A VC 23247 case rarely stands alone. It usually connects back to the DUI conviction that created the restriction in the first place, charged under [Vehicle Code 23152 or 23153, DUI causing injury](/penal-codes/vehicle-code-23153-vc-dui-causing-injury). It can also overlap with [Vehicle Code 14601.2, which criminalizes driving on a license that's suspended or revoked because of a 23152 or 23153 conviction](/penal-codes/vc-14601-2-driving-on-a-dui-suspended-license), or driving in violation of a court-ordered restriction. That statute is often what triggers the interlock requirement under Vehicle Code 23575 in the first place. Section 23575 is the provision that spells out how long the court can order interlock installation, how it has to be monitored, and what the court has to advise a defendant about it, so it's worth knowing by name even though it isn't the statute someone would be charged under directly.

## Frequently asked questions

### Is a Vehicle Code 23247 charge the same as a DUI?

No. It's a separate misdemeanor about the interlock device itself, whether it was tampered with, driven without one, or had someone blow into it for someone else. Someone can be charged under this statute even without being accused of drinking or driving impaired on the day in question.

### Will a 23247 conviction add time to the interlock requirement?

It can, but not in a simple add-months way. Depending on which statute the original restriction came from, a conviction either resets the driver back to a full license suspension or revocation for the remaining original period, or adds a flat one-year suspension on top of the existing case. Which one applies depends on the specific code section behind the restriction, worth confirming directly with an attorney.

### Can someone get charged for letting a friend blow into their interlock device?

Yes, and it works both ways. The restricted driver who asks someone else to blow into the device is charged under one subdivision, and the person who actually blows into it or starts the car is charged under a separate one. Both are misdemeanors under the same statute.

### What if the device gave a false reading and locked the car out?

A false positive isn't automatically a crime. Devices can misfire due to calibration issues, certain foods or products, or simple mechanical wear, and maintenance records or service logs can show that. This is one of the more common defenses in tampering-related charges, but it depends on getting the device's data and service history into evidence.

### Does this charge affect eligibility for a restricted or hardship license later?

It can. Because a conviction under subdivision (e) can trigger a full suspension or revocation rather than leaving an interlock-restricted license in place, it may push back eligibility for any restricted license option until new reinstatement requirements are met. The exact effect depends on which restriction category applied beforehand.

## Where to go from here

A charge under Vehicle Code 23247 can feel like a technicality, a device that beeped at the wrong moment, or a car that wasn't the one someone was supposed to be driving. The court doesn't treat it that way, and a conviction can undo progress already made toward getting a full license back. The right response depends on which subdivision applies, what the device's own data actually shows, and which restriction statute governs the underlying case, details worth reviewing with a criminal defense attorney rather than guessing at from general information.

## Related California penal codes

- [VC 14601.2 - Driving on a DUI-Suspended License in CA](https://www.thehfirm.com/penal-codes/vc-14601-2-driving-on-a-dui-suspended-license)
- [California Vehicle Code 23152(a) - DUI of Alcohol: Laws, Penalties & Defenses](https://www.thehfirm.com/penal-codes/vehicle-code-23152-a-driving-under-the-influence)

---

## 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 Office: 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.