Can North Carolina's Ignition Interlock Requirement Be Waived?
Start a free AI-assisted chat and connect with an experienced North Carolina attorney, with no obligation.
Reviewed & verified by A. Jason Velez, Esq.*
Founding Attorney, 1LAW · Last reviewed January 1, 2026
Legal Inquiry
Consumer Legal Issue
I'm getting my license restored but want to know if I could get the IID dismissed.
I received a dui in 2012. I got my license back in 2014. I failed to complete my dui assessment so therefore my license were suspended for years without my knowledge. I have now completed the required requirements to restore my license and getting an IID installed is one of the requirements. Is there a way that that requirement can be dismissed?
Attorney Answer
Almost certainly not — and no judge has the power to do it for you.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-17.8 is the statute. It applies to a person whose license was revoked for impaired driving under § 20-138.1 where (1) the person had an alcohol concentration of 0.15 or more, (2) the person has another impaired-driving conviction for an offense occurring within the seven years immediately preceding the offense for which the license was revoked, or (3) the person was sentenced under § 20-179(f3). Subsection (a1) adds habitual impaired driving and certain § 20-141.4 convictions. Subsection (b) then provides that, "except as provided in subsection (l)," when the Division restores such a person's license it shall require the interlock restrictions for the period set in subsection (c).
That quoted exception is the only door, and it is narrow. Subsection (l) is a medical exception, decided by the Division and not by a court. It is available only to a person subject to the section solely under (a)(1), it requires examination by two or more licensed physicians on a certificate the Division prescribes, the burden of proof is on the person seeking it, and a denial may be reviewed by a reviewing board under § 20-9(g)(4). It is about a diagnosed physical condition that makes you incapable of personally activating the device — not cost, not inconvenience, and not the age of the case.
A case that says no to the courtroom route. In State v. Benbow, 169 N.C. App. 613, 610 S.E.2d 297 (2005), a district court ordered a driver exempted from the interlock requirement and directed DMV to reinstate her license without the device. The Court of Appeals reversed. It held the interlock requirement on restoration is mandatory, that DMV's decision is therefore not discretionary, that no right of review lies under § 20-25 where the license action is mandatory, and that the district court accordingly had no jurisdiction to grant the exemption. This cuts against you: asking a judge is not a route. (Benbow was decided under an earlier version of the statute that contained no exception at all; the medical exception in subsection (l) came later.)
What you can do
1. Ask DMV, in writing, which subsection of § 20-17.8 you are subject to — (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), or (a1). Your 2012 case may or may not fit any of them, and the years of suspension for the missed assessment are a separate matter. If none applies, that is worth resolving before you install anything. 2. If — and only if — (a)(1) is the sole basis and you have a diagnosed physical condition that prevents you from blowing into the device, ask the Division for the subsection (l) certificate form and arrange examinations by two licensed physicians. 3. Do not ask a judge, or write to the court, to waive it. Benbow is the answer to that request. 4. Get the interlock period from subsection (c) in writing so you know exactly how long the restriction runs. 5. If the Division denies a subsection (l) request, ask on the day you get the denial what the deadline is to seek review by a reviewing board under § 20-9(g)(4), and put the request in writing.
Cases Cited
Published decisions relevant to this issue, provided as legal background rather than advice about any particular case.
- State v. Benbow, 169 N.C. App. 613, 610 S.E.2d 297 (2005) — Court of Appeals of North Carolina
Applying the then-current version of § 20-17.8, the Court of Appeals reversed a district court order that had exempted a driver from the ignition interlock requirement and directed DMV to reinstate her license without the device. The court held that the interlock requirement on restoration is mandatory, that DMV's decision was therefore not discretionary, that there is no right of review under § 20-25 where the license action is mandatory, and that the district court accordingly lacked jurisdiction to grant the exemption (and in any event DMV had not been given the statutorily required notice). A court cannot simply waive the requirement or order the Division to issue an unrestricted license.
*Attorney review is supported by AI-assisted drafting and legal research algorithms. Use of this Chat does not create an attorney-client relationship.
By using this service you agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.
Courts & Legal Aid in North Carolina
- File or look up a case through the North Carolina Judicial Branch.
- Get free civil legal help from Legal Aid of North Carolina.
- Use the LSC — Find Legal Aid to find a local legal-aid office by ZIP code.
- Use the LawHelp.org to browse free legal information and self-help resources.
- Use the ABA Lawyer Referral Directory to get matched with a local attorney through your state bar.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I ask the judge who handled my 2012 case to lift the interlock?
No. In *State v. Benbow* the Court of Appeals reversed a district judge who did exactly that, holding that the requirement is mandatory and that the court lacked jurisdiction to exempt the driver. The decision belongs to the Division, not a court.
Do the years my license sat suspended count toward the interlock period?
No. Section 20-17.8(c) sets the interlock period, and it runs from restoration — so the time your license was suspended for the incomplete assessment does not reduce it. Installing the device is what starts the clock.
Is there an exception if I cannot afford the device?
Not in the statute. The only exception in § 20-17.8 is subsection (l), which is medical, is limited to people subject to the section solely under (a)(1), and requires certification by two or more licensed physicians on a Division form.