In Arizona, lending a vehicle to a driver with a DUI-related ignition interlock restriction can create criminal liability for the person who provides the vehicle. The risk becomes substantially more serious when the restricted driver operates an unequipped vehicle and is involved in a collision that causes death or serious physical injury.
Arizona Revised Statutes § 28-1464 prohibits knowingly renting, leasing, or lending a motor vehicle to a person with a qualifying limited or restricted driving privilege unless the vehicle has a functioning certified ignition interlock device, except in a substantial emergency. A 2026 change to the statute makes a qualifying lending violation a Class 6 felony when the restricted driver is involved in a collision resulting in death or serious physical injury.
This guide explains who the law applies to, when lending a vehicle can be a misdemeanor or felony, what the statute requires, potential defenses, and what to do if you are being investigated or charged.
An ignition interlock device (IID) is a certified device connected to a vehicle’s ignition system. It requires a breath sample before the vehicle can be started and can require additional samples during operation. Arizona law governs when certain drivers must use a certified ignition interlock device and imposes requirements on both restricted drivers and people who provide vehicles to them.
Arizona’s interlock laws apply to drivers whose driving privileges are limited or restricted under specified DUI-related statutes, including A.R.S. §§ 28-1381, 28-1382, 28-1383, 28-3319, or 28-1402. The exact restriction and duration depend on the driver’s offense, driving history, court orders, and applicable Department of Transportation requirements.
It is therefore inaccurate to say that every person convicted of any DUI must automatically have an interlock installed in every vehicle. The specific legal restriction controls which vehicles and driving privileges are affected.
A driver whose privilege is limited or restricted under the statutes identified in § 28-1464(B) must notify the person who rents, leases, or lends the vehicle that the driver has specific requirements for operating the vehicle and must explain the nature of those requirements.
The restricted driver also generally may not operate a vehicle without a functioning certified interlock during the applicable period, subject to the statute’s substantial-emergency exception.
A.R.S. § 28-1464(A) states that, except in a substantial emergency, a person may not knowingly rent, lease, or lend a motor vehicle to someone who has a qualifying limited or restricted driving privilege unless the vehicle is equipped with a functioning certified ignition interlock device.
The core questions are whether the provider knew of the person’s qualifying restriction, whether the vehicle lacked the required functioning certified device, whether the provider rented, leased, or lent the vehicle, and whether a statutory exception applies.
The statute uses the word ‘knowingly.’ The original draft overstated the rule by saying prosecutors can simply rely on a ‘reasonably should have known’ standard. Section 28-1464(A) itself does not use that phrase.
Evidence of knowledge can come from communications, admissions, documents, the restricted driver’s notification, or surrounding circumstances. The prosecution must still prove the required mental state under the applicable criminal law.
Section 28-1464 defines a substantial emergency as a situation in which a person other than the restricted driver is not reasonably available to drive in response to an emergency. Whether this exception applies depends on the facts.
The penalty structure changed in 2026. Under the current version of A.R.S. § 28-1464(K), a violation is generally a Class 1 misdemeanor. There is a specific felony exception for knowingly lending a vehicle in violation of subsection (A) when the restricted driver, while operating that vehicle, is involved in a collision resulting in death or serious physical injury as defined by Arizona law.
When the felony conditions are not met, a violation of § 28-1464 is generally classified as a Class 1 misdemeanor. The exact sentence depends on the offense, the defendant’s history, and the court. Potential consequences can include jail, probation, fines, and a criminal record.
The current felony rule is narrower than the original Janice draft suggested. A person does not become subject to a Class 6 felony merely because the restricted driver has a prior interlock violation or certain DUI convictions.
Instead, the felony provision applies when the person knowingly lends a motor vehicle in violation of subsection (A) and, during the time the other person operates the vehicle, that person is involved in a collision that results in death or serious physical injury.
Class 6 is Arizona’s lowest felony classification, but a felony conviction can still carry serious consequences. Sentencing depends on criminal history, applicable sentencing statutes, and case-specific circumstances.
If you know a family member has a qualifying interlock restriction and knowingly lend that person a vehicle without the required functioning certified device, that can violate § 28-1464 even if you are not in the vehicle.
The statute is not limited to cars titled in the restricted driver’s name. If you knowingly rent, lease, or lend a vehicle to a qualifying restricted driver, the ownership arrangement does not by itself eliminate the statutory restriction.
A business or other vehicle provider can face issues under § 28-1464 if it knowingly rents, leases, or lends an unequipped vehicle to a person with a qualifying restriction. Whether another statutory provision or exception applies depends on the circumstances.
If a person takes a vehicle without the owner’s or provider’s permission, that fact can be important because § 28-1464(A) addresses knowingly renting, leasing, or lending the vehicle. Preserve evidence concerning access and permission.
Section 28-1464 regulates more than lending an unequipped vehicle. It also addresses conduct by restricted drivers and other people involving ignition interlock devices.
A criminal case under § 28-1464 may turn on what the vehicle provider knew, what permission was given, whether the vehicle was equipped with a functioning certified device, and—if a felony is charged—what happened during the restricted driver’s operation of the vehicle.
If the evidence does not establish that you knowingly rented, leased, or lent the vehicle to a person with the qualifying restriction, lack of knowledge may be central to the defense.
If the vehicle was taken or used without your permission, the prosecution may have difficulty establishing the conduct described in subsection (A). The facts and available evidence matter.
If the vehicle was equipped with a functioning certified ignition interlock device as required, records from the provider and other documentation may be relevant.
The statute expressly recognizes a substantial-emergency exception. Whether it applies requires a fact-specific analysis of whether another person was reasonably available to drive in response to the emergency.
When a Class 6 felony is charged, the prosecution must satisfy the additional statutory requirements for the felony provision, including the required collision and resulting death or serious physical injury.
If law enforcement wants to question you about the vehicle, the restricted driver, or a collision, you can ask to speak with a lawyer before answering substantive questions. Do not make false statements or destroy evidence.
Keep texts, emails, documents, photographs, rental records, and other materials that may show what you knew and when. Do not delete or alter potentially relevant evidence.
A § 28-1464 case is a criminal matter. The defense strategy depends on the subsection charged, evidence of knowledge, the vehicle’s interlock status, and—if applicable—the facts surrounding a collision.
A criminal conviction can affect employment, housing, professional opportunities, licensing, and other areas of life. The consequences depend on whether the conviction is a misdemeanor or felony and on the person’s individual circumstances.
Non-citizens should obtain immigration-specific legal advice before entering a plea to a criminal charge. Immigration consequences depend on the precise offense, plea, sentence, and individual immigration history.
If you are being investigated or charged under Arizona’s ignition interlock law, the details matter. The difference between a misdemeanor allegation and a Class 6 felony can depend on the exact subsection charged and, for the felony provision, what happened during the restricted driver’s operation of the vehicle.
Big Chad Law handles criminal defense matters in Arizona. The firm can review the allegations, explain potential consequences, and evaluate defenses based on the evidence.
Learn more about Big Chad Law’s Arizona legal services or contact the firm for a consultation.
Potentially. A violation of A.R.S. § 28-1464 is generally a Class 1 misdemeanor, while a qualifying knowing lending violation can be a Class 6 felony if the restricted driver operates the vehicle and is involved in a collision resulting in death or serious physical injury.
No. The current felony provision is tied to a qualifying collision resulting in death or serious physical injury. A prior DUI or interlock violation by itself is not the felony trigger stated in § 28-1464(K).
Knowledge is an important element of subsection (A), which prohibits knowingly renting, leasing, or lending the vehicle. The evidence surrounding what you knew and what the driver told you can be important to the defense.
That can be significant because the statute addresses knowingly renting, leasing, or lending a vehicle. Preserve evidence showing how the person obtained the vehicle and whether you gave permission.
Section 28-1464 contains a substantial-emergency exception. The statute defines a substantial emergency as a situation in which another person is not reasonably available to drive in response to an emergency.
The statute applies to a person who knowingly rents, leases, or lends a motor vehicle. Ownership alone does not determine whether the statute applies.
If the vehicle had a functioning certified ignition interlock device as required by the statute, that fact can be highly relevant. Keep installation and certification records.
Avoid guessing or speculating about the facts, do not destroy or alter evidence, and ask to speak with a criminal defense attorney before making substantive statements about the case.