This bill creates a new civil impaired driving protection order within chapter 7.105 RCW, adds multiple new sections (including provisions numbered as new Secs. 9–12, 14–17, and others), and amends and reenacts existing protection order and related statutes. It gives superior courts primary jurisdiction over impaired driving protection order proceedings, allows district courts limited authority to issue or extend temporary ex parte impaired driving orders while full hearings are transferred to superior court, and specifies who may file petitions (intimate partners, family or household members, law enforcement, prosecuting attorneys, and certain interested persons). Petitions for impaired driving protection orders must allege the respondent poses a significant danger by driving or having physical control of a vehicle while under the influence, list any known history, and identify vehicles. The bill establishes procedures and timelines for ex parte temporary orders and requires full hearings within specified timeframes (generally 14 days unless extended for good cause); full orders may be for a fixed period (not less than one year unless requested shorter) or permanent (expire 99 years). The bill creates new procedural, administrative, and evidentiary rules: it directs the Administrative Office of the Courts to prepare standardized petition and order forms, instructions, brochures, and a court staff handbook (including translations into the top five non-English languages and consultation with advocacy groups), requires confidential party information forms, and mandates that clerks enter impaired driving protection orders into a statewide judicial information system promptly and forward orders to law enforcement, which must enter them into criminal intelligence systems for statewide enforcement. Courts may consider specified corroborated evidence and criminal history when deciding impaired driving orders, must state written reasons if declining relief, and must file rulings on mandatory forms. The bill also requires training for peace officers on impaired driving protection orders, establishes a 24/7 sobriety program administered with the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (including minimum sanction levels and custody authority for probable-cause violations), and updates filing, access, and fee rules for protection order petitions (including fee waivers, multiple filing methods, and protections for confidential petitioner addresses). Provisions addressing minors, Indian child determinations, and consolidation of orders into family-law actions are included. The bill changes penalties, ignition interlock rules, renewal, and modification procedures. It creates new criminal penalties specific to the impaired driving protection order process: knowingly filing a materially false or harassing impaired driving petition is a gross misdemeanor; knowingly driving while out of compliance with an impaired driving protection order is a gross misdemeanor (with sentencing courts to consider extending order provisions); two or more prior convictions for violating an impaired driving protection order may be a class C felony. Courts may impose relief tailored to impaired driving risk, including ignition interlock device installation with a default alcohol set point of 0.020 unless the court specifies otherwise, alcohol monitoring technologies, 24/7 sobriety monitoring, evaluations and treatment, restrictions on alcohol consumption and access to certain places, and related monitoring and reporting obligations. The bill sets ignition interlock duration minimums for various repeat-offense or statutory scenarios, tolling rules, removal requirements that generally require a 180-consecutive-day incident-free vendor declaration and inspection showing no tampering, employer exemptions, a monthly $21 device fee (with a small administrative retention allowed and indigence waivers), and Department of Licensing notification duties. It also establishes renewal and modification procedures for impaired driving orders: mandatory notice to petitioners before expiration, one-year renewal periods, respondent annual requests to modify or terminate (one per 12‑month period) with a preponderance-of-evidence burden to show substantial change, and evidence the court may consider (including ignition interlock and monitoring vendor declarations and treatment/compliance records). Some important bill provisions and definitions cited in cross-references are not included in the extracted facts provided here. In particular, the text and evidentiary specifics referenced as "section 5 of this act," certain statutory definitions and full amendment texts for multiple RCW sections, and the bill's effective and expiration dates are not present in the extracted material, so those details are uncertain from the excerpts supplied.

If enacted, the bill creates a new civil "impaired driving protection order" that can be obtained quickly in many courts and, after a short hearing schedule, can require people to use ignition interlock devices, submit to alcohol monitoring or 24/7 sobriety programs, attend treatment or recovery support, and be restricted from bars or driving without an interlock. Courts and clerks will have new duties to process these petitions fast (ex parte temporary orders, full hearings generally within 14 days), enter orders into statewide judicial and law-enforcement systems immediately, and notify the Department of Licensing so driving records reflect interlock restrictions. Law enforcement will get mandated training on these orders, local jails and the new 24/7 sobriety program will absorb custodial sanctions for violations, and ignition interlock vendors must file removal declarations and collect a $21/month fee remitted largely to the state account (with indigency waivers available); violations of these orders and knowingly false petitions are criminalized. The people and agencies most affected are court clerks and judges (more filings, fast data entry, new forms and translation duties for the Administrative Office of the Courts), law enforcement (training and cross-jurisdictional enforcement responsibilities), the Department of Licensing and ignition interlock vendors (record updates, vendor declarations, monthly fee handling), local governments and jails (24/7 program administration and minimum sanction enforcement), and petitioners/respondents who may face costs for interlocks, monitoring, evaluations, or treatment though courts must consider ability to pay and minors are presumed unable to pay. Key implementation details needed to estimate budgets and exact procedures are not in the extracted text (for example the evidence standards referenced in section 5, some cross-referenced provisions, and the bill’s effective and expiration dates).