Lending a Car to an Interlock Driver Becomes a Felony in Arizona

Last updated August 13, 2026 · Reviewed by James E. Novak

Arizona is about to attach felony exposure to a person who lends a car rather than to the person who drives it. House Bill 2800, signed on June 22, 2026 and effective September 12, 2026, rewrites the penalty provision in A.R.S. § 28-1464 so that knowingly lending a vehicle to a driver under an ignition interlock restriction becomes a class 6 felony when that driver causes a serious crash. The amended language is published by the Legislature as Chapter 259 of the 2026 session laws, and it will not appear on the statute page until it takes effect.

Everything else in the section stays a class 1 misdemeanor, which is where it has been for years. James E. Novak has defended Arizona DUI charges across Maricopa County for more than 20 years, and it is unusual for a DUI provision to reach a person who was never in the vehicle. The people most exposed by this change are spouses, parents, roommates, and small employers who hand over keys without thinking of it as a legal act at all.

What Section 28-1464 Already Prohibits

The prohibition itself is not new. Subsection (A) has long provided that, except in cases of a substantial emergency, a person shall not knowingly rent, lease, or lend a motor vehicle to someone whose driving privilege is limited under A.R.S. § 28-1381, § 28-1382, § 28-1383, or § 28-3319, unless that vehicle carries a functioning certified ignition interlock device.

Those four statutes cover most of the ways an Arizona driver ends up on an interlock, from a first DUI through aggravated DUI. The section also bars blowing into someone else’s device to start their car, bars the restricted driver from asking anyone to do it, and bars tampering with or circumventing a device. Under the current version of subsection (K), every one of those violations is a class 1 misdemeanor.

House Bill 2800 also tightens subsection (A)’s knowledge requirement. The amended text asks whether the lender acted while knowing the person receiving the vehicle has a limited driving privilege, fixing the element to the borrower’s status rather than to the act of handing over keys.

The New Felony, and What Triggers It

The amendment adds an exception to the class 1 misdemeanor rule. A person who knowingly lends a motor vehicle in violation of subsection (A), and during the time the other person operates that vehicle the other person is involved in a collision resulting in death or serious physical injury, is guilty of a class 6 felony.

Three features of that sentence decide who it reaches. It applies only to lending under subsection (A), so the tampering and blow-for-me provisions stay misdemeanors. It requires the collision to happen during the period the borrower is operating the vehicle. And it turns on a defined injury threshold rather than on any crash at all.

Serious physical injury is defined in A.R.S. § 13-105 as physical injury that creates a reasonable risk of death, or that causes serious and permanent disfigurement, serious impairment of health, or loss or protracted impairment of the function of any bodily organ or limb. An ordinary fender bender does not meet that standard. A crash that breaks a limb in a way that does not heal fully may.

Note what the provision does not require. The borrower need not be impaired at the time of the collision, and need not be convicted of anything. The felony attaches to the lender based on the lending and the outcome. The decision that creates the exposure therefore gets made before anyone starts the engine, at a moment when nothing about it looks like a criminal matter. I field interlock questions from both sides of this provision, the driver living under the restriction and the family member who owns the car, and those two positions are not always aligned.

What Counts as a Substantial Emergency

A substantial emergency is the one exception written into subsection (A), and the statute defines it narrowly. Under subsection (L), a substantial emergency means that a person other than the restricted driver is not reasonably available to drive in response to an emergency.

That definition requires both an actual emergency and the absence of anyone else who could reasonably have driven. Another licensed driver in the house, or an available rideshare, is unlikely to fit. The exception covers the genuine case where the restricted driver is the only person who can respond.

The Duty That Runs the Other Way

Subsection (B) places an obligation on the restricted driver rather than the lender. A person whose driving privilege is limited under those statutes and who rents, leases, or borrows a vehicle must tell the person providing it that specific requirements apply to how the vehicle may be operated, and what those requirements are.

That duty is easy to overlook and it carries the same class 1 misdemeanor penalty. A conviction under subsection (B) also lets the department extend the interlock requirement for not more than one year, a consequence separate from the criminal case that reaches subsections (C), (E), and (G) the same way. A driver who quietly borrows a car and says nothing risks adding a year to the very requirement they were trying to work around.

Common Questions About Arizona’s Interlock Lending Rules

Does This Apply If I Did Not Know About the Restriction?

Subsection (A) reaches only a person who acts knowingly, and the amendment effective September 12, 2026 ties that knowledge specifically to the borrower’s limited driving privilege. A lender who genuinely did not know the driver was on an interlock is outside the prohibition, though what a person knew is a question of proof rather than a matter of simply saying so.

What If the Driver Never Told Me About the Requirement?

Subsection (B) makes that a separate offense by the driver, who is required to disclose the restriction to whoever lends the vehicle. That failure is itself a class 1 misdemeanor and can extend the driver’s interlock period by up to one year. It does not automatically resolve the lender’s position, because subsection (A) turns on what the lender actually knew from any source.

Is the Lender Charged With a Felony If Nobody Is Hurt?

No. The class 6 felony in the amended subsection (K) requires a collision resulting in death or serious physical injury as defined in A.R.S. § 13-105. Without a collision meeting that threshold, a violation of subsection (A) remains a class 1 misdemeanor, which is still a criminal charge rather than a traffic citation.

Defending Interlock and Lending Charges in Maricopa County

This change takes effect September 12, 2026 and creates criminal exposure for people who have never been arrested. The Law Office of James E. Novak defends DUI and interlock-related charges in the Tempe, Mesa, Chandler, and Phoenix courts, and I offer a free initial consultation, available 24 hours a day. Call (480) 413-1499 or use the Tempe DUI defense contact page to reach my office.