I have a JP who has placed a condition on bonds of installing an ignition interlock device. My question is can she do this? (I would love it if she can enforce these conditions.)

The issue is whether it is a condition "reasonable" and "related to the safety of the community" see 17.40 CCP. Umm sounds like preventing death on highways is good for the community. Is it reasonable? Heck it is mandatory for certain Chapter 49 offenses and all subsequent DWI's. see 17.441, CCP In otherwords, the leg found it is unreasonable NOT to impose ignition interlock. I can't see any legitimate objection to discressionay application of the mandetory term for first time offenders.

Might be a little overboard for hot check writers, but not DWI.

17.441 also has nice language that includes a term that the defendant not drive a vehicle without interlock.

Thanks Clay

Have not seen anything on this subject for some time. We have (nearly) all our magistrates imposing the interlock condition, but we are having some issues with a judge that will not give serious consideration to our motions to compel proof of compliance with the condition. Anybody else moving to compel proof of compliance with that condition? Any resistance from the court?