Advertisement

What Idaho Requires for CO Detectors: Permits, Placement, Penalties

Last verified: February 18, 2026

Idaho carbon monoxide detector laws for residential settings are mainly tied to Idaho Administrative Code IDAPA 24.39.70, including language that references IRC M1203.1 in permit-driven scenarios. In practical terms, the clearest statewide trigger appears when covered fuel-burning conditions exist and work requiring permits moves a dwelling into active code review.

Idaho also includes a civil-penalty pathway up to $1,000 per offense under the same rule chapter, so noncompliance is not only a technical issue but also an enforcement risk. Owners and contractors should document trigger conditions, placement near sleeping areas, and final inspection results in the project file.

Because Idaho's rental statutes are less explicit on broad CO allocation than smoke-detector language, operators should combine code compliance records with local enforcement guidance and lease-level maintenance procedures.

Quick Safety Summary

CO detector requirements for Idaho
Applies to homes? Yes
Applies to rentals? No
Applies to hotels/STRs? Not confirmed — check local codes

When Are CO Alarms Required?

  • Buildings with fuel-burning appliances
  • When building permits are required
  • Existing dwellings enter the clearest statewide CO alarm pathway when permit-triggered work applies under IDAPA 24.39.70 and related IRC M1203.1 language.

Where to Install CO Alarms

  • Outside each separate sleeping area in the immediate vicinity of bedrooms (IRC M1203.1 path used in IDAPA 24.39.70 context).

For detailed placement guidance beyond legal requirements, see where to place carbon monoxide detectors.

Device Requirements

  • Approved carbon monoxide alarm consistent with the adopted code pathway.

Landlord and Tenant Responsibilities

  • IDAPA 24.39.70 addresses code compliance and inspections; the cited Idaho sources do not establish a full statewide landlord-tenant CO duty matrix.

Enforcement

Enforced by: Idaho Division of Occupational and Professional Licenses and local inspection authorities through permit and code-enforcement workflow.

Enforcement typically occurs:

  • During permit review and field inspections under IDAPA 24.39.70.
  • During enforcement actions where code violations are identified.

Penalties for Non-Compliance

Civil penalties may reach up to $1,000 per separate count or offense for violations under IDAPA 24.39.70.300.

IDAPA 24.39.70.300.

Additional Notes

  • The cited Idaho sources reflect permit- and code-pathway enforcement rather than one universal Idaho statute requiring alarms in every residential scenario.
  • Local jurisdictions may add practical requirements through adoption and enforcement decisions.

Official Sources & References

Disclaimer: This information is provided for general guidance and is not legal advice. Requirements may vary by city, county, and building type. Always verify current rules with local authorities and official sources.

Frequently Asked Questions

When does Idaho law clearly require carbon monoxide alarms in homes?
Idaho's clearest statewide trigger appears in IDAPA 24.39.70 when covered permit-based work and fuel-burning conditions bring a dwelling into code review under the IRC M1203.1 pathway. That means many obligations are enforced during project activity rather than only at routine occupancy. Owners should treat permit intake, inspection scheduling, and final signoff as compliance control points. Maintaining installation records and inspection notes is important if compliance is later challenged. In Idaho, include IDAPA 24.39.70 references in permit submittals and inspection records.
Are Idaho CO alarm obligations universal for all existing residences?
Not in one simple statewide sentence. Idaho sources point most clearly to permit-triggered pathways and fuel-related risk conditions under IDAPA 24.39.70, so obligations can depend on project status and local enforcement practice. Existing homes without active permit pathways may still face local expectations, but operators should verify that directly with the authority having jurisdiction. This avoids over- or under-compliance caused by assumptions from another city or county. Idaho DOPL and local inspector comments should be documented before exemption decisions are finalized.
How is Idaho CO detector enforcement handled when penalty language is limited?
IDAPA 24.39.70.300 allows civil penalties up to $1,000 per separate offense, which creates a meaningful enforcement risk when violations are documented. In addition to direct penalties, unresolved detector issues can delay permit closeout and increase post-incident liability. Contractors and owners should correct deficiencies quickly and preserve dated proof of remediation. In compliance communications, cite the specific IDAPA section and inspection record so actions are defensible. Idaho authorities can escalate findings when repeated noncompliance appears in inspection history.
In Idaho, what evidence is needed before marking an all-electric home exempt?
Not automatically. While fuel-burning conditions are central to many code triggers, all-electric labeling alone is not a complete legal analysis in multifamily or mixed-use settings. Attached spaces, neighboring combustion sources, or local code interpretation can still influence expectations. Idaho operators should confirm actual conditions and local enforcement guidance before deciding a unit is outside alarm obligations, and document that decision in writing. In Idaho, cite IDAPA 24.39.70 and local AHJ comments when granting any exemption.
How should Idaho landlords handle CO compliance when statutes focus on smoke detectors?
Idaho Statutes Sec. 6-320 gives explicit smoke-detector duties, but statewide CO allocation is less direct in the cited statute language. Landlords should therefore combine lease terms, maintenance workflows, and local code-enforcement requirements under IDAPA pathways instead of relying on one statute line. A practical approach is move-in verification, repair ticket logs, and written tenant reporting procedures. This creates stronger evidence if disputes or inspections occur. Idaho landlords should reference Sec. 6-320 and IDAPA 24.39.70 in written policies and vendor instructions.
How do Idaho requirements compare with Montana approaches?
Idaho compliance is heavily tied to permit and code-enforcement pathways in IDAPA 24.39.70, while Montana operators often face a different mix of code adoption and local implementation details. Regional teams should avoid one shared checklist and map each state triggers, occupancy scope, and enforcement channels separately. For nearby-state benchmarking before finalizing Mountain West SOPs, review Montana CO detector laws. Idaho teams should preserve IDAPA citations when comparing Montana procedures.

Practical CO Detector Guides

Beyond legal requirements, these guides help you choose, install, and maintain CO alarms:

Advertisement