I am not a lawyer, but will offer my opinion.
Driving intoxicated is a crime. The criminal, when caught, tried and convicted (as you were), should be punished. There are various reasons for this punishment, including a deterrant to the criminals and others against doing the same thing.
Drive drunk, go to jail. That works for me.
On occasion, however, society as reflected by the courts give the drunk driving criminal an option to serving prison time. After all, it costs a lot of money to keep a guy in prison. The convicted criminal is allowed to stay living in society and work for a living, so long as he does not drive drunk. Because he has a proven history of driving drunk, the interlock device is required for any car he is driving.
I don't have a problem with that, personally. If you put *my* life at risk, even once, by driving drunk I don't have a single problem with your having to prove you are not drunk before you turn the key in any car you are driving.
But, what if this convicted drunk driving criminal is permitted to drive without the interlock device because of his own self-defined "extenuating circumstances"? What were those circumstances? Life or death? You were driving as a passenger in someone else's car, that person had a sudden heart attack, and you needed to seek immediate medical care to save the guy's life?
Or, were you late for work? Hungry for dinner?
My suggestion is to discuss the entire scenario with your attorney and see if your "extenuating circumstances" are such that a court would dismiss criminal charges of driving without the interlock device.