Minnesota DWI license revocation law includes ignition interlock provisions

Use of ignition interlock devices is a growing trend across the nation to control the number of DWI/DUI arrests in the country. A recent study indicates that the number of the devices that have been installed has more than doubled across the country in the last five years. The national study says that roughly 249,000 cars across the country now have ignition interlock devices installed. That number is a significant increase that the roughly 101,000 cars equipped with the devices in 2006.

This year, Minnesota became one the growing number of states that have enacted laws regarding the potential use of ignition interlocks under implied consent or DWI statutes. Minnesota began a pilot program to test the devices back in 2009. However, a new law went into effect on July 1, expanding the use of ignition interlocks for certain drivers in Minnesota who wish to participate in the ignition interlock program.

First-time offenders who test 0.16 percent or greater and all second-time DWI offenders can regain their driving privileges sooner through participating in the Minnesota Ignition Interlock Program, according to the Minnesota Department of Public Safety.

The program includes separate provisions for Minnesota drivers whose licenses have been cancelled and those cancelled as “inimical to public safety.” Those drivers are required to participate in the interlock device program for three to six years before they can regain full driving privileges under state law, according to the DPS.

Ignition interlock devices can reduce the period a driver is prohibited from driving under the state’s tough implied consent license revocation laws. However, the devices can certainly increase the overall costs of a DWI conviction. The U.S. Department of Transportation estimates that having the device on a vehicle costs a driver between $800 and $1000 each year. Some experts say the costs can actually be higher.

The devices act essentially as a personal breathalyzer. A driver must blow into the device before starting the car. If the device detects a specified level of alcohol in the breath test, the car will not start, according to the DPS.

Source: The New Mexican, “Interlock use burgeoning across U.S.,” Kate Nash, Oct. 16, 2011

Minnesota Department of Public Safety, “Minnesota Ignition Interlock Device Program.”

Max Keller has won countless jury trial cases involving misdemeanors and felonies, sex crimes, and DWI’s. He is a member of the Minnesota Society for Criminal Justice, which only allows the top 50 criminal defense attorneys in the state as members. Max is a frequent speaker at CLE’s and is often asked for advice by other defense attorneys across Minnesota.

Years of Experience: Approx. 20 years
Minnesota Registration Status: Active
Bar & Court Admissions: State of Minnesota Minnesota State Court Minnesota Federal Court 8th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals State of Maryland

What to Do If You Have Been Charged with a Criminal Offense

The Surprising Cost of a Guilty Criminal Plea in Minnesota

Defendants in Minnesota may plead guilty or accept deals without understanding the hidden cost of a guilty criminal plea. A guilty criminal plea, regardless of how appealing it appears, can leave you dealing with substantial lifelong consequences. You may skip lengthy trial proceedings and likely get a lenient sentence, but end up with a criminal record. The record can lead to various financial and collateral consequences, including difficulty in securing employment, loss of housing rights, license revocation, and immigration issues.

What You Can Expect at a Pre-Trial Motions Hearing in Minnesota

The pre-trial motions hearing is a court session you attend after your first arraignment. At the hearing, the prosecution and defense appear before a judge to clear several details about the case before trial. These details include pre-trial motions, evidentiary queries, and constitutional matters.

Refusing Arrest vs. Resisting Arrest in Minnesota: What’s the Difference?

Highly publicized incidents of police using excessive force over the past few years have led to people wondering, “What’s the difference between refusing arrest vs. resisting arrest?” Resisting arrest in Minnesota occurs when you use force to prevent a police officer from making a lawful arrest. Refusing an arrest, on the other hand, involves statements or actions that show reluctance to cooperate with an officer’s instructions without using force.