Federal agency asks states to require ignition interlocks in all DWI cases

In July 2011, Minnesota’s DWI and implied consent laws were changed for drivers who test 0.16 percent blood alcohol concentration or more. The higher alcohol level essentially extends the length of a license revocation associated with a DWI arrest. For instance, a first time DWI offender who measures 0.16 percent BAC or greater will have his or her driver’s license revoked for a full year. Drivers cannot obtain a work permit under the law, unless the driver agrees to have an ignition interlock device installed.

Ignition interlocks are essentially an in-car breath testing machine. Drivers are required to take a breath test before starting the car. If the machine registers a reading of 0.02 percent or greater, the car will not start.

Tuesday, the National Transportation Safety Board said that every state in the country should require ignition interlocks in every DWI case, including first-time offenses. The federal officials are urging states to require the devices for any level of a DWI conviction, and without regard for the higher level of alcohol. Officials say that 17 states already require the devices in all DWI cases.

The NTSB is also urging another federal agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, to speed up research in technology to disable every car when alcohol is detected on a driver who is trying to start the car. The research involves infrared light technology and is reportedly already being used in some work-related drug testing programs, according to the Associated Press. The NHTSA is working with the automobile industry in researching the use of the infrared technology in automobiles.

The NTSB urged the NHTSA to speed up the research hoping that infrared technology can be incorporated as standard equipment in a car’s ignition system. The NTSB hopes that the technology can be incorporated into an ignition button that will not allow any car to start if the driver exceeds a specified threshold for alcohol.

Currently, individual states have a variety of laws regarding ignition interlock devices at some level, and associated with a DWI arrest or conviction. Federal officials are urging to increase the use of breath testing devices to include all DWI cases, and maybe even in all cars, regardless of whether or not a driver has been accused of DWI.

Source: 13 ABC, “NTSB: Use ignition locks for all drunken drivers,” Associated Press, Dec. 12, 2012

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.