Ignition interlock devices required for Minnesota DWI in July

For most people, driving is a necessity. We need to drive to get to work, to go to the grocery store and run various other errands – that includes Minnesota DWI offenders who have had their licenses pulled. That’s apparently why so many DWI offenders whose licenses are suspended wind up driving anyway.

It’s estimated that 75% of those who have lost their license due to a DWI will still continue to drive, mostly because they need to get back and forth to work. A law enforcement measure that goes into effect July 1 will address that reality.

Starting in July, breath testing ignition lockout devices will be mandated for those whose DWI sentencing has led to driver’s license suspension. (Among that group are those with repeat DWIs or one DWI where the BAC was above 0.16.) The new interlock device law, therefore, is a way to give offenders the option to drive, but only once they prove that they are sober.

The ignition interlock devices are installed at the offenders’ expense. They measure the blood alcohol concentration when a driver blows into the device. If the driver’s BAC level measures at above 0.02, the car will not start.

While some see the devices as a necessary tool to create safer roads, others suggest that those who are determined to drive despite a high BAC will most likely find a way to do so, making the new law somewhat useless. Others complain about the 0.02 BAC limit that the devices measure for. For most people, stopping for a single beer has little impact on their driving ability, and one mistake shouldn’t have to dictate their lives to such a great extent.

The individual circumstances of DWI cases vary to a great extent. Shouldn’t more effort be made to look into the individual circumstances of each offense, rather than throwing the book at every offender?

We will post more about the interlock device program when July approaches, and it’s put to action.
Source : The Republic: “Car devices require drivers’ proof of sobriety,” Abby Simons, 12 Apr.2 011

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.