Make Payment
Call Today
(952) 913-1421
Call Today
(952) 913-1421

National Transportation Safety Board Takes on Hard-Core Drunk Drivers

The National Transportation Safety Board is making hard-core drunk driving one its top priorities. Hard-core drunk drivers are drivers who get on the road with a blood alcohol content of 0.15 percent or higher, or offenders who have been arrested multiple times for DUI or drunken driving within the last 10 years. As a part of its efforts, the National Transportation Safety Board is lobbying states to adopt its 11 point safety program to reduce the risk of hard-core drunk drivers on the road.

So far, no single state has adopted all 11 components of the National Transportation Safety Board’s program, but some states have adopted certain aspects of the program. Of the efforts that the National Transportation Safety Board is pushing for states to adopt are jail alternatives and sobriety checkpoints. According to the director of the National Traffic Law Center, states are trying to adopt tougher laws for hard-core drunken drivers that are involved in fatal accidents. This year some states have already passed new laws regarding hard-core drunk driving.

Vermont passed a law requiring alcohol ignition interlocks for hard-core drunk drivers. Missouri now requires jail time for DUI offenders with a blood alcohol content of 0.15 percent or higher. Drivers in California who have been convicted of drunken driving three times or more will now lose their driver’s license for a period of 10 years. Texas has taken a cue from the National Transportation Safety Board and will introduce a bill to remove the state’s ban on sobriety checkpoints. Nine other states ban sobriety checkpoints. They include Minnesota, Wisconsin, Washington, Rhode Island, Wyoming, Iowa, Michigan, Idaho and Oregon.

The National Transportation Safety Board’s efforts are in response to drunk drivers who are resistant to current public message campaigns and legal penalties. Hard-core drunk drivers were involved in more than 70 percent of all alcohol impaired car crashes over the past year according to the Safety Board.

Source: USA Today, “NTSB Pushes Zero Tolerance of Hard-Core Drunken Drivers,” Larry Copeland, 12/9/10

Max Keller image
Attorney Max Keller
Max Keller

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

Cinematic Court of Law and Justice Trial Proceedings. Cost of a Guilty Criminal Plea

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.
Court of Justice Trial. Pre-Trial Motions Hearing

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.
Man in handcuffs. Refusing Arrest vs. Resisting Arrest

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.