Governor Tim Pawlenty signed legislation calling for mandatory installation of an ignition interlock device for certain Minnesota DWI offenders. The new law allows those convicted of driving while intoxicated in Minnesota to recover their driving privileges if they agree to install the special device. An ignition interlock acts as a small breath tester, and a driver must provide a breath sample before starting the vehicle. If the sample exhibits alcohol above a pre-set limit, the ignition will become disabled and the vehicle will not start for a set period of time. The device also requires periodic retesting to prohibit a motorist from having someone else provide a breath sample.

Under the new Minnesota DWI law, drunk driving offenders who register a blood alcohol content at or above .16% (twice the legal limit) will be required to install an ignition interlock. Those who opt for the interlock device will have their full driving privileges restored immediately. Those who do not will have their driving privileges suspended for a period of 1 to 6 years, depending on the degree of the offense and other factors. Repeat offenders with three or more DWI arrests in Minnesota in a 10-year period will also be required to install the device.

Minnesota started an ignition interlock pilot program in mid-2009 that allowed more than 1000 motorists convicted of DWI in MN to regain their driver's licenses.

The Minnesota Department of Public Safety hopes the new measure will reduce the number of chronic drunk drivers on state roads, in turn reducing alcohol related traffic fatalities.

Are you needing legal assistance with a Minnesota DUI?

The high court empowered judges to decide if access to the code was relevant to the defense in a specific MN DWI case. Defense lawyers must provide information showing the software’s relevance before the judge can rule.

Questions have frequently risen as to how the software calculates blood alcohol content in suspected drunk drivers, and whether it shows bias to gender or race. The manufacturer of the equipment says the software is proprietary and has refused to provide access in under court order.

Do you need to hire a MN DWI attorney?

The finding overturns a District Court ruling involving a 2006 case of a woman accused of vehicular homicide. A Minnesota DWI defense attorney argued, and the lower court agreed, that police should have sought a warrant before taking the defendant's blood without her consent. The High Court said that the rapid and natural breakdown of alcohol in the bloodstream established a circumstance that justified taking a warrantless and non-consensual blood sample. It went on to clarify that such blood draws would require the police to have probable cause in cases of a criminal vehicular operation or homicide.

The ruling was received well by law enforcement groups. A State Patrol representative said that officers were being made aware of the ruling.

If you have been arrested for drunk driving in Minnesota you will need to hire an experienced Minnesota DWI attorney to protect your rights and guide you through the legal process.

When a police officer decides he thinks it is appropriate to revoke someone's driver's license, he fills out a form and sends a copy of it to the Department of Public Safety in St. Paul. This is actually a copy of the "Notice and Order of Revocation" form which he also gives to the driver. When the Department of Public Safety receives this form from the police officer, they put the revocation into effect. They do not do any investigation of the facts. They do not ask any questions. They presume that the officer had a legitimate legal basis for the revocation, and that the officer followed all proper procedures during the stop, arrest, booking and testing process.

If the person whose license is being revoked wants to fight the revocation on legal grounds, he has the right to request a hearing before a judge called an Implied Consent hearing. This hearing is separate from the criminal court case. It is optional, and it is only held if the revoked driver requests it. In other words, if the revoked driver does not request an Implied Consent hearing, none will be held, and the revocation will proceed. The burden is on the revoked driver, if he wants to contest the legality of the revocation, to request the Implied Consent hearing.

IN ORDER TO BE EFFECTIVE, A FORMAL WRITTEN REQUEST FOR AN IMPLIED CONSENT HEARING MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND SERVED ON THE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC SAFETY WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE ARREST. A request for an Implied Consent Hearing filed more that 30 days after the arrest is not valid, there is no grace period.

On the back side of the Notice and Order of Revocation form is some information about the procedures available for challenging the license revocation. Although the information is accurate, it does not provide enough detail to enable an average person to do the job himself. While it is not legally required that a person use an attorney to handle an Implied Consent case (also referred to as a Judicial Review) the technical requirements and the legal issues are fairly complex. It makes good sense for someone who is considering an Implied Consent case to consult with an attorney regarding the specifics of his case, and if the case looks promising, use the attorney to handle the paperwork and represent him at the court hearing.

Source: http://library.findlaw.com/