The holidays naturally give rise to DWI law-related stories and topics. In fact, Thanksgiving weekend has surpassed St. Patrick’s Day and New Year’s as the deadliest time for drunk driving. Recent data from the Denver-based Alcohol Monitoring Systems (AMS) demonstrate that out of 500,000 DUI offenders tested around the clock for drinking, violations are 38 percent higher than average on Thanksgiving Day, 34 percent higher on Thanksgiving Eve, and 31 percent higher over the long holiday weekend.

A recent interesting DWI law-related topic that has been quite prevalent in the news addresses the appropriateness of life prison sentences for repeat DWI offenders.
Among the most under cited yet interesting DWI law-related topics in contemporary jurisprudence is the increased use of problem-solving courts. DWI/DUI courts are a type of diversion court designed to alleviate the burden of DWI/DUIs on regular court and corrections resources. These problem-solving courts use alternative interventions and treatment for offenders who plead guilty to driving while impaired or intoxicated. The establishment of the National Center for DWI Courts (NCDC) has resulted in the explosive growth of DWI courts, as well as other problem-solving courts for domestic violence and other specific offenses.
Among one of the most interesting DWI law-related topics is the history of Minnesota’s drunk driving laws.
When any new technology enters the market, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) seeks to determine the proper balance between this innovation and aviation safety. Today’s interesting DWI topic involves the question of whether a drone operator can be charged with operating a drone while under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs.
Minnesota’s “implied consent” law (Minn. Stat. sec. 169A.20, subd. 2) criminalized motorists who refused to take a breath, blood, or urine test if suspected of driving under the influence or driving while intoxicated. However, two new MN Supreme Court cases with regard to the refusal of blood and urine testing have determined that criminalizing the refusal of a blood or urine test violated the defendants’ Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful search and seizure, as well as their due process rights under Minnesota and the U.S. Constitutions.
A recent article out of Vancouver, Canada has some interesting anti-DWI new technology that could improve police efforts to curb drunk driving.
There is rarely a day when some type of news, statute, or technology regarding DWI law is not front and center in the public eye. The history and evolution of drunk driving technology offer an interesting backdrop to explain salient issues and emerging technology.




