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.
Just when you think you have heard it all about DWI law-related topics, a story arises that makes everyone a bit concerned.
Pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Sec. 169A.20, Subd. 1, it is illegal for an individual to drive a motor vehicle with any Schedule I or Schedule II controlled substance or a metabolite in his/her system, even with a valid prescription and even if the person is not impaired in any way. The problem is that many prescription medications are, in fact, listed on Schedule I or II; thus, these laws are unfairly targeting innocent people who are simply following their physicians’ orders.
A recent report highlighting Minnesota DWI death statistics for 2015 offers some promising news. According to the Duluth News Tribune, even though more Minnesotans died in alcohol-related vehicular accidents in 2015 than in 2014, these statistics demonstrate that the number of such fatalities is well below previous years and overall DWI/DUI arrests continue on a downward trend.
According to the Minnesota Department of Public Safety’s annual report on DWI accidents, whereas 88 people died in alcohol-related accidents in 2014, in 2015, this number rose to 95. However, when compared to the 103 alcohol-related traffic fatalities in 2011 and 135 in 2006, there is a decline. In 2015, 2,203 individuals were injured in alcohol-related crashes.
Amidst efforts to decrease the number of alcohol-related traffic fatalities and injuries, a new topic is attracting increased attention. An emerging problem across the country is how to recognize and legislate driving under the influence of drugs, and marijuana is at the forefront of discussion because of the increasing number of states that are legalizing or decriminalizing it—not only for medical patients but for recreational use.
It almost sounds like something out of a science fiction movie; however, scientists have invented an alcohol sensing tattoo to detect blood alcohol concentration, giving law enforcement another non-invasive tool to try to curb DWIs and alcohol-related traffic accidents.
In State v. Fawcett, #A15-0938 (24 August 2016), the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s ruling that a search warrant obtained to test the blood of a suspected drunk driver who was found to have been under the influence of a controlled substance—not alcohol—at the time of serious automobile accident did not violate the defendant’s Fourth Amendment protection against illegal searches and seizures. The following is a summary of the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision in this case.
One can open a newspaper or look on the Internet and be inundated with interesting DWI law related topics on a variety of subjects. One of the most talked-about as of late is social host liability ordinances that seek to curb underage drinking.
Why Social Host Liability Ordinances
Alcohol is the primary drug of choice for adolescents and teens. Unfortunately, as a result, this group of people has a much higher likelihood of becoming crime victims, as well as a higher potential to be involved in automobile accidents. In Minnesota, minors are prohibited from consuming alcohol; however, the volume of alcohol-related traffic accidents and fatalities involving minors continues to rise.
Among the most interesting DWI law related topics in recent months is the attention ignition interlock devices have gotten. One of the most discussed tools to help combat increasing DUI and DWI rates is the ignition interlock device (IID)—also called a breath alcohol ignition interlock device (BAIID). These devices are, essentially breathalyzers for one’s vehicle that works by requiring the driver to blow into the device’s mouthpiece before s/he can start the vehicle. If the breath-alcohol concentration is higher than the BAC (blood alcohol concentration) levels programmed into the device, the IID prevents the individual from starting the vehicle.
The U.S. Supreme Court opened another small chink in citizens’ protection against illegal police searches this summer. In a 5-3 opinion in Utah v Strieff, the court ruled that although the police officer stopped a suspect illegally, a pending warrant discovered after the stop made evidence gained during a subsequent search to be admissible in court.
The dissenting opinions, however, painted the ruling as one that would give police more incentive to make illegal stops with the hopes of finding a reason to search for evidence of a crime. Let’s take a little deeper look at Utah v Strieff and its effect on your Fourth Amendment rights.
Top 20 DWI Questions in MNDWI Articles
- An Overview of the DataMaster DMT
- Bad Driving Doesn’t Always Prove DWI
- Blood and Urine Testing Following a Minnesota DWI Arrest
- Choosing the Right Minnesota DWI Attorney
- Degrees of Minnesota DWI Charges
- DUI of Controlled Substances in Minnesota
- DWI Terms and Definitions
- Field Sobriety Testing In Minnesota
- Getting Into Canada Following A DWI Conviction
- Hit and Run
- Minnesota DWI and Mandatory Bail
- Minnesota DWI Laws And Commercial Drivers
- Minnesota License Revocation
- Minnesota Motor Vehicle Forfeitures & Drunk Driving
- Minnesota’s DWI Ignition Interlock Device Program
- MN DWI License Plate Impoundment
- What is a Qualified Prior Impaired Driving Incident?
Minneapolis DWI Lawyer Douglas T. Kans
Map and Directions
Kans Law Firm LLC
7825 Washington Ave S #220
Bloomington, MN 55439
Phone: 952-835-6314
Bloomington, MN 55439
United States (US)
Map and Directions
