Following a drunk driving arrest in Minnesota, you may face criminal penalties such as jail time and fines. However, chances are you will also face administrative sanctions, including the suspension of your driving privileges for a period of time, particularly if you fail or refuse the breath or other chemical test at the station after a DWI arrest. Depending on the circumstances of your case, and after a certain waiting period, you may be able to qualify for a limited license to drive to work, school, or to your doctor.  But if you decide to drive before obtaining a limited license, or drive despite the fact that you will not or do not qualify for a limited license, you can face serious criminal consequences. Read More...

Advanced Ignition Interlock Technology Could Be Required on All Vehicles Regardless of Whether You are Convicted of DWI or DUI  Read More...

With one in seven Minnesotans have a DWI on their record, the state has a bustling and active DWI enforcement system comprised of DWI courts, prosecutors, and law enforcement agencies. Minnesota law criminalizes driving while under the influence of either alcohol or drugs, and the police involved in enforcing this law are very strict about making an arrest whenever intoxication is suspected. The number of defenses available to intoxication is fairly low. For instance, your MN DWI defense lawyer could argue that the officers did not have probable cause to stop your car or that the breathalyzer machine was not calibrated properly. However, the Minnesota legislature is now contemplating adding a new line of defense – necessity. Read More...

While it is commonly known that drivers’ licenses may be revoked due to a Minnesota DWI, but not many individuals are aware of the fact that license plates may also be impounded. Read More...

After a defendant is convicted of a crime, Minnesota statutes allow the court to issue a stay of the sentence and place the defendant on probation. State law defines probation as a sanction ordered by the court to be imposed on a criminal offender for a period of supervision. Courts impose probation as an alternative to, or in conjunction with, imprisonment or other sanctions. Probation is intended to deter further criminal behavior, punish convicted individuals, give them the opportunity for rehabilitation, and provide them with time to pay restitution to victims and their communities. Additionally, courts may order that probation be supervised by the Department of Corrections, county probation offices, or community corrections agencies. Read More...

The landscape of Minnesota DWI laws has been shifting in 2015. It all started back in October, when the Minnesota Court of Appeals made a ruling in State of Minnesota v. Trahan. In Trahan, the court of appeals ruled that the State cannot charge an individual with refusal of a blood test for which there is no warrant. The court reasoned that to do so would be a violation of an individual’s fundamental right to be free from unconstitutional searches. Read More...

In Minnesota, standards for sentencing felony convictions are established by the sentencing guidelines developed by the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission (MSGC). These sentencing guidelines are meant to ensure that convictions are proportional to the severity of the charged offense and the defendant’s criminal history. Generally, the sentencing guidelines aim to impose jail time only for offenders who are convicted of serious offenses or have extensive criminal histories in order to facilitate the use of limited state resources. Therefore, sentences are generally the least restrictive necessary to achieve correctional goals. Additionally, the guidelines are only advisory to Minnesota courts, but they are presumed to be appropriate for the felonies they cover. Therefore, courts generally do not deviate from the guidelines unless substantial and compelling circumstances are identified. Read More...

On December 11, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take an appeal filed by William Bernard, Jr., challenging Minnesota’s refusal law which makes it a criminal offense to refuse a police officer’s request to take a chemical test to detect the presence of alcohol in the blood. Bernard is appealing a decision of the Minnesota Supreme Court that upheld the constitutionality of the refusal law under the Fourth Amendment. His case arises out of an incident in 2012 when Bernard was arrested by Minnesota police officers on suspicion of driving while impaired (DWI). The officers later asked Bernard to take an evidentiary breath test, and when he refused, he was  charged with the crime of refusal. Read More...

The Minneapolis Police Department, alongside the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and other state agencies, have worked diligently and aggressively to combat drunk driving in the state of Minnesota. In fact, though currently one in seven Minnesota residents has a DWI conviction on their record, drunk driving rates have dropped over the past decade. This has resulted in less drunk driving crashes, as well as fewer DWI arrests. This is in large part thanks to increased education and awareness about the dangers of drunk driving. In addition, police departments across the state, including the Minneapolis Police Department, have recently received special funding from the NHTSA that will permit them to hire full-time DWI enforcement officers who will focus solely on DWI arrests. Read More...

When did Minnesota first criminalize driving under the influence? 

In 1911, when Minnesotans began operating vehicles for the first time, the Minnesota Legislature enacted its first DWI statute, which criminalized driving while intoxicated. DWI was initially a misdemeanor, and blood alcohol concentration percentages (BAC) of 0.15 or higher were illegal. Over the years, the law evolved as the number of cars on the road increased, drunk driving spiked, and alcohol and drug consumption rates changed. In 1961, Minnesota began implementing civil sanctions for driving under the influence. The Not a Drop law, which was designed to harshly punish minors with even a minutiae of alcohol in their system, was passed in 1993. Later, in 2001, felony and gross misdemeanor DWI statutes were enacted. In 2004, the legal limit was reduced to 0.08, and ignition interlock devices were first installed starting in 2010. Read More...