Canada’s Stringent Drunk Driving Laws

Earlier this year, Alberta adopted new 0.05% drunk driving legislation following British Columbia which currently imposes a three-day suspension and vehicle seizures for drunk drivers who have a BAC level of 0.05% – 0.08% – coined the “warn range”. While this range of BAC is still considered legal under B.C. Criminal Code, it can result in first-time offenders having to pay a fine of $200, a license reinstatement fee of $250, an immediate license suspension of three days, and possible fees for storage and towing if the vehicle is seized. Getting caught in this “warn range” the second or third time in a five-year period can lead to even lengthier suspensions, heftier penalties, and a longer vehicle seizure.

Alberta imposed a similar three-day suspension, fines, and seizure of vehicle of first-time offenders with 0.05% to 0.08% BAC levels, while second-time offenders could face a loss of their driver’s license, seizure of their vehicle for 15 days and fines.   According to this online blood alcohol calculator, it only takes two 5-ounce glasses of wine, consumed 1 hour apart for a 125-pound woman to register a BAC level of 0.073%.

History of the BAC Level Driving Limit in the U.S.

DUI history shows that the goal of drunk driving laws were simply to prevent people from driving while impaired. The first BAC driving limit was set at 0.13% when authorities acquired crude devices that measured alcohol content in breath samples. This was based on a 1938 study that showed drivers with 0.15% BAC level or higher were presumed Under the Influence, and it became the legal driving limit for 22 years.

Powerful Political Pressure

Most people are familiar with Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), a well-organized anti-drinking and driving lobby group, who’s agenda is to impose more severe DWI laws with the stated goal being to “stop drunk driving”.

MADD was formed in 1980, and tougher DWI legislation started to appear soon after lowering the legal drunk driving BAC level to 0.10%. This new legislation caused DWI arrests and convictions to significantly increase.

The group continued to apply political pressure which led to the dropping of the legal driving limit to 0.08% in four states by 1990. Ten years later, all states adopted the 0.08% standard. Since then, MADD has been applying pressure to state legislatures to drop the legal driving limit to 0.05%.

What the Future Holds for the DWI Limit in Minnesota and the Rest of the U.S.

With pressures from MADD as well as pressures from other countries, we would not be surprised if one day, in the not so distant future, American states start putting in place even more stringent DWI laws with regard to the legal blood alcohol concentration.

For now, in Minnesota and the rest of America, if your BAC level registers 0.08 or higher you will be charged with DWI.  If this happens, it’s imperative that you immediately contact an experienced DWI lawyer such as Minneapolis based Douglas T. Kans of Kans Law Firm, LLC.

It’s illegal for anyone under 21 to consume or be found in possession of alcohol, yet teens are a shockingly large proportion of the drunk drivers arrested in the state for having caused traffic accidents. Minnesota Statute Section 169A.33 clearly forbids any individual under 21 years of age from driving, operating or being in physical control of any motor vehicle while either consuming alcoholic beverages, or after having consumed an alcoholic beverage and there is any physical evidence of consumption present in the individual’s body.

It is also important to note that a DWI offender 16 or 17 years of age may be under the jurisdiction of the adult court instead of the juvenile court system thereby subjecting them to some of the same consequences an adult offender may be subject to, if convicted.  A driver of a motor vehicle, under the age of 21, convicted of DWI without having a prior conviction for DWI or any other aggravating factor,  is subject to misdemeanor penalties  and subsequent license revocation.

In Minnesota, teenagers amount to only 8% of drivers yet contribute to14% of the crashes. Throw in a car full of friends, cell phones, texting and alcohol use and you’ve got a recipe for disaster. All such factors contribute to car crashes being the leading cause of deaths for teens in the state.

In 2010, there were 3,743 car crashes related to alcohol consumption. Such crashes resulted in the deaths of 131 and injuries to an additional 2,485. Proving that teens make up a disproportionate share of drunk drivers, the state saw some 29,918 DWI arrests in 2010. Of these, 53% were for people between the ages of 21-34; an additional 7% of the arrests were for those 21 or younger.

Law enforcement officials across the state began stricter enforcement of Minnesota’s Zero Tolerance Law during prom season. The law, also known as the “Not A Drop” law, says that anyone under 21 who is found driving with even a drop of alcohol in their system will automatically have their driver’s license suspended. The effects of such behavior can be far-reaching and include potential jail time, the loss of a driver’s license and possibly even being mandated use of ignition interlocking devices. Perpetrators’ insurance rates will also surely go up as a result of a DWI and money will need to then be spent on attorney’s fees and court costs.

Unlike a conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol or driving with a blood alcohol concentration of .08 or more, if a driver is convicted solely of Minnesota’s Zero Tolerance Law, but didn’t have their driver’s license revoked for having a blood alcohol concentration of .08 or more nor were they convicted of DWI, the offense then is not “enhanceable”.  In other words, if the Zero Tolerance driver is later charged within 10 years of a DWI offense, the conviction for the Zero Tolerance violation cannot be used to enhance the later DUI or DWI conviction to a more serious offense.  However, it can still be considered by the court at sentencing.

Though young drivers are subject to tough laws and face sometimes punitive zero tolerance provisions, it’s important to remember that they still deserve access to a proper legal defense. Young drivers, like any other drivers, are entitled to the presumption of innocence and to a zealous legal defense. Therefore, if you or someone you know has been charged with DWI, then immediately contact an experienced Minnesota criminal and DWI attorney. Having more than 17 years of DWI case experience, Douglas T. Kans can provide you the diligent DWI defense you deserve.

Source: “Don’t let intoxicated driving spoil prom,” by The Associated Press, published at AustinDailyHerald.com.

You may remember in 2009, the mother who drove a minivan down the wrong side of a highway in New York and collided with another vehicle which caused her death and killed her daughter, three nieces, and three men in the other car. Later, the driving mother was determined to be intoxicated and high on drugs. This extreme accident made headlines across the country and triggered the Century Council to fund a study on women’s drunk driving.

The research revealed that the average female who drinks and drives is both older and more highly educated than men in the same situation. The study also showed that the average drunk-driving female has a lower-paying job and is the main care provider for her children.

Although the study findings got national attention, it may have also fallen on deaf ears as many females/mothers may have thought that the incident in 2009 didn’t share any resemblance to their own drinking, and that having a glass of wine or two to relieve some stress and then driving during the day won’t harm anyone. The problem of course is drawing the line… as obviously the study findings show some mothers are drinking one (or a few glasses) too many.

2012 Follow Up Study

The goal of this new study is to further expand the current data on female intoxicated drivers. The study aims to address important data gaps that were present in previous research as to the characteristics of women intoxicated drivers. This new TRIF study will focus on analyzing a wider variety of state data sources including collision, court, arrest, treatment data, probation as well as conduct focus groups with the first and repeat offenders to assess their attitudes, their behaviors and their characteristics.

It will also include interviews with professionals representing criminal justice and other agencies with hopes of identifying how women drunk drivers are managed in the DWI system. The follow-up study is not expected to be completed until Dec 2012.

Have You Been Recently Charged with DWI?

If you are a mother or any other female and have just been charged with DWI it’s vital you immediately contact a top DWI attorney in your area for the best possible resolution of your case. If you live in the Minneapolis St. Paul Metro area then you should contact Douglas T. Kans of Kans Law Firm. Mr. Kans has 17 years experience defending both men and women accused of DWI and other crimes.

One of the biggest concerns expressed by clients at these initial meetings is with regard to potential license plate impoundment or what I like sometimes refer to as the state’s “scarlet letter” on the driver charged with a certain level of DUI offense.  It can be extremely frustrating for the family of a driver subject to such an order, because the plate impoundment order applies not only to the vehicle in which they were driving, but also any other vehicle registered in his or her name whether owned jointly or individually.  Usually, the driver has an added sense of grief because now an innocent family member may be subject to driving their vehicle with license plates clearly branded as a “whiskey” or DWI plate.  As this becomes more frequent, they also become more identifiable to other motorists on the roadway adding to the embarrassment one may feel.

In addition, since July 1st, 2011, the state has now broadened those that are subject to a plate impoundment by making it mandatory for the driver to surrender their license plates if their blood alcohol concentration is a .16 or more as opposed to the earlier .20 or more.  This is required regardless of whether the driver has any prior DWI convictions on their record.  The driver does have the opportunity to challenge the plate impoundment order and a few counties allow a temporary reinstatement of regular non-DWI plates while the driver is awaiting the outcome of their hearing.

Plate impoundment occurs in the following situations: one is charged with a DWI within 10 years of a prior DWI conviction or prior license revocation that was the result of a DWI conviction; the driver had a BAC of 0.16% or more; a child under the age of 16 was in the vehicle when the offense occurred; or the offense took place while the driver’s license was canceled for being inimical to public safety.

A plate impoundment order applies both to the motor vehicle involved in the DWI offense, and any motor vehicle registered, owned, or leased in the name of the DWI offender, whether solely or jointly owned. An arresting officer may issue a plate impoundment order, which is effective immediately, at the time of the arrest. The plates are then seized by the officer and a seven-day temporary vehicle permit is issued (or 45 days if the offender is not the vehicle’s owner).

A plate impoundment has a minimum term of 1 year, during which, the offender is prohibited to drive a motor vehicle unless the person driving has been re-licensed to drive, and coded plates are displayed on the vehicle. When acquiring or selling a vehicle during the plate impoundment period, the offender is subject to certain restrictions. A person may appeal to license plate impoundment administratively or judicially.

If you or someone you know has been charged with a DWI or DUI offense, it is imperative that they seek the immediate advice of an experienced Minnesota DUI Lawyer.  The attorney will first need to review their respective case to see if the driver is subject to such a plate impoundment order and then be able to advise the client how to proceed in challenging the order.

While the above DWI definition seems easy enough to understand, the reality is that DWI law can be very complex in certain cases. Today we’ll tackle an interesting case, and while it’s not a very recent DWI case and it’s not even a case from Minnesota (it occurred in Oct 2011 in Nebraska) it’s still a case that made headlines all over the country and was a huge subject of controversy for motorists, law enforcers, DWI attorneys and lawmakers.  Unfortunately, the courts in Minnesota have not followed the logic of the Nebraska Supreme in it’s decision below that private driveways are not public for the purpose of a DUI charge.  Nevertheless, the case is still very interesting.

The case in question is of a young man who got arrested for DWI while listening to music while he was drunk sitting inside a parked car in his father’s driveway.

The Case Facts

According to reports, the defendant’s father who saw him intoxicated inside a car in his personal driveway told the son to go away and called the police when the defendant didn’t follow his father’s request.  The police officers arrived at the scene and conducted a DWI investigation. The defendant who insisted he wasn’t driving refused to take a breath test and said he would leave the premises. Soon after, the man was arrested. He was eventually charged with Driving While Under the Influence (DWI), refusal to submit to a breath test, possession of open container of alcohol beverage, trespassing, as well as resisting arrest. The officers failed to ask the stepmother of the defendant if she invited her stepson to their house.

The Prosecutors’ Argument

The prosecutors argued that the charge of DUI was applicable to this case since the the incident occurred in a residential driveway and the defendant was in physical control of the car, and that he might have been about to start the vehicle and leave the driveway. Also since the defendant’s vehicle partially overhung the sidewalk, the prosecutors also argued that the vehicle was positioned at least in part on a public property.

Supreme Court’s Explanation

The court explained that the DWI charge doesn’t apply to an individual inside a vehicle on private property not open to public access. Although it is held that the parking lot of an apartment complex can be accessed by the public, the court explained that the defendant’s case was different. The residential driveway is private property not open to public access. The public neither have the right nor implied permission to use or enter a private residential driveway.

With regard to the prosecutors’ argument that defendant’s car was parked at least in part on public property, the court believed that the defendant’s car overhanging the sidewalk didn’t change the fact the driveway was  private property not accessible to the general public. To cite an example, the court explained that an individual can’t be guilty of DWI if he drinks an alcoholic beverage while he cleans a car parked in his private driveway but overhanging the sidewalk.

On the police officer’s claim that the defendant said he was leaving, the court said that the man could have committed a violation if he drove his car and left in the presence of the officer. However, the defendant’s statement that he was leaving may have meant that he was considering leaving but eventually changed his mind, even if he was holding the key in the ignition. Also, no one witnessed that the defendant was actually driving his car at that time.

The Court further stated that Fourth Amendment required officers to conduct a thorough investigation on the basic evidence for the offense they suspect, and to question witnesses who are readily available at the scene before invoking the power of warrantless arrest.

The Verdict

The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed all of the defendant’s convictions since it was not unlawful for any citizen to be intoxicated in a vehicle parked on property not open to access by the general public. However, the court allowed a retrial on the defendant’s trespassing charge.

DWI Charges Are Not Always Lawful

As this case demonstrates not all DWI arrests and charges are lawful. Sometimes police officers don’t follow the law properly and unlawfully arrest people for DWI and other crimes. If you have been charged with DWI in the greater Minneapolis Metro area then you need to immediately contact experienced Minnesota criminal and DWI attorney Douglas T. Kans. With 17 years of DWI and criminal law experience Douglas T. Kans can ensure you get the best possible outcome of your DWI case… including getting the case thrown out if your DWI arrest was unlawful.

Probable cause exists only after a police officer reasonably suspects an impaired driving violation by observing impaired driving behavior.  This can be established by the officer’s observations of any erratic driving conduct prior to the traffic stop. Another factor is any observation the officer may make about the driver after the stop such as slurred speech, bloodshot watery eyes and overall appearance. The officer will also judge the driver’s performance on Field Sobriety Tests. Generally, after these tests a thorough officer will ask the driver to perform a preliminary breath test or PBT test to confirm his or her belief of impairment.

If an officer believes that probable has been established, the officer may place the driver under arrest and then, only after reading the Minnesota Implied Consent Advisory, request an evidentiary breath, urine, or blood test. The officer is required to read the implied consent advisory statement explaining that the test is mandatory, refusal to take the test is a crime, and the driver has the right to consult or speak with an attorney before agreeing to take the test. The individual is given a “reasonable period” of time under the “totality of circumstances” standard to contact an attorney.

As with the blood test, a person who is offered a urine test by the police officer must also be offered an alternative test. The rational is that some individuals are adverse to needles and they shouldn’t be charged with the crime of refusal simply because of this fact.  The same rational applies to those who are offered a urine test, but for some reason are not able to physically urinate at the time. For an unconscious person, consent is deemed not to have been withdrawn and the test may be administered.  It is the officer that decides whether to administer a breath, urine or blood test. The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) analyzes blood and urine samples and forwards the results to Minnesota Department of Public Safety (DPS).

What is a Low Carb Diet?

It’s a diet program commonly used as a treatment for obesity that limits the intake of carbohydrates. Instead of taking in regular amount of carbohydrates, dieters consume more high-protein and high-fat foods. The amount of carbohydrates allowed in a low carb diet varies depending on which plan you are following.

In addition to obesity, this type of diet is also used to treat some other medical conditions such as diabetes, chronic fatigue syndrome, epilepsy, polycystic ovarian syndrome and other diseases related to obesity. A very low carb diet (VLCD) leads to ketonemia or ketosis, which is why one variation of this diet is called the Ketogenic diet. Many of the popular mainstream diets in recent years are in one shape or form “low carb diets”, some of the more popular ones are: Atkins, GI, South Beach, Flat Belly and Dukan.

How Does A Very Low Carb Diet Affect Breath Test Results?

The reason is a low carb diet which can increase the body’s metabolism and burn fat can also spike up the acetone levels. The acetone can break down into isopropanol by the hepatic alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH). The isopropanol can then be picked up by either a evidentiary breath test machine or an ignition interlock device even though the person taking the test did not consume any alcohol as a beverage.

How Ethanol and Isopropanol Levels Are Measured

The alcohol associated with alcoholic beverages is ethanol, while the alcohol associated with ketonemia in a very low carb diet is
isopropanol. An alcohol breath test machine is supposed to measure the ethanol levels in the body,  but can mistakenly read isopropanol as ethanol.

People suspected of drunk driving first submit to a roadside breath test. If the officers believes there is the presence of alcohol in their system, they are required to submit to an Evidentiary Breath Test (EBT) or blood or urine test.

Some breath test machines incorporate electrochemical detectors which respond to isopropanol. These machines cannot always distinguish isopropanol from ethanol which causes false-positive high levels of BAC from dieters who use very low carb diet.

However, some breath test machines use multi-filter infrared analysis and are designed to abort the breath test if acetone above the value set by the law of the state is detected in the person’s breath. The breath test machines with multi-filter infrared analysis should have no problem distinguishing ethanol from isopropanol because they use gas chromatography - but only under normal operating conditions.

Reliability of Breath Tests Results in Very Low Carb Dieters

The reliability of breath test machines used in DWI cases has long been questioned. It’s important to note that while these machines were designed and programmed by manufacturers with perfection in mind, these machines are not perfect. The evidentiary breath test machine results which are often used as evidence against the arrested DWI offenders in court can sometimes be erroneous. Many mechanical errors, operating errors, and human variables can affect their reading results.

When You’re On a Low Carb Diet and Fail the DWI Breath Test

If you’re pulled over by an officer, undergo a DWI breath test, and the breath test machine registers a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) level of 0.08 or higher, you need to immediately contact an experienced DWI attorney. Let your attorney know as soon as possible that you’re in a low-carbohydrate diet or ketogenic diet so that they can determine the relevance to a defense of your DWI case.

What an Experienced DWI Attorney Can Do for Your DWI Case

An experienced Minnesota DWI lawyer will know how Minnesota breath test machines work and how they can possibly be challenged even if your breath result is higher than Minnesota’s driving limit, especially in a DWI case that involves ketogenic or low-carbohydrate diet.

Below is a case study or fact scenario of a  Criminal Vehicle Operation Case resulting in death.

Man Faces DWI Criminal Vehicular Operation/Homicide in Vehicle Rollover Crash

A 30-year-old man in Florida faces a DWI Criminal Vehicular Homicide or Vehicular Homicide charge for the death of one of his rear-seat passengers and the injuries sustained by three other passengers after the SUV he was driving jumped the median of US Highway 98 and CR 630 A on State Road 25, and rolled over several times.

After the crash, the driver and another male passenger fled the scene into the woods to evade the scene and to avoid arrest, while the 1996 GMC Jimmy SUV was engulfed in flames. One of the four passengers who suffered severe injuries, and is now in critical condition, was pulled from the SUV by another passenger before it caught on fire.  Another passenger died as a result of the accident.

Air support units and K-9 teams from the Sheriff’s Office were called in to search the area.  The deputies found the driver hiding behind a shed at a residence along U.S. 98. He denied being in a car crash but the two passengers confirmed that he was the one driving the vehicle. The passenger who fled along with the driver has not been found.

The driver is facing DWI manslaughter charges including leaving the scene of a crash involving serious bodily injury, leaving the scene of a crash involving death, and operating a motor vehicle without a valid driver’s license.

Sentencing for Criminal Vehicular/Homicide Charges

The court considers several factors when sentencing an individual for a Criminal Vehicular Operation/Homicide offense, and one factor is the previous record of the accused driver, including any previous DWI and any misdemeanor or felony charges. There also exists mandatory sentencing guidelines which includes prison  for cases resulting in death.  Obviously, included among other issues to be considered at sentencing are whether the driver’s license was suspended or revoked at the time and whether the driver was on parole or probation. Individuals found to be under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance at the time of the accident often have the most severe sentences. In Minnesota the typical penalty will weigh all of these factors and balance them against the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines where applicable.  Clearly, the penalty can be significantly higher for an individual with a prior criminal record including multiple DWI violations.

Authorities are Biased Against Drunk Drivers

If alcohol or an illegal substance is involved in the accident, a prosecutor may charge a driver with Criminal Vehicular Operation/Homicide under the influence even when the accused is not actually at fault, or even if the accident was inevitable regardless of the driver’s capacity to drive. Police officers generally jump to the conclusion that the intoxicated driver was at fault. Vehicular homicide or manslaughter is not a part of the murder statute but a part of the Minnesota criminal vehicular statute. It is, however, equal to some parts of the murder statute in gravity.

Defenses for a Vehicular Manslaughter Charge

There are several ways to defend the accused from a Criminal Vehicular Operation/Homicide charge, and the success of the defense depends on the skill of the criminal defense attorney handling the case. The defenses for a Criminal Vehicular Operation charge include but are not limited to; lack of negligence defense, factual innocence defense, insufficient evidence, and other defenses depending on the details of the case.  The legal assistance of an experienced criminal defense attorney is crucial in this type of case  in hopes of avoiding a conviction/ lengthy jail time.

Getting a Minnesota Vehicular Manslaughter Defense Attorney

A Criminal Vehicular Operation of any level is a very serious  charge in Minnesota and in most states and carries potentially severe penalties. This means that the accused needs to get the legal assistance of a competent attorney to handle this type of case.

Douglas T. Kans is a Minnesota criminal defense attorney who has been defending clients with DWI and other criminal charges in Minneapolis, St. Paul, and throughout Minnesota for over 17 years. If you or any of your family members has been charged with criminal vehicular operation, DWI or any other crime, don’t take any chances and don’t waste time.

Utah House Votes to Outlaw DWI Roadblocks

Soon Utah will possibly be the 13^th state to prohibit police officers from closing roadways to conduct searches on motorists without suspicion. Last month, the state Senate of Utah started to consider legislation that would ban the setup of roadblocks for the purpose of arresting individuals of driving while impaired and issuing tickets to individuals with expired paperwork. The votes came up 41 to 33.

This is a bill by Senate Representative David Butterfield who believes that removing checkpoints and assigning officers into saturation patrols instead will better uphold the constitutional protections of the residents against unreasonable searches, which will be a more effective law enforcement. However, the bill does include the permission for roadblocks, but only if a checkpoint is authorized by an arrest warrant or search warrant that’s targeted against a certain individual. Checkpoints can also be set up during emergency situations, or when conducting searches for invasive wildlife species.

Interestingly enough the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration accident data backs up Utah’s stance and shows that there’s no difference in alcohol-related death rates between the states without roadblocks and the states conducting regular checkpoints.

Minnesota Currently Prohibits the Setup of Roadblocks

Currently, 12 states prohibit the use of roadblocks. These states are Alaska, Iowa, Idaho, Minnesota, Michigan, Montana, Rhode Island, Oregon, Texas, Wisconsin, Washington, and Wyoming. Minnesota, along with 11 other states, consider the checkpoints unconstitutional and it doesn’t have any plans of legalizing roadblocks in the state.

Minnesota and other states opposed to checkpoints point to the fact that states that legalize checkpoints have yet to prove the effectiveness of these roadblocks in terms of statistics.  The primary purpose of the checkpoints is to check for intoxicated drivers. However, a great deal of uproar has been reported because many officers have been deviating from the main purpose of the setup of these checkpoints and are issuing tickets to individuals with expired licenses and paperwork.

How DWI Checkpoints Work

Drivers are stopped at random at DWI checkpoints via roadblocks. The authorities have a method of stopping vehicles randomly but mainly pull them over if they show visual indications of alcohol impairment such as red or glossy eyes and erratic movement.  Drivers showing no visual indications of impairment are usually told to move along while the drivers that do are stopped and questioned.

Roadblock Controversy

In recent years, the controversy surrounding DWI checkpoints has been high. Countless cases were filed in the courts and there are countless appeals to existing cases related to DWI checkpoints. There has been constant debate that the checkpoints violate the rights of unreasonable search and seizure which prompted the Supreme Court to rule in 1990 that while the use DWI checkpoints violates the constitutional rights of individuals, it outweighs the breach on individuals’ rights since it is beneficial in trying to keep impaired drivers off the roads.

The opposition continues to argue that checkpoints haven’t proven to be effective statistically and the failure of the checkpoint officers to stick to not only sticking to apprehending intoxicated drivers, but also catching individuals with suspended driver’s licenses or no licenses, or those with expired paperwork instead.

Minnesota Law on DWI Checkpoints

Minnesota honors the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution that prohibits law enforcement agents to perform unreasonable seize and seizures on private citizens, and therefore considers the setup of sobriety checkpoints illegal. Minnesota laws have declared checkpoints to be in violation of Minnesota’s state constitution, and require proof of their effectiveness and increase in arrest before considering their approval.

The purpose of this provision (which was written in the 1850s) was to protect the congressional members of Minnesota from being arrested or prosecuted based on their political views. As this particular legislation, includes immunity of the house members from DWI arrest and prosecution, students are trying to strip this DWI immunity.

The State Constitution states that the lawmakers can only face prosecution for treason, felony and breach of peace. A legal loophole allowing legislature members of Minnesota to drive while impaired without fear of prosecution or arrest is now being challenged by Republicans. The State Republicans seek to add Driving While Impaired to the list of crimes which will allow the lawmakers to be arrested or prosecuted when committing any DWI violations even when they are heading to or return from the Statehouse.

Students behind effort to strip the lawmakers’ DWI immunity

According to the report, local university students led by their political science professor, decided to make an effort to change the “Privilege from Arrest” legislation as their Minnesota Legislature course’s spring project since they could not find any DWI arrest of current Minnesota legislators on record during House sessions.  Realizing that the Constitution can only be changed by the voters, they seek a statute which would finally include DWI in the “breach of peace” term that’s already used in the legislation without the need to change the constitution itself.

To further emphasize the disadvantage of the lawmakers’ immunity to a DWI charge in Minnesota, the professor revealed that a drunk state senator once offered a student who was interning in the Minnesota Senate a ride. The senator said she couldn’t get arrested for a DWI offense and hit the road’s median as she drove away.  The professor also expressed disgust that any U.S. citizen can get arrested for DWI but lawmakers can’t be prosecuted or arrested just because they’re in session (considering that they are in session to be able to help people and not to do them any harm). Another student was disappointed upon learning that the legislators are allowed to drink and drive even though they were the ones making the DWI laws in Minnesota tougher.

The university professor also commented that they have done their research and that they know what they’re talking about in response to the negative feedback from most people who believe that they’re just trying to make a name for themselves by trying to push the removal of the lawmakers’ DWI immunity. The immunity bill legislation which is sponsored by Republicans Rep. John Kriesel and Sen. Mike Parry will get its first hearing this Thursday in the House.

Possible abuse of the “Privilege from Arrest” legislation

It should be made clear that there are no names of current legislators who have violated the DWI laws in the news, and there is no mention of the numbers of Minnesota State Senators and Representatives who have used this part of Minnesota Constitution just to prevent DWI arrest. However, it is enough for the public to know that there are lawmakers, whether in the state of Minnesota or in other states, who think that it’s alright to drive while impaired because they’re holding the “Privileged from Arrest” card or because they’re immune from arrest, which is the primary reason why this legislation has been challenged.

Regular People Don’t Have Immunity

Regular people don’t have immunity from a DWI charge and hence if they get charged with DWI in Minneapolis, St. Paul or anywhere else in Minnesota they will need the services of a good Twin Cities DWI Lawyer. Douglas T Kans of Kans Law Firm is an DWI lawyer who has 17 years experience fighting DWI charges. You can contact Kans Law Firm at (952) 835-6314 for a free consultation.