Legislature looks to crack down on repeat DWI offenders

Last Labor Day weekend, a drunken driver with a blood alcohol content four times Minnesota’s legal limit drove onto the patio of a popular St. Louis Park bar, killing two people and injuring nine others.

It was soon revealed that the driver had five previous driving while impaired convictions on his criminal record.

When mulling over what could be done to prevent such tragedies in the future, Rep. Larry Kraft (DFL-St. Louis Park) did research that led him to ignition interlock devices. Serving as something like a vehicle’s built-in breathalyzer, they require whoever gets behind the wheel to pass a blood alcohol concentration test before the engine will start.

“According to the [Centers for Disease Control], ignition interlocks reduce repeat DWI offenses by about 70% while installed,” Kraft told the House Transportation Finance and Policy Committee Wednesday. “I also learned that interlock is more effective than license suspension alone, as 50% to 75% of convicted drunk drivers continue to drive on a suspended license.”

Kraft sponsors HF2130, which would require someone with one DWI over a 20-year period to use the interlock device for two years, with the required length of time increasing if further offenses happen. The offender would have to use one for six years for two offenses, and for 10 years for three or more. The state’s current maximum is six years for four or more offenses.

The committee approved the bill, as amended, on a voice vote without dissent and sent it to the House Public Safety Finance and Policy Committee.

“This proposed legislation ramps up the time that repeat offenders are required to be on interlock much more aggressively [than current law], while also reducing barriers to them getting on it,” Kraft said, referencing the $680 reinstatement fee required to participate in an ignition interlock program. The bill would allow offenders to pay that fee in installments while participating in the program.

The bill would also extend the revocation period for a person who commits criminal vehicular homicide and criminal vehicular operation.

“I appreciate the bill,” said Rep. Jon Koznick (R-Lakeville). “Sometimes I get a little cautious if there’s a bill in relation to a tragedy. We need to make sure we take the time to make sure the policy we’re presenting is solid and not just a reaction. … I think the interlock does provide a good service to the community.”

Rep. Roger Skraba (R-Ely) ruminated upon getting to the root of the problem, rather than the symptoms.

“It seems to be more of a mental health issue,” he said. “You’re punishing, punishing, punishing, and it doesn’t help.”

“We do have to think more about root causes and mental health,” Kraft replied. “In some cases, treatment wasn’t required for multiple offenses, and the bill does now require that folks go through treatment. While interlock may be viewed as a punishment, I view it more as: How do we make sure that the public is safe? … And it can help people on their path to sobriety.”