Minnesota DWI Sentencing Alternatives: Alcohol Monitoring, Treatment and Ignition Interlock
When someone is charged with DWI in Minnesota, one of the first questions we often hear is: “Am I going to jail?”
The answer depends on many factors, including whether this is a first or subsequent DWI, the person’s alcohol concentration, prior impaired-driving incidents, the results of a substance use disorder assessment, and the individual circumstances of the case.
But jail is not the only tool available to Minnesota courts. Minnesota law recognizes a number of alternatives and intermediate methods that can be used to monitor sobriety, address alcohol use, protect public safety, and, in appropriate cases, reduce the amount of time a person actually spends incarcerated.
These options can include continuous alcohol monitoring such as a SCRAM CAM ankle bracelet, remote breath testing, treatment, medications such as Antabuse, home detention, intensive probation and ignition interlock.
Importantly, these measures are not interchangeable, and none automatically eliminates a mandatory jail sentence. The goal of an experienced DWI attorney is to determine which options are legally available and which make sense for the individual client.
Minnesota Law Allows Alternatives to Traditional Incarceration
Minnesota’s general probation statute specifically recognizes a number of “intermediate sanctions.”
Under Minnesota Statutes § 609.135, intermediate sanctions include home detention, electronic monitoring, intensive probation, community work service, and chemical dependency treatment or counseling, among other options.
Minnesota’s DWI sentencing statutes contain additional provisions allowing courts to use alcohol monitoring, home detention, intensive supervision and ignition interlock in appropriate cases.
That gives a defense attorney an opportunity to present the court with more than a simple request for leniency. DWI Defense Attorney Mark D. Kelly can present a structured plan designed to address the reason the court is considering incarceration in the first place.
Continuous Alcohol Monitoring: SCRAM CAM Ankle Bracelets
One of the best-known alcohol-monitoring devices is the SCRAM CAM, a continuous transdermal alcohol-monitoring ankle bracelet.
Instead of requiring a person to blow into a breathalyzer at particular times, the device is worn around the ankle and continuously monitors for alcohol through the skin.
This can be particularly useful when the court’s primary concern is whether a person is consuming alcohol at all. For an individual arrested for DWI/DUI who has a full-time job and a family, a defense strategy may be to complete the alcohol assessment, enter an appropriate treatment plan, if recommended, and demonstrate sobriety through UA testing, while the defendant can remain employed and support his or her family while an electronic device independently verifies compliance with the court’s no-alcohol condition 24 hours a day.
Minnesota law specifically recognizes electronic alcohol monitoring in DWI cases. Under Minn. Stat. § 169A.277, certain repeat DWI offenders who receive a stayed sentence must participate in electronic alcohol monitoring when monitoring equipment is available. The statute requires at least 30 consecutive days of monitoring during each year of probation for offenders to whom the statute applies. Alcohol monitoring can also be ordered before sentencing as a condition of release.
Remote Breath Testing: Soberlink and BACtrack View
Portable remote breath-testing systems such as Soberlink and BACtrack View offer another way to document sobriety. Instead of wearing an ankle bracelet, the person uses a handheld breathalyzer. Testing can occur at scheduled times or at various times throughout the day, depending upon the monitoring program and court requirements.
Minnesota Statutes § 169A.73 establishes a remote electronic alcohol-monitoring program using breath analyzer units connected to remote monitoring systems. The statute contemplates their use to verify compliance with abstinence requirements imposed as a condition of pretrial release, supervised release or probation.
For example, a first-time DWI defendant with no criminal history and no indication of chronic alcohol abuse, a remote breath-testing program may allow that individual to test from home or another approved location several times per day.
If the person successfully completes months of testing without a positive result, the attorney may eventually be able to present something valuable to the sentencing court: A documented history of compliance rather than merely a promise of future sobriety.
Whether a particular commercial system satisfies court requirements must be determined before enrolling.
Antabuse: A Different Approach to Demonstrating Sobriety
Disulfiram, commonly known as Antabuse, is different from alcohol monitoring.
It is a prescription medication used in the treatment of alcohol use disorder. Rather than detecting alcohol, disulfiram interferes with the body’s processing of alcohol and can cause a very unpleasant physical reaction if alcohol is consumed.
Antabuse is therefore not an electronic monitoring device and should not be characterized as a statutory substitute for jail.
It can, however, be one part of a meaningful treatment and sobriety plan when medically appropriate.
For example, a DWI defendant with multiple alcohol-related offenses, this may be an alternative to consider. Minn. Stat. § 169A.275, subd. 5 requires the court in specified DWI cases to order the person to follow the level of care recommended by the substance use disorder assessment. The provision applies, among other circumstances, when the DWI involved an alcohol concentration of 0.16 or more or occurred within ten years of a qualified prior impaired-driving incident.
Medication decisions, of course, are always between the an individual and their medical provider.
Ignition Interlock: More Than a Driver’s License Program
Ignition interlock is one of the most important tools available in Minnesota DWI cases. An ignition interlock device is installed in a motor vehicle. Before the vehicle can be started, the driver must provide an acceptable breath sample. Minnesota has a number of approved ignition-interlock providers. Smart Start MN, for example, provides ignition-interlock installation and service throughout Minnesota.
Under Minn. Stat. § 171.306, an ignition interlock device is designed to prevent a vehicle from starting when the person’s breath alcohol concentration measures 0.02 or higher. Most people associate ignition interlock with getting their driver’s license back after a DWI. But ignition interlock can also be directly relevant to criminal sentencing.
An Important Minnesota Sentencing Provision
Minn. Stat. § 169A.275, subd. 7 provides that a judge is not required to sentence a person under the mandatory sentencing provisions contained in subdivisions 1 through 4 when the judge requires, as a condition of probation, that the person drive only vehicles equipped with a qualifying ignition interlock device. This makes ignition interlock considerably more than an administrative driver’s-license issue.
In an appropriate case, it can become part of the defense attorney’s sentencing proposal. For example, if a person is facing a second DWI within ten years, Minnesota law generally provides for a minimum sentence of 30 days, although the statute contains alternatives, departure provisions and limitations concerning how the sentence may be structured.
Now suppose that before sentencing the client:
- completes the required substance use disorder assessment;
- follows all treatment recommendations;
- remains alcohol-free;
- installs ignition interlock;
- complies with all interlock requirements; and
- has no additional violations.
Instead of appearing at sentencing with nothing more than a request for a lighter sentence, the attorney can present the court with a documented record showing that safeguards are already in place. This does not guarantee that the judge will impose a particular sentence, but it gives the court concrete information to consider.
What If a Prior Impaired-Driving Offense Involved a Death or Serious Injury?
Under Minn. Stat. § 169A.03, certain alcohol- or controlled-substance-related criminal vehicular homicide and criminal vehicular operation convictions are included within Minnesota’s definition of a prior impaired-driving conviction.
The consequences can be particularly serious when a person charged with a new DWI has a prior felony criminal vehicular homicide or injury conviction. Under Minn. Stat. § 169A.24, certain prior felony criminal vehicular homicide or injury convictions can elevate a subsequent DWI to First-Degree DWI, a felony, regardless of whether the new offense would otherwise appear to be a lower-degree DWI.
A DWI defense strategy may be challenging the current DWI charge, carefully examining whether any prior conviction legally qualifies to enhance the new offense, negotiating for a reduced charge when supported by the facts, and developing a strong mitigation and sentencing record through treatment, documented sobriety, monitoring, and other appropriate measures.
DWI Defense Attorney Mark D. Kelly
Minnesota DWI defense attorney Mark D. Kelly will review his Client’s police reports and other evidence in the case, as well as criminal history, substance use disorder assessment and individual circumstances in order weigh which sentencing alternatives may be available, while advocating for a fair and appropriate sentence. Where alternatives to incarceration are available, Mr. Kelly will present a sentencing proposal while also demonstrating why unnecessary incarceration or overly restrictive conditions may not be warranted.