Section 1 addresses a gap in the DWI-related laws for snowmobiles and ATVs. Under current law, a person who is convicted of a DWI in one of those vehicles or who refuses to comply with a lawful request to submit to testing under the DWI law will lose the person’s operating privilege.  However, if the person takes and fails the mandated test but isn’t convicted of the criminal DWI, the person does not lose the person’s operating privilege.  This gap does not exist in the DWI-related laws applicable to motor vehicles.  This section closes this gap by providing for a loss of operating privileges in these test failure cases.  (S.F. No. 753, Sen. Johnson)

Section 2 makes a similar change to the motorboating while impaired law as was made in section 1.  The only difference is that the change necessary to conform this law to the DWI law also includes providing for a loss of privileges in cases involving refusal to comply with a lawful test request.  (S.F. No. 753, Sen. Johnson, as amended)

Section 3 amends the definition of “peace officer” in the DWI law by striking the current limitation on the scope of the definition applicable to conservation officers (COs). Under current law, a CO is considered a peace officer for DWI-related purposes only for DWIs committed in off-road recreational vehicles and motorboats and for hunting while impaired offenses. This change removes that restriction so that a CO has the same authority regarding DWIs as do other peace officers. (S.F. No. 449, Sen. Clausen)

Section 4 expands the list of prior convictions that enhance an offense to first-degree (felony) DWI by including convictions from other states for impaired driving-related criminal vehicular operation offenses if the other state’s statute is in conformity with Minnesota law. (S.F. No. 766, Sen. Ingebrigtsen)

Section 5 makes it a misdemeanor to remove or obliterate a sticker affixed on a registration plate under section 8. (S.F. No. 221, Sen. Latz)

Sections 6 and 11 strike the requirement in current law that a person whose driver’s license has been revoked because of a DWI pass a specified examination before the person’s driving privileges may be reinstated. (S.F. No. 228, Sen. Latz)

Section 7 strikes the statutory requirement that the Commissioner of Public Safety establish performance standards and a process for certifying chemical monitoring devices and that those standards and procedures are exempt from rulemaking requirements.  (S.F. No. 766, Sen. Ingebrigtsen)

Section 8 amends the DWI plate impoundment law to authorize a peace officer to invalidate a vehicle’s registration plate by affixing a permanent sticker. (S.F. No. 221, Sen. Latz)

Section 9 amends the DWI plate impoundment law to extend the time period for which a temporary permit (which the vehicle will get following plate impoundment) is valid in cases where the violator is also the registered owner from seven days to either 14 or 45 days depending on the nature of the underlying impoundment violation. (S.F. No. 221, Sen. Latz)

Section 10 provides an exception to the DWI forfeiture law if the offender becomes a program participant in the ignition interlock program. (S.F. No. 737, Sen. Latz (floor amendment))

Section 12 requires contracts between ignition interlock manufacturers and program participants to include a provision requiring manufacturers to pay any towing or repair costs caused by device failure or malfunction, or by damage caused during device installation, servicing, or monitoring.  (S.F. No. 766, Sen. Ingebrigtsen)

Section 13 amends the ignition interlock program’s requirement that a participant present an insurance card that is noncancellable for 12 months.  Applies this requirement to persons previously convicted of certain driving without insurance crimes.  For all other participants, requires the presentation of an insurance card that is noncancellable for six months.  (Floor amendment, Sen. Latz)

Section 14 provides that under the administrative rules applicable to the ignition interlock device program, the use of “month” in the requirement that a program participant demonstrate regular and consistent use of a device as evidenced by a minimum of 30 successful tests per month, means a calendar month. Currently, the applicable statute does not address this issue, the applicable administrative rule says simply “month,” and the program guidelines say “30 days.” Clarifies that the number of required tests must be prorated for the participant’s first and last month. (S.F. No. 249, Sen. Rest, as amended)