Earlier this year, the Minnesota Court of Appeals issued a shocking and deeply troubling opinion: drivers enrolled in the Ignition Interlock Program have no right to challenge extensions of their revocation or cancellation period, no matter the reason. Read the case here: Todd Robert Reihs, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Commissioner of Public Safety, Respondent
Yes, you read that right.
Under this opinion, the Department of Public Safety (DPS) and Driver and Vehicle Services (DVS) can extend your time in the program without any meaningful opportunity to challenge that decision in court.
That means drivers could be forced to use the ignition interlock device for up to six additional years—even in cases involving machine error, false positives, or no wrongdoing whatsoever.
The Cost of an Unfair System
For those unfamiliar, ignition interlock devices—sometimes called the “blow and go”—are costly and invasive. Participants pay approximately $2,000 per year, and the device:
- Can drain car batteries
- Can falsely report violations from interfering substances (mouthwash, energy drinks, even bread)
- Can embarrass drivers blowing into the device
- Can restrict someone’s mobility and trigger life-altering consequences based on a single error
Even worse, we’ve handled multiple cases where someone other than the participant (like a friend or family member) unknowingly triggered a violation by attempting to start the car after drinking. The result? DVS automatically extends the participant’s interlock period—no questions asked.
A Glimmer of Hope: Supreme Court Review & Legislative Action
Thankfully, there’s pushback.
The Minnesota Supreme Court has granted review of this dangerous appellate decision. And at the same time, a new bill is under consideration at the legislature that would restore drivers’ rights to challenge unjust interlock extensions. This law would offer a critical safeguard against machine error, vendor missteps, and arbitrary decisions if passed.
Our Team Is Still Fighting—and Winning
In the meantime, many lower courts follow the Court of Appeals’ lead and dismiss these cases outright. But we’re not backing down.
This week, our very own Dan Koewler, with the tireless support of our veteran paralegal Shelley Arndt, successfully reversed a 36-month ignition interlock extension imposed by DVS. Our client had done nothing wrong. Yet under the current ruling, she would have had no right to fight it. We argued this violated her constitutional due process rights, and the court agreed.
This isn’t a one-off victory. We continue challenging unfair DVS actions and are committed to protecting our clients, even in the face of bad law.
What You Need to Know
Don’t give up if you or someone you know is facing an ignition interlock extension due to a false positive, machine malfunction, or another person’s mistake. Even with the current state of the law, there are ways to fight back—and win.
At Ramsay Law Firm, we understand that the ignition interlock program is more than just an inconvenience. It’s a matter of freedom, employment, and dignity for many people. We’re proud to be on the front lines of this fight.
💡 Facing an ignition interlock extension or violation?
Contact Ramsay Law Firm—Minnesota’s only law firm, Board Certified in DWI Defense Law by the American Bar Association. We know the system. We know the science. And we know how to win.
