Senator Lats, sponsor of Senate File 2068, told the Minnesota Senate Transportation Committee on March 28 that the bill is a response to a deadly Saint Louis Park crash and seeks to reduce repeat impaired driving by lengthening ignition‑interlock requirements and lowering financial barriers to reinstatement.

The measure would (1) extend the period a repeat DWI offender must remain on an ignition‑interlock device on a graduated scale (additions of one, three or up to ten years in some circumstances), (2) increase the look‑back period for prior offenses from 10 to 20 years, (3) permit certain criminal vehicular homicide cases to enter the interlock program, (4) allow the $250 reinstatement fee and $430 surcharge (totaling $680 under current statutory splits) to be paid over the interlock period rather than entirely up front, and (5) change several technical provisions including vehicle‑forfeiture eligibility and an option for law enforcement to invalidate a plate with a sticker instead of seizing it.

Why it matters: sponsor testimony framed the bill as a safety measure prompted by a repeat DWI driver who, after prior convictions and completion of earlier interlock terms, was driving with a valid license when he struck an outdoor patio in Saint Louis Park, killing two people and injuring others. Sponsor testimony and committee discussion emphasized two policy goals: keeping high‑risk drivers off the road and reducing the incentive for people subject to revocation to drive without valid privileges because they cannot afford reinstatement.

Committee debate and testimony:
- Senator Lats said the bill “started out as a specific response to a tragedy that happened in Saint Louis Park” and argued national and Minnesota studies show ignition interlock is “the most significant safety device” to prevent repeat impaired driving. He described the reinstatement fee burden as a major uptake barrier and said the bill’s payment timing change aims to reduce the upfront cost that keeps some people driving without valid privileges.

- Charles Siegel, a private defense attorney speaking for the Minnesota Association for Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Minnesota Society for Criminal Justice, supported several provisions (including adding interlock as an option in criminal vehicular‑homicide cases and adding judicial review in specified circumstances) but opposed substantially lengthening mandatory interlock durations and expanding the look‑back period to 20 years. Siegel said longer mandatory terms risk “penalizing the compliant” — increasing costs and time for people who are already following program rules — and that many defendants simply cannot afford the program even if fees are payable over time.

- Fiscal and policy staff explained the current reinstatement charges are a $250 fee plus a $430 surcharge (total $680); the $250 is split to several accounts (including Driver and Vehicle Services operating account and the general fund), and portions of the surcharge feed special accounts (for example traumatic brain injury and remote monitoring accounts). Staff said the committee would await a fiscal note to assess the budgetary effects of changing when collections occur.

- Committee members questioned the practical reach of a 20‑year look back and whether the expanded time frame would capture infrequent, long‑interval reoffenses or primarily affect low‑level prior events. Senator Jasinski and others expressed concern that 20 years may be excessive compared with the current 10‑year look back.

Technical changes in the A7 amendment: sponsor and staff said the A7 amendment clarifies how forfeiture relief works when a vehicle is inoperable (allowing a vehicle that can be equipped with interlock to qualify even if inoperable so it can be parted out), adds suspension and cancellation to the statutory terminology alongside revocation to give Driver and Vehicle Services flexibility, and clarifies DVS authority to extend interlock periods when reported violations occur (including low positive readings later attributed to interference). The committee adopted the A7 amendment on a voice vote.

Votes at a glance: the committee approved the A7 amendment on a voice vote. Later, Senator Johnson Stewart moved that Senate File 2068, as amended, be recommended to pass and referred to the Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety; the motion passed on a voice vote and the measure was forwarded as recommended.

What was not decided or remains unresolved: the committee accepted the A7 amendment and moved the bill forward, but staff said they are awaiting a fiscal note to determine whether changing the timing of fee collection will have a budgetary impact that requires further drafting. The final statutory language on how payments are scheduled and any eligibility limits for payment plans remain subject to later refinement.

Ending: With the committee’s recommendation, Senate File 2068 advances to Judiciary and Public Safety for further consideration; staff will provide fiscal detail to aid subsequent drafting and floor deliberations.