My question involves a driver's license issued by the State of: Minnesota
I'll try to make this as succinct as possible, though it's somewhat confusing. Any thoughts are greatly appreciated in advance!
I had a third dwi in 2006, and had my license revoked at that time. 1 year later, I was eligible to get a license again, provided I pass the written test, pay $680, and take a Rule 25 chemical assessment and follow any recommendations. That was the extent of the requirements.
I did the Rule 25 and attended outpatient treatment, satisfying that requirement. I did not take the written test or pay the fine, because I did not have the money for either the fine or a car at that time.
Fast forward to now. In the interim a law was passed requiring those with 3+ dwi's to have an ignition interlock installed in their vehicle for a period of 3 years following reinstatement. From my understanding, there is no language in the law stating that this is retroactive to offenses and revocations prior to the law being instated.
I am feeling that it is a requirement that should NOT apply to me now, particularly since the only reason I could not apply for the license at the time (prior to the law) was financial difficulties, and it doesn't seem that without the retroactive language it should be able to be applied to current requirements when it wasn't in the previous ones. I.e. it seems something would be off if I was forced to PAY for an ignition interlock for 3 years, as a penalty for being unable to afford to pay for reinstatement during the time period before the law became active. Also, I was never notified of any change to my requirements, until I wrote to the DMV a while ago to clarify what I needed to do (not knowing this would pop up as a new requirement).
I am curious if anyone thinks I have an angle on protesting this, and how I would best go about doing this if so. My first inclination was to simply talk to and/or write the DMV saying that they've listed this as a requirement for me in error, since it was not a prior requirement at the time of my inquiry BEFORE the law (without retroactive language) was enacted.
I also want to add that I am 100% sober for multiple years now, involved in a 12-step program and sponsoring others. My desire to not have the restrictions and the interlock device are not due to any amount of viewing my past behavior as anything less than reprehensible. I also believe however, that I should not put undue stress on myself of having to do 3 years of a prohibitive punishment that was not actually part of my own initial sentencing (so to speak).
Once again, thoughts on this are greatly appreciated in advance.
I'll try to make this as succinct as possible, though it's somewhat confusing. Any thoughts are greatly appreciated in advance!
I had a third dwi in 2006, and had my license revoked at that time. 1 year later, I was eligible to get a license again, provided I pass the written test, pay $680, and take a Rule 25 chemical assessment and follow any recommendations. That was the extent of the requirements.
I did the Rule 25 and attended outpatient treatment, satisfying that requirement. I did not take the written test or pay the fine, because I did not have the money for either the fine or a car at that time.
Fast forward to now. In the interim a law was passed requiring those with 3+ dwi's to have an ignition interlock installed in their vehicle for a period of 3 years following reinstatement. From my understanding, there is no language in the law stating that this is retroactive to offenses and revocations prior to the law being instated.
I am feeling that it is a requirement that should NOT apply to me now, particularly since the only reason I could not apply for the license at the time (prior to the law) was financial difficulties, and it doesn't seem that without the retroactive language it should be able to be applied to current requirements when it wasn't in the previous ones. I.e. it seems something would be off if I was forced to PAY for an ignition interlock for 3 years, as a penalty for being unable to afford to pay for reinstatement during the time period before the law became active. Also, I was never notified of any change to my requirements, until I wrote to the DMV a while ago to clarify what I needed to do (not knowing this would pop up as a new requirement).
I am curious if anyone thinks I have an angle on protesting this, and how I would best go about doing this if so. My first inclination was to simply talk to and/or write the DMV saying that they've listed this as a requirement for me in error, since it was not a prior requirement at the time of my inquiry BEFORE the law (without retroactive language) was enacted.
I also want to add that I am 100% sober for multiple years now, involved in a 12-step program and sponsoring others. My desire to not have the restrictions and the interlock device are not due to any amount of viewing my past behavior as anything less than reprehensible. I also believe however, that I should not put undue stress on myself of having to do 3 years of a prohibitive punishment that was not actually part of my own initial sentencing (so to speak).
Once again, thoughts on this are greatly appreciated in advance.
Suspension and Revocation: Ignition Interlock Requirement Valid or Not
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire