BAC limits: 0.08% for adults; 0.04% for commercial drivers; zero-tolerance for drivers under 21. A first offense: First-offense DWI is typically a misdemeanor with fines, possible jail, license revocation, alcohol assessment, and ignition-interlock pathways for reinstatement. Felony threshold: A third DWI within 10 years can be a gross misdemeanor; a fourth can be a felony; criminal vehicular operation charges are felonies. That is what separates Minnesota DUI penalties from a generic national summary. Read Minn. Stat. § 169A.20 before the background sections below. Lookback: Prior DWI convictions within 10 years enhance penalties under the impaired-driving code.. Ignition interlock: Ignition interlock is widely used for license reinstatement after DWI.
Lookback window for prior offenses
Prior DWI convictions within 10 years enhance penalties under the impaired-driving code.
First-offense penalties
First-offense DWI is typically a misdemeanor with fines, possible jail, license revocation, alcohol assessment, and ignition-interlock pathways for reinstatement.
When a Minnesota DUI becomes a felony
A third DWI within 10 years can be a gross misdemeanor; a fourth can be a felony; criminal vehicular operation charges are felonies.
A concrete Minnesota scenario
Here is one way the Minnesota pieces fit together. Change any fact and the statute may point somewhere else.
A driver in Minnesota is charged with a first impaired-driving offense and wants to know what the statute actually sets.
- Start with the alcohol limits: 0.08% for adults; 0.04% for commercial drivers; zero-tolerance for drivers under 21
- Read the first-offense range: First-offense DWI is typically a misdemeanor with fines, possible jail, license revocation, alcohol assessment, and ignition-interlock pathways for reinstatement.
- Ask when the charge becomes a felony: A third DWI within 10 years can be a gross misdemeanor; a fourth can be a felony; criminal vehicular operation charges are felonies. Lookback: Prior DWI convictions within 10 years enhance penalties under the impaired-driving code.
- Interlock: Ignition interlock is widely used for license reinstatement after DWI.
Minnesota DWI under § 169A.20 proceeds in district court with parallel DPS plate/license actions. Defense reviews the stop and DataMaster record.
Ignition interlock and license consequences
Ignition interlock is widely used for license reinstatement after DWI.
How a typical Minnesota DUI case unfolds
Minnesota DWI under § 169A.20 proceeds in district court with parallel DPS plate/license actions. Defense reviews the stop and DataMaster record.
Related Minnesota guides
- How to file for divorce in Minnesota
- Child custody and parenting time in Minnesota
- Security deposit return in Minnesota
Case law: DUI penalties in Minnesota
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Peter Dean PAUL, Appellant
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Peter Dean PAUL, Appellant, 1996 Minn. LEXIS 705 (1996)
…dan, Minnesota, and charged with the misdemeanor offense of driving under the influence of alcohol. At the omnibus hearing, Paul pleaded not guilty to the charge of driving under the influence of alcohol and moved to suppress all evidence obtained against him on the grounds that the police officer’s warrantless entry into his home to make the arrest violated the Fourth Amendmen…
Minnesota opinions such as STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Peter Dean PAUL, Appellant are cited where DUI penalties is disputed. The court stated: "Minnesota, and charged with the misdemeanor offense of driving under the influence of alcohol." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Michael LARIVEE, Petitioner, Appellant
…ILBERT, Justice. Appellant Michael Larivee was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol — child endangerment in violation of Minn. Stat § 169.121, subd. 1(a) and subd. 3(c)(4) (1998), refusal to submit to testing in violation of Minn.Stat. § 169.121, subd. la and subd. 3(c)(4) (1998), and failure to properly stop at a stop sign in violation of Minn.Stat. § 169.30 (19…
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Michael LARIVEE, Petitioner, Appellant is worth reading on Minnesota DUI penalties because the court put the point in its own words: "ILBERT, Justice. Appellant Michael Larivee was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol — child endangerment in violation of Minn. Stat § 169.121, subd. 1(a) and subd. 3(c)(4) (1998), refusal to submit to testing in violation of Minn.Stat. § 169.121, subd. la and subd." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Orlando C. CLARK, Appellant
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Orlando C. CLARK, Appellant, 1992 Minn. App. LEXIS 551 (1992)
…victions of third degree burglary, fleeing a peace officer, driving under the influence of alcohol and driving with a blood alcohol concentration of .10 or more. *168 Clark contends that he was denied a fair trial because of a trial court ruling that, if he testified, he could be impeached with a prior conviction and because two police officers’ testimony allegedly implied Clar…
Practitioners open STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Orlando C. CLARK, Appellant when Minnesota DUI penalties turns on the distinction in this sentence: "victions of third degree burglary, fleeing a peace officer, driving under the influence of alcohol and driving with a blood alcohol concentration of .10 or more. *168 Clark contends that he was denied a fair trial because of a trial court ruling that, if he testified, he could be" Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
STATE of Minnesota, Appellant, v. Loren Lee LADUCER, Respondent
STATE of Minnesota, Appellant, v. Loren Lee LADUCER, Respondent, 2004 Minn. App. LEXIS 295 (2004)
…t he had been driving. Hodnefield then arrested Laducer for driving under the influence and invoked the implied consent law. Hodne-field made a telephone available to Laducer and, after .talking with an attorney, Laducer agreed to take a breath test. The Intoxilyzer 5000 breath test, administered by Hodnefield, produced a .11 blood alcohol content reading. Laducer was charged w…
STATE of Minnesota, Appellant, v. Loren Lee LADUCER, Respondent is worth reading on Minnesota DUI penalties because the court put the point in its own words: "Hodnefield then arrested Laducer for driving under the influence and invoked the implied consent law. Hodne-field made a telephone available to Laducer and, after .talking with an attorney, Laducer agreed to take a breath test." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Bradley Martin ANDERSON, Petitioner, Respondent, v. STATE of Minnesota, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND DEPARTMENT
…In 1969 the Colorado legislature established two levels of driving under the influence. It accomplished this by (a) redefining driving while under the influence to cover only driving while “substantially under the influence,” that is, driving when “incapable” of doing so safely, and (b) creating a new offense called “driving while ability impaired,” an offense which covers tho…
Practitioners open Bradley Martin ANDERSON, Petitioner, Respondent, v. STATE of Minnesota, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND DEPARTMENT when Minnesota DUI penalties turns on the distinction in this sentence: "In 1969 the Colorado legislature established two levels of driving under the influence." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Herman ASCHNEWITZ, Appellant
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Herman ASCHNEWITZ, Appellant, 1992 Minn. App. LEXIS 375 (1992)
…an alcohol concentration of .18. Appellant was charged with driving under the influence and driving with an alcohol concentration of .10 or more. The trial court denied appellant’s pre-trial motion to suppress evidence of his alcohol concentration. Appellant was found guilty of the offense of driving with an alcohol concentration of .10 or more. ISSUE Did the trial court err in…
On DUI penalties, STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Herman ASCHNEWITZ, Appellant speaks to the Minnesota dispute in this passage: "Appellant was charged with driving under the influence and driving with an alcohol concentration of .10 or more. The trial court denied appellant’s pre-trial motion to suppress evidence of his alcohol concentration." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
STATE of Minnesota, Petitioner, v. Ronald B. STARK, Respondent
STATE of Minnesota, Petitioner, v. Ronald B. STARK, Respondent, 1985 Minn. LEXIS 995 (1985)
…ing while under the influence of alcohol and driving with a blood alcohol content of .10 or more, Minn.Stat. § 169.-121, subd. 1(a) and (d) (1982). The jury found him guilty of driving while under the influence of alcohol but not guilty of driving with an alcohol content of .10 or more. The trial court sentenced defendant to 30 days in jail, fined him $500, and imposed a surcha…
STATE of Minnesota, Petitioner, v. Ronald B. STARK, Respondent is worth reading on Minnesota DUI penalties because the court put the point in its own words: "Minn.Stat. § 169.-121, subd. 1(a) and (d) (1982). The jury found him guilty of driving while under the influence of alcohol but not guilty of driving with an alcohol content of .10 or more." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Key takeaways
- BAC limits: 0.08% for adults; 0.04% for commercial drivers; zero-tolerance for drivers under 21
- Lookback period: Prior DWI convictions within 10 years enhance penalties under the impaired-driving code.
- First-offense range: First-offense DWI is typically a misdemeanor with fines, possible jail, license revocation, alcohol assessment, and ignition-interlock pathways for reinstatement.
- Felony threshold: A third DWI within 10 years can be a gross misdemeanor; a fourth can be a felony; criminal vehicular operation charges are felonies.
- Ignition interlock: Ignition interlock is widely used for license reinstatement after DWI.
- Primary authority: Minn. Stat. § 169A.20.
Blood alcohol limits in Minnesota
0.08% for adults; 0.04% for commercial drivers; zero-tolerance for drivers under 21
Frequently asked questions
What is the legal BAC limit in Minnesota?
0.08% for adults; 0.04% for commercial drivers; zero-tolerance for drivers under 21
Is a first DUI a felony in Minnesota?
A third DWI within 10 years can be a gross misdemeanor; a fourth can be a felony; criminal vehicular operation charges are felonies.
Will I need an ignition interlock device?
Ignition interlock is widely used for license reinstatement after DWI.
This guide covers Minnesota impaired-driving law as of 2026. Sentencing grids, administrative DMV rules, and local diversion programs change — verify the live statute and speak with counsel about your charging document.