MANKATO — After a Madelia man challenged an extension of his license revocation in Blue Earth County District Court in 2023, an appeals court recently upheld the lower court’s ruling that it didn’t have jurisdiction over the matter.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals’ ruling on Jan. 21 sets a precedent on remedies for people looking to challenge revocation extensions for violations of state ignition interlock device program guidelines.
Rather than petitioning a district court to decide the matter, the three-judge panel stated the remedy for challenges is an administrative review process within the Minnesota Department of Public Safety.
The case originated from the Minnesota Commissioner of Public Safety’s revocation of Todd Robert Reihs in April 2023. Reihs was charged with a DWI in Blue Earth County that month before his sentencing in July 2023.
Through the interlock program, Reihs regained his driving privileges provided he met program guidelines. Participants needed to pass an alcohol breath test to start their vehicle followed by periodic “rolling tests” at intervals between five to 45 minutes while the vehicle is running.
The appeals court ruling notes Reihs failed to complete multiple rolling tests, resulting in the commissioner sending him in a warning in July. More missed rolling tests by Reihs starting in September prompted the commissioner to revoke his license for 180 days, then a year.
Reihs admitted he missed the rolling tests in his district court petition, according to the appeals court ruling, but argued for equitable relief due to his violations not being because he was using alcohol.
In his district court petition he wrote his truck ran on diesel and at times he left it running while he did farm work because it was better for the engine.
“The ‘violation’ is a result of me being in the middle of a task on the farm and being away from my vehicle, while it was running,” he stated.
Judge Mark Betters asked Reihs and the commissioner to submit arguments on the jurisdictional issue. The judge ultimately denied Reihs’ petition and determined extensions of a revocation weren’t among the reasons outlined in law allowing someone in Reihs’ position to petition a district court.
Generally someone may petition to a district court if their driver’s license has been “refused, revoked, suspended, canceled, or disqualified” by the commissioner, according to state law. One of Reihs’ arguments was that there was no material difference between a revocation and an extension of a revocation.
Appeals court judges disagreed, describing them as “distinct and separate” actions.
“Simply put, a revocation extension does not alter the license status of the revoked person,” the panel stated.
In deciding against Reihs, the appeals court ruled the district court didn’t err in denying his petition.