Lawmakers plan to look at strengthening DWI laws following Park Tavern tragedy

[MUSIC PLAYING] CATHY WURZER: There will be a funeral later today for Gabe Harvey, one of the victims of a crash at a popular St. Louis park restaurant over the Labor Day holiday weekend. Harvey worked at Methodist Hospital and had been at a party at Park Tavern celebrating a colleague's departure when a man drove onto the patio, killing Gabe and another person, Kristina Folkerts, a server at Park Tavern. Nine other people on that patio were hurt.

Steven Frane Bailey has been charged in the case. Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty says his blood alcohol level was four times the legal limit at the time of the crash. He had five previous DWI convictions and for a time had his license revoked and an interlock ignition device put on his car. That's a technology that prevents a driver from starting their car without first passing a breathalyzer test. That restriction on Bailey had expired at the time of the crash.

The recent tragedy has raised the question of whether stricter penalties or restrictions could prevent future deaths. And a couple of lawmakers have said this question will be on the agenda during the 2025 legislative session. DFL state senator Ron Latz represents St. Louis Park. He is chair of the chamber's judiciary and public safety committee. He's on the line. Senator, thanks for taking the time.

RON LATZ: Hello, Kathy. Nice to be with you.

CATHY WURZER: I know this is a very difficult day. It's been a difficult few days for everybody in St. Louis Park. I know that you used to live near Park Tavern, right?

RON LATZ: Yeah, I lived across the street, ordered pizza there a lot and hung out there a bit. It's really a community institution. A lot of community people go there on a regular basis to bowl and relax. And when it's nice out, enjoy the nice weather on the patio.

CATHY WURZER: What are your constituents saying about all this?

RON LATZ: Well, I haven't gotten a lot of direct feedback from my constituents on this. I think everyone shares the horror at what happened. And my heart breaks for the families of the deceased and those who are injured, who I wish a speedy recovery. And, of course, those who witnessed this as well. It's a pretty traumatic experience to see it. I'm sure.

CATHY WURZER: Yesterday we were talking, senator, to somebody from Mothers Against Drunk Driving, who said that one in seven Minnesota drivers have had at least one DWI. 40% have re-offended. That seems like a huge statistic. Minnesota law doesn't have a provision that calls for permanent license revocation after a certain number of DWI offenses. What do you think needs to change in this equation?

RON LATZ: Well, first, we need to understand that government has limited ability to solve society's problems short of putting an individual guardian next to someone who has a drinking problem every second of every day to prevent them from drinking or getting behind the wheel. There's only so much that we can do.

Certainly, we will be taking a look at our existing laws to see if there's anything more that can be done. We have a pretty robust DWI statute right now dealing with the criminal side and with the license side. We do have to acknowledge that quite a few people who are suspended or revoked on their license for whatever reason, drive anyway because they still need to get to work to put food on the table and pay rent or mortgage, and take care of their families.

So we have tried to find a way in Minnesota to limit their ability to do that, but also to give them the tools to protect the public with the interlock device. And of course, we have graduating and more serious penalties for repeat offenders up to even a felony where someone could face seven years in prison for a fourth DWI in a 10-year window.

CATHY WURZER: So I'm wondering about the interlock devices. Evidently, the individual in question, of course, had one, and he went right up to the time that under state law it expired. So he didn't have that on the car at the time of the crash. I'm wondering, is it possible to maybe make the interlock device restrictions a little more strict, make them last longer?

RON LATZ: Yeah, that is certainly a possibility. And we'll be evaluating that when we look at this whole thing. I just confirmed my own understanding of the law, which was when you complete six years on the interlock without having any violations, you get your full driving privileges reinstated without any other restrictions. And that's a current law. That certainly could be looked at. Whether that gets extended, whether there is a lifetime requirement for interlock, for example.

I mean, the evidence that we had when interlock was passed and supported by Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the DWI Task Force that included prosecutors and probation folks and law enforcement and others, was all that interlock is a net gain in public safety.

For a huge percentage of people that have drinking problems and tend to get DWIs, it protects against them driving while drunk, but not in absolutely every case. So we're sure going to take a look at those.

CATHY WURZER: Somebody asked me yesterday, well, could the state mandate treatment? And I suppose that would be extremely difficult to even look at something like that.

RON LATZ: Well, we can mandate treatment as a part of a criminal sentence, someone who's on probation. Once you even get into your second DWI, you're required to go through a chemical use assessment. And most judges will then require that you follow, comply with whatever recommendations are made. That could include outpatient treatment, inpatient treatment, ongoing follow-up treatment, abstinence conditions, random testing. All of that can be made a condition of the criminal sentence.

And if people get committed in the civil system as chemically dependent, yes, then they can be put in either community settings, or in extreme cases in state facilities for treatment. But we have a pretty robust treatment system in Minnesota.

But like in the mental health system, we don't have enough beds for everyone that needs inpatient treatment. And the funding mechanisms are not great for that. The thing that's most troubling is constitutionally, we can't do preventive or preemptive incarceration. I don't think anyone would want to live in a society where we can just do that.

CATHY WURZER: I wonder, you know, since Minnesota has one of the highest rates of repeat DWI offenders in the country, might there be investments further upstream, more of a public health approach, perhaps?

RON LATZ: Well, that's something that we definitely should be looking at. We have, in the last several years, substantially increased our investments in prevention, in treatment for a variety of things, including chemical dependency when people are in prison, or incarcerated, to get them treatment while they are in the facilities, to provide for community supervision for additional treatment that way.

We've got the Minnesota public health systems and the health insurance systems. We've put a lot of funds into as well. But there's always room for more. But treatment helps, but ultimately it's an individual that has to come to the point where they are not going to drink, or if they decide to drink, they don't make that additional decision to get behind the wheel, which is when you really put others at risk.

CATHY WURZER: But it sounds, though, from everything you've said today, there's still maybe a little bit of wiggle room in terms of perhaps strengthening some kind of penalties in the session coming up.

RON LATZ: Yeah, well, there's always room for strengthening penalties if we think it makes sense from a broader public safety standpoint. It's hard to make state-wide policy based on individual cases because sometimes people and things fall through the cracks. And as I say, you can put whatever laws you want on the books, that doesn't always have a deterrent effect on people committing crimes. We know that, or we'd have no crime.

So we do know the Office of the Legislative Auditor is going to have a report out this fall on the interlock program in Minnesota. So I'm hopeful we'll get more information on how well that's being administered and perhaps some additional information on the national evidence of effectiveness.

But that is certainly one step that we can take in this particular case, because the gentleman had a prior and within the previous 10 years, the maximum penalty for his jail sentence if he's convicted, would be 15 years in prison. So it's not insubstantial at all. That's a long time in prison. So we've got pretty robust criminal penalties right now as well. But the key also always is to make the connection between those penalties and deterrence, while preventing criminal conduct from occurring.

CATHY WURZER: Senator, I appreciate your time. Thank you.

RON LATZ: Absolutely. Thank you very much.

CATHY WURZER: Minnesota DFL senator Ron Latz represent St. Louis park.