Dave Aeikens

daeikens@stcloudtimes.com

Question: Is it true that Minnesota legislators are immune from being arrested for a DWI while it is in session?

This question comes from Mary Mueller of St. Cloud, who sent us an email. You are probably referring to Article IV, Section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution. It essentially says that members of the House and Senate in all cases, except breech of peace, treason and felonies, are privileged from arrest during the Legislative session.

That section has been in the Minnesota Constitution since it was first written in 1857, according to the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library.

According to a paper on Legislative Immunity in Minnesota written by senate counsel in 2010, the concept dates back to England in the 16th and 17th centuries when political opponents would have lawmakers arrested to keep them from voting and writing legislation. Legislative immunity was first codified in 1689 in the English Bill of Rights.

A similar doctrine is in the U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 6, saying that “for any speech or debate in any either House, (the members) shall not be questioned in any other place.” Similar speech and debate clauses exist in the constitutions of all 50 states.

This issue has been in the news in Minnesota a bit this session. A group of students from Concordia University in St. Paul asked legislators to change the law so lawmakers could be arrested if they were suspected of driving while intoxicated. Senate File 2073 and House File 2281 do just that by defining a DWI as a “breach of peace.”

The likelihood of the bill becoming law seems small at this stage in the session. The House bill has moved through three committees and is in the rules committee. The Senate bill has stalled in the judiciary committee. The committee deadline has passed so it would require the Senate rules committee to revive it.

This question and legislative immunity got me wondering what the practicality of this law was. Stearns County Sheriff John Sanner has worked for the sheriff’s office for 30 years and his deputies patrol the seventh largest county geographically in the state. A number of legislative districts cut through Stearns County.

“We have never dealt with it,” Sanner said. “I have never heard it talked about. I think it is completely impractical.”

Sanner said any lawmaker who claimed immunity from a DWI or other legal breach would probably have more political problems from invoking the clause than just paying the misdemeanor fine.

One of the co-sponsors of the bill to add driving while intoxicated to the list of things for which a lawmaker could be stopped is Rep. Zachary Dorholt, DFL-St. Cloud. He has a card, just like the other lawmakers, he keeps in his wallet that protects him from some arrests while the House is in session. He likes to show it to friends at parties because he says that is all it is good for.

If the bill was to become law, it would require the arresting agency to take the lawmaker to jail for booking and then deliver him or her to the sergeant at arms so they can vote.

“It prevents any legislator from having an excuse for drinking and driving,” Dorholt said. The law as it is now does protect any legislator from prosecution, Dorholt said.

Ask SCTimes runs online and Sundays in the St. Cloud Times print edition. Mail questions to Ask SCTimes, Box 768, St. Cloud, MN 56302. Email questions to asksctimes@stcloudtimes.com. Follow us on Twitter @asksctimes and like us on Facebook.