Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 171.09 (2026)

Driving Restrictions; Authority, Violations

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subdivision 1.Authority; violations.

(a) The commissioner, when good cause appears, may impose restrictions suitable to the licensee's driving ability or other restrictions applicable to the licensee as the commissioner may determine to be appropriate to assure the safe operation of a motor vehicle by the licensee.

(b) Pursuant to Code of Federal Regulations, title 49, section 383.95, if an applicant for a commercial driver's license either does not successfully complete the air brake component of the knowledge test, or does not successfully complete the skills test in a vehicle equipped with air brakes as such tests are prescribed in Code of Federal Regulations, title 49, part 384, the department shall indicate on the class C, class B, or class A commercial driver's license, if issued, that the individual is restricted from operating a commercial motor vehicle equipped with air brakes.

(c) The commissioner shall restrict the operating privileges of a holder of a class A, class B, or class C commercial driver's license in accordance with Code of Federal Regulations, title 49, sections 383.73 and 383.95.

(d) The commissioner may restrict the operating privileges of a holder of a class A, class B, or class C commercial driver's license to the extent that the restrictions are authorized by section 221.0314, subdivision 3 or 3a, or rules adopted under those subdivisions or section 221.031.

(e) Upon receiving satisfactory evidence of any violation of the restrictions on the license, the commissioner may suspend or revoke the license. A license suspension under this section is subject to section 171.18, subdivisions 2 and 3.

(f) A person who drives, operates, or is in physical control of a motor vehicle while in violation of the restrictions imposed in a restricted driver's license issued to that person under this section is guilty of a crime as follows:

(1) if the restriction relates to the possession or consumption of alcohol or controlled substances, the person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor; or

(2) if the restriction relates to another matter, the person is guilty of a misdemeanor.

(g) It is a gross misdemeanor for a person who holds a restricted license issued under section 171.306 to drive, operate, or be in physical control of any motor vehicle that is not equipped with a functioning ignition interlock device certified by the commissioner.

Subd. 2.

[Expired, 2005 c 136 art 18 s 11]

Subd. 3.No-alcohol restriction.

(a) As used in this subdivision, "impaired driving incident" has the meaning given in section 169A.03, subdivision 22.

(b) Upon proper application by a person having a valid driver's license containing the restriction that the person must not consume alcohol or controlled substances, who has not been documented as having consumed alcohol or having possessed or used a controlled substance within the past ten years, and whose driving record contains no impaired driving incident within the past ten years, the commissioner must remove the no-alcohol/controlled substance restriction on the person's driving record and issue to the person a duplicate driver's license that does not show that restriction.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 19 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1959–2025 · leading case: State v. Moseng, 95 N.W.2d 6 (Minn. 1959).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Moseng, 95 N.W.2d 6 (Minn. 1959). · cites it 11× “24 governs as to the result of a violation of the provisions of § 171.09. Its provisions do not lend themselves to enforcement through the enactment of ordinances by any city or municipal subdivision.”

State v. Adickes, 741 N.W.2d 904 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 21× “5 (2004); and driving in violation of a restricted license in violation of Minn.Stat. § 171.09, subd. 1(b)(1) (2004).”

State, City of Loretto v. Tofte, 563 N.W.2d 322 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 29× “Following the trial, the *324 district court found appellant guilty of speeding and violating a restricted driver’s license under Minn.Stat. § 171.09 (1996). Appellant appealed the latter conviction.”

City of New Hope v. 1986 Mazda 626, License No. POC147, 546 N.W.2d 300 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 4× “04, subdivision 1, clause (8); or (4) by a person who is subject to a restriction on the person's driver's license under section 171.09 which provides that the person may not use or consume any amount of alcohol or a controlled substance.”

State v. Stoskopf, 644 N.W.2d 842 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 9× “Smith then issued Stoskopf a citation for not wearing a seatbelt and for violating his no-alcohol restriction under Minn.Stat. § 171.09 (2000). In July 2001, Stoskopf moved the district court to suppress the PBT results and dismiss the case because Smith did not read the…”

State v. Wertheimer, 781 N.W.2d 158 (Minn. 2010). · cites it 2× “1-2 (2008) (DWI and test refusal), and one count of violation of a restricted license under Minn.Stat. § 171.09, subd. 1(d)(1) (2008).”

State v. Uber, 604 N.W.2d 799 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 8× “1, 2(a) (1998), and one count of driving in violation of a restricted license, Minn.Stat. § 171.09 *801 (1998). The three enhanced gross misdemeanor DWI charges were later dropped, following the Minnesota Supreme Court holding in Baker v.”

State v. Polsfuss, 720 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “The officer read appellant the Minnesota Implied Consent Advisory and appellant took a breath test, which indicated an alco: hoi concentration of .262. Appellant was charged with third-degree DWI, in violation of Minn.”

State v. Poetschke, 750 N.W.2d 301 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “1(1), (5) (2004); one count of violation of a restricted driver’s license in violation of Minn.Stat. § 171.09(b)(1) (2004) 1 ; and one count of operating a motor vehicle without proof of insurance in violation of Minn.”

State v. Wenz, 779 N.W.2d 878 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “The district court dismissed a second charge of driving in violation of restricted driver’s license, Minn.Stat. § 171.09, subd. (l)(d)(l) (2006).”

State v. Rhode, 628 N.W.2d 617 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 17× “Whether a violation of Minn.Stat. § 171.09 (2000) requires proof of willfulness? II.”

Troy K. Scheffler v. Comm'r of Pub. Saf. (Minn. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 8× “Minn. Stat. § 171.09 , subd. 1(f)(1) (2010).”

Show all 19 citing cases →

— Minn. Stat. § 171.09(1996) — 1 case

State, City of Loretto v. Tofte, 563 N.W.2d 322 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997). “Following the trial, the *324 district court found appellant guilty of speeding and violating a restricted driver’s license under Minn.Stat. § 171.09 (1996). Appellant appealed the latter conviction.”

— Minn. Stat. § 171.09(b)(1) — 1 case

State v. Poetschke, 750 N.W.2d 301 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008). “1(1), (5) (2004); one count of violation of a restricted driver’s license in violation of Minn.Stat. § 171.09(b)(1) (2004) 1 ; and one count of operating a motor vehicle without proof of insurance in violation of Minn.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.