Minnesota Interlock Class Action Says Participants Didn’t Consent to GPS Tracking

Three plaintiffs have filed a class action lawsuit against the Minnesota Department of Public Safety and the manufacturers of interlock devices claiming that they were not informed that the interlock devices they were required to install had GPS tracking capabilities.

According to the interlock class action lawsuit, the Minnesota Ignition Interlock Device Program allows drivers who have been convicted of DUI or other alcohol-related driving offenses to keep their driving privileges if they install an interlock device that requires the driver to take a breath test before operating the vehicle. The interlock device will prevent the vehicle from starting if the person’s alcohol concentration is too high.

The Department of Driver and Vehicle Services, a division of the Minnesota DPS, reportedly oversees the process by which the manufacturers of these breath alcohol ignition interlock devices (BAIIDs) are certified as vendors and requires them to meet certain standards, according to the Minnesota interlock device class action lawsuit.

DVS and DPS reportedly require the manufacturers of the interlock devices to collect and store the personal information of participants of the Minnesota Ignition Interlock Device Program on a website platform which allows DVS, DPS and the manufacturers to monitor the participants to ensure they are in compliance with the program. Participants who fail to comply with the rules are subject to administrative sanctions, the interlock class action lawsuit states.

The plaintiffs assert that, as part of the 2016-2017 certification process for the Minnesota Ignition Interlock Device Program, DVS required the interlock devices to be equipped with GPS devices that allow DPS and DVS to collect participants’ real-time locations.

“The collection of participants’ real-time location data is entirely unnecessary to the implementation and administration of the Ignition Interlock Program,” the Minnesota interlock device class action lawsuit states. The plaintiffs assert that their private information was “needlessly collected and carelessly managed in violation of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.”

Further, the plaintiffs argue that they did not agree to having their locations tracked via GPS when they agreed to the interlock program as part of their sentences. According to the interlock tracking class action lawsuit, it is not clear that this GPS data is being stored with adequate protection.

By filing the interlock tracking class action lawsuit, the plaintiffs seek to represent a Class of: “All Ignition Interlock Program participants and lessees of GPS-capable BAIIDs from which the DPS collected, obtained, accessed, viewed and/or disclosed Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ private information.” The plaintiffs also seek certification of three subclasses based on the brand of interlock device: a Smart Start subclass, an Intoxalock subclass and an Alcolock subclass.

The plaintiffs have asked the court to declare the “real-time reporting” requirement in the 2016-2017 certification program unenforceable and to permanently enjoin DVS from enforcing the requirement. They have also asked the court to grant any other relief, including costs and fees, that are deemed appropriate.

The plaintiffs are represented by Daniel J. Koewler of Ramsey Law Firm PLLC and Timothy Becker of Johnson Becker PLLC.

The Interlock Device GPS Tracking Class Action Lawsuit is Andrew Carufel, et al. v. Minnesota Department of Public Safety, et al., in the District Court of the State of Minnesota, County of Ramsey.