# Minnesota reckless and careless driving

This document is general legal information about Minnesota's reckless driving and careless driving laws. It is not legal advice, and it does not cover every situation.

## Sources and currency

- Minn. Stat. § 169.13 (reckless or careless driving), last amended by 2019 c 10 s 1 and 2. Also §§ 609.02 and 609.03 (definitions of misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor and great bodily harm, and their general maximum sentences), and § 169.89, subd. 1 (penalties for traffic violations).
- Text taken from the 2025 Minnesota Statutes, as published by the Office of the Revisor of Statutes at https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/ and read on 2026-09-20. Laws passed in the 2026 legislative session may not be reflected.
- Minn. Stat. §§ 609.2112, 609.2113 and 609.2114 (criminal vehicular homicide and operation), read from the 2025 statutes.
- Court decisions: Minnesota Supreme Court and Court of Appeals opinions, read in the Harvard Caselaw Access Project (https://case.law/). Every passage placed in quotation marks in the case sections below was checked against the opinion text. The summaries of holdings are my own reading and are short. Older opinions apply older versions of the statutes, including the earlier numbering and wording of § 169.13 and § 609.21.
- Minnesota House Research Department, "Distracted Driving: Cell Phone Use While Driving", October 2019, https://www.house.mn.gov/hrd/pubs/ss/ssdistdrvg.pdf, for how distracted driving can lead to these charges.

## Reckless driving

Section 169.13, subd. 1(a): "A person who drives a motor vehicle or light rail transit vehicle while aware of and consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the driving may result in harm to another or another's property is guilty of reckless driving. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that disregard of it constitutes a significant deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation."

Two things are needed: the driver is aware of the risk and consciously disregards it, and the risk is a significant deviation from what a reasonable person would do.

**Racing** is reckless driving. Subd. 1(b): "A person shall not race any vehicle upon any street or highway of this state. Any person who willfully compares or contests relative speeds by operating one or more vehicles is guilty of racing, which constitutes reckless driving, whether or not the speed contested or compared is in excess of the maximum speed prescribed by law."

## How serious reckless driving is

Subd. 1(c): "A person who violates paragraph (a) or (b) is guilty of a misdemeanor. A person who violates paragraph (a) or (b) and causes great bodily harm or death to another is guilty of a gross misdemeanor."

"Great bodily harm" has the meaning in § 609.02, subd. 8: "bodily injury which creates a high probability of death, or which causes serious permanent disfigurement, or which causes a permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ or other serious bodily harm."

## Careless driving

Subd. 2(a): "Any person who operates or halts any vehicle upon any street or highway carelessly or heedlessly in disregard of the rights of others, or in a manner that endangers or is likely to endanger any property or any person, including the driver or passengers of the vehicle, is guilty of a misdemeanor."

Careless driving does not require that the driver was aware of the risk. It is a lesser standard than reckless driving, and it is also a misdemeanor.

## Sentences

- **Misdemeanor.** "a sentence of not more than 90 days or a fine of not more than $1,000, or both" (§ 609.02, subd. 3). Section 609.03 sets the same limits when no other punishment is provided.
- **Gross misdemeanor.** Section 609.03 provides "imprisonment for not more than 364 days or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both", when no other punishment is provided.

The House Research summary from 2019 described a reckless driving death as punishable by "up to a year in jail, a $3,000 fine, or both". The current text of § 609.03 says 364 days for a gross misdemeanor, and this document follows the statute.

## Where the section applies

Subd. 3(a): the section applies, but is not limited in application, to a person who drives in the prohibited manner "(1) upon the ice of any lake, stream, or river", or "(2) in a parking lot ordinarily used by or available to the public though not as a matter of right, and a driveway connecting the parking lot with a street or highway".

Subd. 3(b) says it does not apply to "(1) an authorized emergency vehicle, when responding to an emergency call or when in pursuit of an actual or suspected violator; (2) the emergency operation of any vehicle when avoiding imminent danger; or (3) any raceway, racing facility, or other public event sanctioned by the appropriate governmental authority."

Subd. 3(c): "Nothing in this section or section 609.035 or 609.04 shall limit the power of the state to prosecute or punish a person for conduct that constitutes any other crime under any other law of this state."

## Related rules

- **Ordinary traffic violations can become misdemeanors.** Section 169.89, subd. 1, makes most violations of chapter 169 a petty misdemeanor, "except that" a violation "committed in a manner or under circumstances so as to endanger or be likely to endanger any person or property" is a misdemeanor. That is separate from the reckless and careless driving offenses in § 169.13.
- **Distracted driving.** House Research (2019) says that if using an electronic device "results in some other dangerous driving conduct, prosecutors can charge a more serious crime", for example careless or reckless driving. It gives the example that composing or reading an electronic message while driving that endangers another person "could rise to the level of careless or reckless driving".

## The 2019 change to the reckless driving standard

Section 169.13 was last amended by 2019 c 10 s 1 and 2. The current text of subd. 1(a) requires that the driver be "aware of and consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk". Decisions from before 2019 apply the earlier wording of the statute, and this document does not set that wording out. When a case below decided before 2019 speaks of reckless driving, it is describing the earlier standard, and the current text should be read for what applies today.

## Criminal vehicular homicide and operation

When careless or reckless driving causes a death or injury, the prosecutor can instead charge one of the criminal vehicular crimes. They are in §§ 609.2112 to 609.2114.

**Criminal vehicular homicide, § 609.2112, subd. 1(a).** A person "may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both, if the person causes the death of a human being not constituting murder or manslaughter as a result of operating a motor vehicle" in any of eight ways:

1. "in a grossly negligent manner";
2. "in a negligent manner while under the influence of" alcohol, a controlled substance, a cannabis-related substance, or a combination;
3. "while having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more";
4. "while having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more, as measured within two hours of the time of driving";
5. "in a negligent manner while under the influence of an intoxicating substance" that the person knows or has reason to know can cause impairment;
6. "in a negligent manner while any amount of a controlled substance listed in Schedule I or II, or its metabolite" is present, other than the cannabis-related substances;
7. "where the driver who causes the collision leaves the scene of the collision in violation of section 169.09, subdivision 1 or 6"; or
8. where the driver knew that a peace officer had previously issued a citation or warning that the motor vehicle was defectively maintained, knew remedial action was not taken, had reason to know the defect created a present danger to others, and the death was caused by the defective maintenance.

Under subd. 1(b), for clauses 2 to 6 "occurring within ten years of a qualified prior driving offense, the statutory maximum sentence of imprisonment is 15 years." Under subd. 2 it is an affirmative defense to clause 6 that the defendant used the controlled substance according to a valid prescription.

**Criminal vehicular operation, § 609.2113.** The same eight ways apply, with the maximum depending on the harm caused:

- Great bodily harm (subd. 1): "not more than five years" or a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.
- Substantial bodily harm (subd. 2): "not more than three years" or a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.
- Bodily harm (subd. 3): "not more than 364 days" or a fine of not more than $3,000, or both.

**Unborn child, § 609.2114.** Subd. 1(a) makes it a crime to cause the death of an unborn child as a result of operating a motor vehicle in the same listed ways, with up to ten years or a fine of not more than $20,000, or both. Subd. 2 covers causing great bodily harm to an unborn child subsequently born alive, with up to five years or a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.

A driver who causes a death by grossly negligent driving is therefore facing a felony, not the misdemeanor of careless driving or the misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor of reckless driving. The difference between the levels of fault is the subject of the cases below.

## Leading cases: what reckless, careless and grossly negligent driving mean

**State v. Bolsinger, 221 Minn. 154, 21 N.W.2d 480 (1946), as explained in State v. Meany, 262 Minn. 491 (1962).** Bolsinger reviewed the meaning of the terms reckless and grossly negligent in the former criminal negligence statute for vehicles. The Bolsinger decision is known here only through Meany's description of it. Meany said: "In the Bolsinger case we held that" reckless "means in such a manner as to indicate either a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property". In Meany, the Minnesota Supreme Court restated the two standards. For reckless driving: "in order to constitute the crime in question by reckless driving, the accused must have known, or should have known, that his manner of driving the vehicle created an unreasonable risk of harm, but he need not have intended to cause harm." For gross negligence: "Briefly stated, we concluded that ‘grossly negligent,’ as used in our criminal negligence statute, means with very great negligence or without even scant care but not with such reckless disregard of probable consequences as is equivalent to a willful and intentional wrong." Meany added: "Proof of either reckless driving or grossly negligent driving will sustain a conviction under this statute." The defendant in Meany struck and killed a young girl walking on or beside a Bloomington street. Holding: gross negligence is a very high degree of carelessness, and it stops short of an intentional wrong.

**State v. White, 292 N.W.2d 16 (Minn. 1980).** Police officers saw White spin his pickup truck numerous times in a short period on a slippery downtown street early one morning and then park it in a traffic lane with the engine running. He was found guilty of reckless driving and disorderly conduct and not guilty of driving under the influence and simple assault. The Minnesota Supreme Court held: "We hold that this evidence was sufficient to support the guilty verdicts." It said the evidence "showed that he drove recklessly in such a manner as to indicate either a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property." Holding: reckless driving can be proved by conduct such as repeated spinning on a slippery street even though no crash occurred, and the wording is the pre-2019 standard.

**State v. Kissner, 541 N.W.2d 317 (Minn. App. 1995).** Jeffrey Kissner began to pass another vehicle in his passing lane when a northbound Chevrolet occupied that lane, and the collision happened. It was near a no-passing zone: the court noted that "A no-passing zone began approximately 325 feet south of the spot where the Chevrolet and appellant's Ford had come to rest", and a state trooper estimated that "approximately three to four seconds separated the Ford from the start of the no-passing zone". The Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions for criminal vehicular homicide and criminal vehicular operation causing substantial bodily harm. It said: "Applying the appropriate standard of review, we conclude that a jury could have reasonably found each element of the charged offenses, including the element of gross negligence required to prove criminal vehicular homicide and criminal vehicular operation causing substantial bodily harm." It also observed that the case "is lacking in a single dramatic piece of evidence, such as driving while intoxicated." Holding: a dangerous passing maneuver, without alcohol, can support a finding of gross negligence.

**State v. Rasinski, 472 N.W.2d 645 (Minn. 1991).** Gerald Rasinski was convicted of four felony counts of criminal vehicular operation resulting in death, two gross misdemeanor counts of DWI, and one misdemeanor count of careless driving after a July 4, 1989 collision in which two 19-year-old men were killed. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and held that "the findings of the trial court adequately support the departure from the sentencing guidelines." On a lack of insurance, it agreed with the trial court that it shows "callousness towards other motorists, or at the very best, ... inadvertence toward the duty he owes to other motorists", and is a valid consideration of the seriousness of the charged offense". It reversed the order denying execution of the sentence and remanded.

**State v. Al-Naseer, 690 N.W.2d 744 (Minn. 2005).** Mohammed Al-Naseer's car struck and killed a man changing a flat tire on the side of Highway 10. He was convicted of two counts of criminal vehicular homicide, one for gross negligence and one for leaving the scene. The Minnesota Supreme Court held that the erroneous admission of a videotaped police interview was not harmless: "we conclude that the guilty verdict was not ‘surely unattributable’ to the erroneous admission of the videotaped interview and hold that the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." It also held the jury should have been instructed on the lesser-included offense of careless driving: "Both Al-Naseer and the state agree, as do we, that careless driving is a lesser-included offense with respect to criminal vehicular homicide — gross negligence." The failure to give the instruction meant the jury "was not in a position to weigh whether Al-Naseer's conduct constituted gross negligence or ordinary negligence. This was error." Finally, it held: "while the accident victim's death is a necessary element to be proved in order to establish criminal vehicular homicide, it is not an element that must be proved to establish gross negligence." Holding: the level of fault is judged by the driving conduct and not by how bad the result was, and a jury may have to be offered careless driving as the lesser charge.

**State v. Al-Naseer, 734 N.W.2d 679 (Minn. 2007).** On the leaving-the-scene theory, the Supreme Court held that the state must prove "that Al-Naseer had knowledge that he had been involved in the type of accident that would impose a duty to stop, an accident with a person or another vehicle." It affirmed the reversal of the conviction and remanded for reconsideration of the verdict under this mens rea standard. The court agreed "that both section 169.09, subdivisions 1 and 6, and section 609.21, subdivision 1(7), require some level of knowledge and are not strict liability statutes." Holding: leaving the scene is not a strict liability crime, and the driver must know they were in an accident with a person or vehicle.

**State v. Stavish, 868 N.W.2d 670 (Minn. 2015).** Derek Stavish was charged with three counts of criminal vehicular operation resulting in death, two counts of fourth-degree DWI, reckless driving and careless driving after a single-vehicle rollover crash that killed Brent Lehnen. The district court suppressed the results of a warrantless blood draw. The Supreme Court held: "We conclude that the State established under the totality-of-the-circumstances approach that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless blood draw." It affirmed the court of appeals, which had reversed the suppression. This case is discussed with the DWI blood-testing cases and shows how those rules apply in a fatal crash prosecution that includes reckless and careless driving counts.

**State v. Pflepsen, 590 N.W.2d 759 (Minn. 1999).** Richard Pflepsen was sentenced for criminal vehicular operation, careless driving and inattentive driving arising from one collision. The Supreme Court decided procedural questions about how the district court should have sentenced him and resentenced him on the lesser-included misdemeanor convictions, and concluded: "We reverse the court of appeals, vacate the district court's sentencing orders, and remand for adjudication of conviction and resentencing." It shows that careless and inattentive driving can be charged alongside a felony from the same crash.

**State v. Engle, 743 N.W.2d 592 (Minn. 2008).** This case concerns recklessly discharging a firearm, not driving, but shows how the Minnesota Supreme Court reads reckless in a criminal statute. It held that the offense "requires proof of a conscious or intentional act, in connection with the discharge of a firearm, that creates a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the actor is aware of and disregards." Similar language now appears in the reckless driving statute after the 2019 amendment.

## How the levels of fault fit together (my summary)

| Level | Statute | Fault standard | Class |
|---|---|---|---|
| Careless driving | § 169.13, subd. 2(a) | "carelessly or heedlessly in disregard of the rights of others", or in a way that endangers | Misdemeanor |
| Reckless driving | § 169.13, subd. 1 | aware of and consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk | Misdemeanor; gross misdemeanor if great bodily harm or death results |
| Criminal vehicular operation or homicide by gross negligence | §§ 609.2112 to 609.2114 | "grossly negligent manner": very great negligence, without even scant care, not a willful wrong (Meany) | Felony or gross misdemeanor by injury level |
| Criminal vehicular operation or homicide while impaired | §§ 609.2112 to 609.2114 | negligent driving while under the influence, or alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more, or a listed drug in the body | Felony or gross misdemeanor by injury level |

Cases show that gross negligence is judged by the driving and not by the result (Al-Naseer 2005), that a jury may need to be offered careless driving as a lesser choice, that dangerous passing can be enough (Kissner), and that leaving the scene requires knowledge of the accident (Al-Naseer 2007).

## What this document does not cover

- Sentencing details, including how guideline sentences are calculated.
- How a prosecutor chooses between careless driving, reckless driving and other charges, and defenses.
- License consequences of a conviction, and court procedure.
- Court decisions not listed above. The list is a selection of leading decisions, not a complete one.