State v. Beall, Minn.Ct.App., 8/25/2009. A Coon Rapids officer saw a car with its center brake light out; worse than that, the officer saw a passenger throw a cigarette butt out the window. Seeing enough, she pulled the car over. Noticing an alcohol smell, the officer administered a field sobriety test to Mr. Beall, on which he registered .212. The officer arrested Mr. Beall; at the station, his Intoxilyzer reading was .210.
The district court concluded that because Mr. Beall’s car had two working brake lights as required by Minn.Stat. 169.57, subd. 1(a) the officer had no basis on which to have stopped the car. Further, littering was not “really an issue.” The state appealed the suppression of its evidence.
The problem was, the trial court overlooked a different subsection of the statute, 169.57, subd. 3(a), which says that no matter how many you have all of your “stop lamps” have to be working:
[W]hen a vehicle is equipped with stop lamps or signal lamps, such lamps shall at all times be maintained in good working condition.
The appellate court rejects Mr. Beall’s argument that his just refers to the two “stop lamps” that the other subsection mentions. So, two out of three isn’t good enough; the officer’s observation of the burnt out center brake light gave her justification to stop the vehicle.
To add insult to injury, although littering is a petty misdemeanor, the officer’s observation of it also justified the stop.
No comments:
Post a Comment