Revisor’s Notes are Just That and Have No Force of Law; Buckle Up.

State v. Wendorf, Minn.Ct.App., 5/19/2012.  Minnesota has a statute that says “wear your seatbelt.”  Minn.Stat. 169.686, subd. 1(a).  An officer stopped Mr. Wendorf back in May, 2010 only because he was not wearing a seatbelt.  Mr. Wendorf made challenges to this statute:  first, the statute prohibited an officer from stopping a motorist solely for a seat belt violation; and second,the statute, as published by the Revisor of Statutes, failed to provide notice that a motorist could be cited under this statute absent another moving violation.

Before 2009, officers could not stop a motorist for a seat belt violation unless there was another violation along with it.  The 2009 legislative session thought it had eliminated this prohibition and authorized officers to stop motorists just for seal belt violations.  There was nothing pretty, however, about how they went about it.  This, in turn, created a lot of busy work for the courts and lawyers.

The 2009 legislative session made three successive changes to the aforementioned statute.  The first change eliminated  the prohibition of stopping a motorist solely for a seat belt violation.  The second change mooted the first change by deleting the sentence that the first change had amended, but again removed the prohibition.  The third change was identical to the second change but then included additional stuff that had nothing to do with the prohibition.  When all this hit the Revisor’s desk, they published the last revision to the statute – the third change - but added a note that mentioned and printed the language from the first change; this included, in italics, the very prohibition that seemingly had been repealed not once but twice and perhaps three times.

Here’s how the court summed up this mess:

Here, the earlier and later amendments are irreconcilable because [the first change]retained the restrictive-citation provision and [the third change] repealed it and also deleted the language [the first change] amended.

Plain and simple, a Revisor’s note is not “the law.”  The last passed legislation on the elimination of the prohibition is “the law” so  the officer could stop Mr. Wendorf solely for the seat belt violation.

The court rejects Mr. Wendorf’s various due process challenges to this statutory entanglement.