Cop’s Inability to Read Temporary Tag Deemed Invalid to Support Traffic Stop
Many traffic stops initiated by law enforcement are for valid reasons: weaving all over the roadway, excessive speeding, holding your cell phone and streaming YouTube, and the like. However, some seizures are not valid. Some officers will look for any old reason to pull someone over to investigate wrongdoing on a hunch. Recently, the Minnesota Court of Appeals determined a cop’s claim that they could not read a temporary license plate tag in a window was not a valid reason to conduct a traffic stop in State v. Engel.
Some Minnesota cases upheld traffic stops when a person illegally covered their license plate or a license plate was covered by snow and not visible. Here, the driver had a valid temporary registration tag affixed to their rear window. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The driver’s attorney argued to the district court that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated because the officer did not have reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity to justify the traffic stop. The court of appeals agreed.
The court of appeals reasoned that the officer’s seizure was based on a “mere whim” and “idle curiosity” as to whether the tags were valid, which is not a valid reason for a traffic stop. The “mere whim” and “idle curiosity” language is important for the defense to protect against unconstitutional searches and seizures. Often, officers have a hunch that some criminal activity may be afoot. Here, the officer observed the driver at a gas station and then followed his vehicle for approximately three miles before activating his emergency lights to conduct the traffic stop. While the court of appeals did not highlight that length of time as a reason why this was a stop based on a “mere whim”, it surely did not go unnoticed by the court.
Interestingly, in this case, while the seizure was deemed invalid, the court of appeals did not agree that the evidence of the driver’s fleeing the police thereafter was inadmissible. The court reasoned that the driver committed a new crime – fleeing police – which is an intervening circumstance purging the subsequent conduct from the taint of the unlawful seizure. In other words, had the driver stopped immediately after the officer tried to do so, any evidence obtained thereafter would have been suppressed. Because the driver subsequently committed a new crime, that fleeing a peace officer in a motor vehicle evidence is not suppressed.
For a consultation at no charge, feel free to call or text us at 612-547-3199 or email: ambroselegal@icloud.com
Robert H. Ambrose is a criminal defense lawyer and DWI attorney in the Twin Cities and the state of Wisconsin. Super Lawyers named him a Super Lawyer for the past four years and a Rising Star in the preceding six years. He is an adjunct professor at the University of Minnesota Law School. DWI Lawyer Woodbury MN; Criminal Defense Attorney Minnesota; and OWI Lawyer Wisconsin.