The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is State v. Baas (Decided December 12, 2022, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that an officer only needs a "reasonable" basis to believe someone is speeding in order to make a traffic stop.
In Baas, the Defendant was observed accelerate rapidly from a stop sign by a Blue Earth County Sheriff's deputy. The deputy was a block away when he made the observation.
The deputy turned onto Front Street in Mankato in the direction that the Defendant was headed while the Defendant travelled parallel to him on Second Street. Based on the time in which it took for the Defendant to reach the intersections ahead of them, the deputy believed that the Defendant was traveling faster than normal traffic in this area and too fast for the road conditions. While catching up to the Defendant's vehicle, the deputy travelled at a speed up to 54 miles per hour in a 30 mph zone.
The Deputy initiated a traffic stop and inevitably, placed the Defendant under arrest for DWI. At a pretrial evidentiary hearing, the Defendant moved to dismiss the criminal complaint, arguing that reasonable, articulable suspicion did not support the traffic stop. The district court upheld the constitutionality of the traffic stop and denied the motion to dismiss the complaint.
On Appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the district court noting:
"A police officer may conduct a “brief, investigatory stop of a motor vehicle when the officer has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.” State v. Taylor, 965 N.W.2d 747, 752 (Minn. 2021) (quotation omitted). The reasonable-suspicion standard is “not high.” State v. Diede, 795 N.W.2d 836, 843 (Minn. 2011). It “requires more than a mere hunch but is considerably less than proof of wrongdoing by a preponderance of the evidence, and obviously less than is necessary for probable cause.” Taylor, 965 N.W.2d at 752."
***
“When an officer observes a violation of the traffic laws, there is reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle.” See State v. Anderson, 683 N.W.2d 818, 823 (Minn. 2004)."
"Failure to drive with due care and driving above posted speed limits are both violations of traffic laws. Minn. Stat. § 169.14 subds. 1, 2 (2018). Subdivision 1 of the statute provides that “[n]o person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions.” Minn. Stat. § 169.14 subd.l. In other words, an individual may violate subdivision 1 without exceeding any posted or statutory speed limit. See id. Recently, we interpreted section 169.14 in a nonprecedential opinion in State v. Konjaric, No. A18-0724 2019, WL 1320600, at *2 (Minn. App. Mar. 25, 2019), and concluded that the standard for subdivision 1 is that of a reasonable and prudent person, “given the driving conditions and hazards.” Although Konjari is not precedential, we find its reasoning persuasive and adopt it here. Whereas subdivision 1 focuses on the reasonableness of the speed, subdivision 2 makes driving above speed limits prima facie evidence that the speed is unreasonable."
"Appellant claims it was impossible for the deputy to estimate accurately the speed at which appellant was driving, because the streets were dark, there were houses obstructing the view, and the deputy initially only observed appellant’s vehicle from a block away. Appellant further notes that the deputy did not use markers, radar, or the pacing method to estimate appellant’s speed. Lastly, appellant questions the reliability of the speed estimation because the deputy testified that he believed it should take about a minute to drive the one-half mile to where he stopped appellant, yet his squad video showed that it took him about one minute and twenty seconds."
"Appellant conflates the burden of proof required for a traffic stop with the burden required for a speeding conviction. The reasonable-suspicion standard required for a traffic stop is “not high” and “less demanding than probable cause or a preponderance of evidence.” State v. Timberlake, 744 N.W.2d 390, 393 (Minn. 2008) (quotations omitted). A traffic stop meets the standard when an “officer observes unusual conduct that leads the officer to reasonably conclude in light of his or her experience that criminal activity may be afoot.” Id. (quotation omitted). In contrast, to sustain a conviction for speeding, the evidence must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Ali, 679 N.W.2d 359, 364 (Minn. App. 2004)."
***
"Based on the road conditions, the time of day, and the deputy’s first-hand observations, we conclude that the deputy had reasonable, articulable suspicion that appellant violated Minnesota Statute § 169.14, subdivision 1, for failing to drive with due care, and subdivision 2 for driving above the posted speed limit."
Moral Of The Story: Don't drink and drive fast.
If you or a loved one have been charged with a Minnesota DWI, feel free to contact Minneapolis DWI Attorney, F. T. Sessoms at (612) 344-1505 for answers to all of your Minnesota DWI and DUI questions.
