The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is Kruse v. Commissioner of Public Safety (Decided January 8, 2018, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Published) which stands for the proposition that merely touching a fog line with your vehicle constitutes a traffic violation and justifies a traffic stop by the police.
In Kruse, Renville County Sheriff's Deputy Lucas Jacques was approximately three car lengths behind the Appellant's vehicle when he observed it move right and onto the fog line, but not over the fog line. Officer Jacques initiated a traffic stop and identified Kruse as the driver of the vehicle. Kruse performed poorly on field sobriety tests, and Officer Jacques arrested him for DWI.
The district court denied Kruse's motion to suppress and sustained the revocation of his license to drive. On appeal the issue was does driving a vehicle on a marking that delineates a lane for traffic constitute movement from the lane within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 169.18, subd. 7(a)?
Minn. Stat. § 169.18, subd. 7(a) states: "When any roadway has been divided into two or more clearly makes lane for traffic (a) A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from such lane until the driver has first ascertained that such movement can be made with safety."
Kruse's argument presumes that driving on the fog line is not movement from a lane because a marking that delineates a lane for traffic is part of the lane. The Minnesota Court of Appeals, however, disagreed stating:
"To determine whether driving on a fog line is movement from a lane and, therefore, a potential violation of Minn. Stat. § 169.18, subd. 7(a), we must define the term "lane" within the meaning of the statute. Neither Minn. Stat. § 169.18, subd. 7(a), nor the definitional section of chapter 169 defines the term. See Minn. Stat. § 169.011 (2016). Because the term is not technical, we look to dictionary definitions to determine its plain meaning. See Larson, 855 N.W.2d at 301; cf. Minn. Stat. § 645.08 (2016) (stating that in construing statutes, "technical words and phrases and such others as have acquired a special meaning, or are defined in this chapter, are construed according to such special meaning or their definition")."
"The American Heritage College Dictionary defines "lane" as "[a] narrow way or passage between walls, hedges, or fences" and as "[a] strip delineated on a street or highway for a single line of vehicles." The American Heritage College Dictionary 779 (4th ed. 2007). The same dictionary defines "delineate" as "[t]o draw or trace the outline of; sketch out," and it defines "between" as "[i]n or through the position or interval separating." Id. at 136, 375. Combined, these definitions indicate that the markings referred to in Minn. Stat. § 169.18, subd. 7(a), delineate lanes for traffic and that the areas between the markings, but not the markings themselves, constitute the lanes."
***
"Under Kruse's implicit reading of Minn. Stat. § 169.18, subd. 7(a), if two vehicles are driven onto a marking that delineates abutting lanes of traffic, neither driver has moved from his lane and there is no potential violation of Minn. Stat. § 169.18, subd. 7(a), even though simultaneously driving on the same marking significantly increases the risk of a motor-vehicle collision. That scenario is inconsistent with the legislative mandate that a vehicle shall not be moved from a lane "until the driver has first ascertained that such movement can be made with safety.'' Minn. Stat. § 169.18, subd. 7(a) (emphasis added). In sum, a conclusion that the markings that delineate lanes for traffic are not part of the lanes within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 169.18, subd. 7(a), is consistent with the statute's plainly stated legislative intent: safety."
Moral Of The Story: Always paint and drive between the lines!
If you or a loved one have been arrested for a Minnesota DWI, or are facing a DWI forfeiture of your motor vehicle, feel free to contact Minneapolis DWI Lawyer, F. T. Sessoms at (612) 344-1505 for answers to all of your Minnesota DWI questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment