The Legal Examiner Mark The Legal Examiner Mark The Legal Examiner Mark search twitter facebook feed linkedin instagram google-plus avvo phone envelope checkmark mail-reply spinner error close
Skip to main content

The Minnesota Supreme Court recently looked at this issue and said no. In the case of Sate vs Diede, the Court in a 4-3 decision, concluded that :

a traffic stop must be "strictly tied to and justified by the circumstances which rendered its initiation permissible."

Basically, the Court found that the police need to connect the reason for the stop with the eventual search. It is the same concern that many people raised when seatbelt violations became a primary offense. The problem they saw, was that there would be stops made primarily to look around.

This looks like one the Court was right on. We are protected by the Constitution anginas illegal search and seizures. The police have to have an articulable and legal reason before they can go further with any search.

What is often raised is the emphasis on what was found. The thing is that it is exactly in these tough cases that the line needs to be drawn brightly.

Comments are closed.

Of Interest