819 N.W.2d 465
Minn. Ct. App.2012Background
- Deputy stopped Sarber based solely on two brief high-beam flashes he observed as Sarber approached within about 1,000 feet.
- Deputy believed flashing violated Minn. Stat. § 169.61(b) which requires not projecting glaring rays into the oncoming driver's eyes.
- District court denied Sarber’s implied-consent petition seeking rescission of the revocation.
- Commissioner revoked Sarber’s license and impounded plates; Sarber petitioned under Minn. Stat. § 169A.53.
- District court’s reasoning relied on a broad interpretation of “glaring rays” that could encompass brief flashes; on appeal, court examines legality de novo.
- Issue presents whether brief flashing of high beams provides objective justification for an investigatory stop when there is no evidence of blinding, impairment, or other suspicious driving.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether brief flashing of high beams violates §169.61(b) to justify a stop. | Sarber: brief flashes do not violate the statute absent glare. | Commissioner: flashing can be a violation of the statute. | No; brief flashes do not constitute a violation; stop invalid. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. State, 683 N.W.2d 818 (Minn. 2004) (requires a particularized and objective basis for suspecting a violation to justify a stop)
- State v. George, 557 N.W.2d 575 (Minn. 1997) (stop valid for a traffic violation but not based on mistaken law interpretation)
- State v. Taylor, 594 N.W.2d 533 (Minn.App. 1999) (construe nontechnical words by ordinary usage in statutory terms)
- American Family Ins. Grp. v. Schroedl, 616 N.W.2d 273 (Minn. 2000) (interpret statutory language in light of surrounding sections)
- Holm v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, 416 N.W.2d 473 (Minn.App. 1987) (duty to dim headlights; relevant to glare inquiry)