State of Minnesota v. Mary Lynn Boline, A16-1290

At ~1:30 a.m. an officer followed Boline after she left a bar; she was driving 24 mph in a 35 mph zone.
The officer observed Boline briefly use a left turn signal, cancel it, then reactivate it and turn left at the next intersection.
Boline pulled into a second driveway on the cross street; the car’s registered address differed from that driveway and the officer thought this conduct suspicious.
After circling the neighborhood the officer resumed following Boline when she turned onto northbound West Broadway.
The officer stopped the car when the roadway expanded from one to two northbound lanes and Boline did not signal upon entering the new rightmost lane; subsequent sobriety testing led to arrest and charges.
Boline moved to suppress evidence from the stop; the district court granted suppression, holding the officer lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion and that no signal violation occurred. The state appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officer had reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop Boline based on pre-stop conduct (slow speed, driveway pull-in, direction change)	Those facts, especially at 1:30 a.m. after leaving a bar and pulling into a driveway different from the registered address, supported suspicion of furtive/evading conduct and possible DUI	Pre-stop facts were innocuous and common (driving below limit, brief driveway stop, returning on same street); officer himself said he lacked a legal basis to stop earlier	No. Court held pre-stop observations were insufficient to create reasonable, articulable suspicion; officer’s own decision not to stop earlier supports lack of objectively reasonable suspicion
Whether failing to signal when roadway expanded to two lanes violated Minn. Stat. §169.19, subd. 4, justifying the stop	Failure to signal upon entering the rightmost lane constituted a signal violation, supplying legal basis for the stop	Boline did not change lanes or move left/right; she remained on the fog line and stayed in a direct course as the road simply added a lane	No. Court interpreted the statute to require signaling when turning or moving right/left on the highway; merely continuing in the rightmost position as the road expanded is not a violation; stop therefore unjustified

Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 530 (Sup. Ct.) (reasonable-suspicion standard for investigatory stops)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (standard for stop and frisk; reasonable suspicion requirement)
State v. Johnson, 444 N.W.2d 824 (Minn. 1989) (conduct suggesting deliberate evasion can justify stop when officer reasonably infers evasion)
State v. Bissonette, 445 N.W.2d 843 (Minn. App. 1989) (statute requires signaling for lane changes on a highway)
State v. Diede, 795 N.W.2d 836 (Minn. 2011) ("reasonable-suspicion standard is not high" but excludes inchoate hunches)
State v. Schrupp, 625 N.W.2d 844 (Minn. App.) (similar facts where furtive conduct did not justify stop)