State v. Henning

again “[w]hen over stated over application law in their

the words of free clear and situation are existing of the law ambiguity, letter

from all pretext disregarded under

shall not be spirit.” pursuing Here, statutory definition of 645.16. only possi- unambiguous. The

“solicit” is in an engage for the court to

ble reason in an history is legislative

examination of reading of the bring expansive its

effort to expansive reading

facts its within vio- meaning.” Doing so “plain

statute’s statutory construction.

lates our rules ambigu-

If resort requires

ous court to legislative history in order

consideration we are re- give provisions meaning, concerning

quired ambiguity “resolve lenity” of the statute in favor of ambit the defendant. State v. Steven-

towards (Minn.2003).

son, 235, 239

Here, require that the district that would court of be affirmed. appeals

court and the 2, is subdivision

Either section cannot it is not. The court

ambiguous or ways.

have it both Minnesota, Respondent,

STATE of HENNING, Appellant. Robert

Joel

No. C9-01-1985.

Supreme Court Minnesota.

July (# 175547), F. George Appellant, pursuant to State v. Lothen A. Gary Gittus MN, Rochester, bach, (Minn.1980), Associates, agreed & Restovich stipulate facts contained within Appellant. police reports certified Hatch, Attorney Minnesota Gener- Mike May A trial on record. bench was held (# 0215259), al, Rochester L. Adkins Terry 2001, in County Olmsted District Court. D. Roch- Attorney, Magnuson, Peter City memorandum, and In an order the court Rochester, City Attorney, ester Assistant incorporated ruling from the earlier MN, Respondent. for hearing concluding omnibus that Minn. (# 269736), Teresa J. Nelson Minnesota § 168.0422 is unconstitutional and Stat. MN, Union, Paul, Civil Liberties St. Sara fact that vehicle carried defendant’s (# 287064), Attorney L. Volunteer Martin plates a rea special provided WZ series Union, for Civil the Minnesota Liberties crimi suspicion sonable and articulable MN, for Minneapolis, Amicus Curiae. activity justifying stop. nal The court a guilty driving after rev appellant found ocation, 171.24, § subd. Minn.Stat. license in Minn. possession, no driver’s Appellant § 171.08. appealed Stat. OPINION Court of The court of Appeals. Minnesota GILBERT, Justice. held that for and dis appeals applying in- challenge a to an This case involves pursu series issued playing special stop pursuant made vestigative § ant to MinmStat. (2002); § Joel Appellant 168.0422 implicitly to a vehicle party consents was in Olmsted Henning charged Robert. solely on the display based of those revocation, driving County with after § concluded 168.0422 Minn.Stat. (2002), § no Minn.Stat. federal and constitutional both the possession, Minn.Stat. driver’s license Henning, 644 constitutions. State (2002), proof and no current reverse. (Minn.App.2002). N.W.2d 500 We (2002).1 169.791(2) insurance, an Olm- July p.m., On at 7:30 charges moved to Appellant dismiss sheriff, County deputy patrol while on sted 1) following there was no reasons: Rochester, Minnesota, a vehicle noticed suspicion with special registration plates with series vehicle, 2) and Minn.Stat. fol- two letters The deputy the first WZ. An omni- 168.0422 is unconstitutional. vehicle, any not observe lowed the did hearing County was held in bus Olmsted driver, driving, recognize the inappropriate Court; officer was arresting District viola- any other traffic or other discern only testify. witness to The court 1) tions, run registration did he a vehicle nor concluding: issued an omnibus order unconstitutional; deputy stopped check. 168.0422 is 2) reason- being appellant driven without the fact that the vehicle carried a WZ was involved suspicion appellant and artic- able plate provided was The vehicle justify- activity. criminal suspicion activity ulable of criminal regu- registered appellant’s father. ing stop. proof charge provided was later to the court. The no of insurance proof coverage dropped when of insurance larly registration plates on that ulable activity jus- issued ve- of criminal 2, 2000, April impounded tify stop. hicle had been Appellant was ordered to appellant’s prior account of DUI convic- pay a fine of plus surcharge and $300 $35 deputy only fee, tion. The testified that library stayed $5 sentence stopped appellant reason was because pending appeal. appeal, On court of his vehicle had appeals by applying held that for and re- previous ceiving issued when plates, party im- impounded operator plicitly were consents to stops the vehicle was under the influ- purpose determining whether the driver license, ence. solely has valid based on those registration plates, and that Minn.Stat. deputy, ini- According appellant § 168.0422 did not violate the state or that tially deputy told the he knew he federal constitutions. Henning, on the stopped registration could be based N.W.2d at 502-04. had on the vehicle. he to tell the appellant deputy went on I. pull

he him Appel- had no reason to over. belief expressed pull lant that to him his Appellant argues that MinmStat. deputy over needed a reason in addi- § 168.0422 is an unconstitutional attempt registration tion to the There were to override the Minnesota Court of Ap appellant no indicators that had been con- peals ruling Greyeagle, in v. State suming alcohol. did Appellant not have a (Minn.App.1995); N.W.2d 326 violates the possession valid driver’s license at Fourth Amendment of the United States stop the time of the because his driver’s I, Constitution counterpart, and its Article Appellant license had been revoked. Constitution; Section 10 of the Minnesota revocation, driving cited for after Minn. unconstitutionally interferes with and 171.24, § Stat. no subd. driver’s license activities; protected chills and cannot form § in possession, Minn.Stat. 171.08 and no the sole basis for the of a motor (cid:127) insurance, current proof of Minn.Stat. vehicle. 169.791(2). § constitutionality We review the hearing An omnibus held and the Grossman, of a statute de novo. State court an order concluding issued (Minn.2001). “Stat unconstitutional, § 168.0422 is Minn.Stat. utes presumed constitutional.” Id. presence that the party challenging statute must deputy with provided the show, doubt, beyond a reasonable that the articulable statute violates the constitution. Id. appellant’s parties stipulated vehicle. The § Minnesota 168.0422provides: Statutes appellant’s police reports prior purposes record for the of a bench A peace trial. officer who op- observes the appellant The court convicted eration of a vehicle within motor this revocation, 171.24, § after Minn.Stat. bearing special (2002) 168.041, and no driver’s license in posses- issued under section sub- sion, 169A.60, § 171.08 Minn.Stat. It division or subdivision adopted may stop the conclusions from the earlier hearing omnibus determining oper- whether driver is unconstitutional, 168.0422 ating lawfully but the under a spe- valid cial provided reasonable artic- driver’s license. Minnesota at 329. issued under Statutes plates may be

Special subsequently passed by legislature fol- was stops prohibited in order authorize the circumstances: lowing appeals ruling Greyea- court household if a member of the violator’s issue gle. primary is whether license, the driver’s violator has a valid Fourth prohibited by statute has a limited issued or owner I, or its Article counterpart, Amendment owner or the is not under section Section 10 Minnesota Constitution. has a or the violator and the owner valid If the Amend- statute violates Fourth of the own- limited license a member I, ment or Article Section 10 of the Minne- li- household has'a valid driver’s er’s Constitution, it sota cannot stand. cense.2 by provided conditions are Similar Delaware v. 169A.60, subd. 13: 648, 653-54, 99 S.Ct. 59 L.Ed.2d (1) (1979), qualified licensed the violator has States Supreme the United Court whom the violator must iden-

driver held that absent tify; suspicion, stopping automobile driver to check whether he is licensed is properly (2) registered the or owner has violator by the prohibited Fourth Amendment. a limited license issued section “The proscriptions essential 171.30; in the a impose Fourth Amendment is to (3) the registered is not viola- the owner upon standard of the ex ‘reasonableness’ the owner has a registered tor and ercise offi government of discretion license; driver’s valid limited cials, including agents, law enforcement (4) registered a member of the owner’s safeguard privacy order ‘to the and securi li- a valid driver’s household has ty against arbitrary inva individuals cense. n * (citations omitted). Id. sions here, at The statute issue “Thus, permissibility particular the passed appears to have been judged by law bal enforcement appeals’ to the court of decision response ancing intrusion on individual’s its the In Greyeagle. Greyeagle, court of against Fourth Amendment interests may that not appeals police held make in legitimate promotion governmental suspicionless stops solely of drivers based terests.” at 1391. Id. S.Ct. special plates, on series registration where Generally, stopping an officer creating the statute does open road in order to check on provide that the are issued un- is a under the the driver’s license “seizure” Greyeagle, der that condition. Prouse, 440 at Fourth Amendment. U.S. at appeals 330. court of also held 653, 99 An must have 1391. officer S.Ct. no produces that where state evidence wrong suspicion articulable reasonable making suspicionless policy that stop. Id. doing in order to such than the stops is more effective traditional 99 S.Ct. system stops particular suspi- on based cion, that special argues applying routine The state stops plates, ap- receiving vehicles Id. registered is unconstitutional. school, work, or pursuant needs 2. Limited licenses are issued a license attend required accomplish person’s or to the tasks 171.30 when treatment suspended person as a has been or revoked but homemaker. that pellant being stopped by aware his use law every enforcement with it a giving they vehicle carried condition officer encounter. statutory authority totality We look to the of the cir bearing without the vehicles those cumstances to determine whether a stop suspicion. articulable under these facts was reasonable. United appellant any argues “destroyed” v. Knights, States he expectation privacy 151 L.Ed.2d 497 The degree object have had which would allow him to weighed against of the intrusion must be disagree. to the search. We promotion government of legitimate Here, appellant subjective expec- had a 119, 122 interests. Id. at S.Ct. 587. He privacy. expressed opin- tation of Minnesota Statutes 168.0422 seeks to ion that the officer needed to have rea- dispense suspicion the individualized separate son to stop him mere requirement. Ascher Comm’r of presence registration we, Safety, exercising Public our indepen It clear from is not the record authority dent interpret Minnesota appellant put notice that these Constitution, using held that roadblocks to accepted were on the condition sobriety checkpoints all vehicles at may stop law enforcement vehicle at Const, I, “Minn. violates art. validity time to check the driv- long requires we have held generally decline imply er’s license. We consent police to objective have an individualized under these facts. wrongdo of criminal The special plates series are ing before a subjecting driver to inves a only showing issued upon that someone tigative stop.” legally driving will be bearing vehicle (Minn.1994).Ascher, “engaged judi we in a person This may those be the cial determination of the reasonableness of violator, may be who issued limited li- a of a temporary the use roadblock to a cense to drive certain circum- large number in hope drivers stances, attending such as work or school. discovering alcohol-impaired evidence of § special 171.30. by driving some of them.” Id. at 187. We also plates series are issued where some- concluded: violator, one other than the a mem- either primarily Based on the state’s failure to ber of the violator’s household or someone articulating persua- meet burden of a else pub- identified to commissioner reason dispensing sive with the indi- lic safety, lawfully will be driving vehi- suspicion requirement vidualized in this qualified, cle. These licensed drivers of context, we conclude that the constitu- registered

the specially vehicles are also tional balance struck in must be favor of subject possibility to the of numerous traveling public from stops every made each and day, pursuant the “minimally even intrusive” seizures 168.0422, § to Minn.Stat. solely on account sobriety occur at a checkpoint. of driving bearing a vehicle special motor Id. at 187. Thus, registration plates. series subjects § a of li- reasoning number in applies Our Ascher to stops motorists, party censed § were not to Although under Minn.Stat. 168.0422. the original revocation registration of the are smaller number of drivers potentially plates affected, subsequent reissuing or the those be stopped drivers dai- special plates, possibility ly series on numerous without occasions reason- presence special mere criminal series suspicion articulable able solely the vehicle carries does not to articulable activity, amount “reasonable plates. The registration series special suspicion.” met of articulat- has not its “burden dispensing reason” persuasive not believe ing presence We do of individual- general requirement registration plates issued Ascher, 519 in this context. suspicion ized pursuant to Minn.Stat. the Supreme at 186. In 169A.60, amounts out where individual- pointed

Court suspicion to nor do required make suspicion ized surrounding the issu circumstances safeguards upon relied other stop, suspicionless ance of the render a expecta- driver’s assure stop in a with these a driver vehicle invaded may not be at the privacy tion of Supreme plates “reasonable.” U.S. patrolling of a officer. 440 U.S. discretion Court has articulated reasonable sus 654-55, 99 S.Ct. Minnesota Stat- 1391. at totality examined picion by must be eliminate § 168.0422seeks the con- utes circumstances. United States Cor safeguard requiring an officer stitutional tez, 411, 417, U.S. suspicion of reasonable articulable to have (1981). An analysis L.Ed.2d 621 activity stopping before motor- criminal totality raise a of the circumstances “must ist, protect provides no substitute be particular that the individual motorists vehicles with licensed .engaged in ing stopped wrongdoing.” at repeated stops 418, 101 Id. S.Ct. 690. of law enforce- the unchecked discretion Special 'are is- Ascher, As officers. we noted ment sued, upon the satisfaction of conditions police should not be allowed define the statute, set forth to enable order own reasonableness conduct. use of a legal continued motor Ascher, 186. Neither is the 519 N.W.2d at licensed drivers. Minn.Stat. empowered to redefine the con- legislature 6; 169A.60, subd. Minn.Stat. parameters of conduct. stitutional necessarily The the vehicle is not driver of Therefore, Prouse, and based on Ascher original the one actions led the whose to § un- 168.0422 is we conclude Minn.Stat. issuing and impoundment subsequent the Fourth Amend- constitutional under special the special series Because I, Article the and Section ment it is plates only issued when series Minnesota Constitution. lawfully may demonstrated that vehicle

II. driven, presence be we hold the mere amount special does not held The district court suspicion criminal unconstitutional, § 168.0422 but con fact, and, special dem- activity in lawful because there cluded lawfully be onstrate that “a existed reasonable and articulable sus to automati- driven. Nor is picion activity justifying of criminal possi- there is substantial cally infer that agree We that Minn.Stat. stop.” does bility driver of vehicle that the To is unconstitutional. effectu While possess not a valid driver’s license. of a an officer must have ate factor special plates may be suspicion that the a reasonable articulable would law and law. 440 for enforcement consider violating motorist is However, scrutiny of these provide for closer a basis U.S. vehicles, plates may impaired special driver’s use the same vehicle. justification for a stop. Furthermore, the sole provide the dissent to explain fails why these to annul should used (sus- type of approves dissent “this The protections. constitutional Contrary to and deems it “reasonable picionless) stop” surmises, what the dissent these substantial state interest [of the] nothing from do safeguarding repeat in our roads drivers “ensur[e] drive repeatedly impaired.” while motoring do not public offenders harm the ignores the showing dissent by driving during period of revoca- Ascher, required in Ascher. we Rather, tion.” plates may these We never at 186. have before N.W.2d actually provide a further for opportunity the ends to simply allowed again by drunken drivers to drive our when the means void means citizens’ making properly available a licensed vehi- protections. constitutional dissent’s cle.3 departure would be a dramatic rationale Having concluded that Minn.Stat. protections that demotes constitutional 168.0422 is unconstitutional under the position inferior that of traffic safe- I, has not guards. met burden Fourth Amendment and Article Section showing impracticable that it is po- Constitution, 10 of the Minnesota we need develop suspicion lice to individualized and not appellant’s arguments. address other departure that a the individualized We reverse the appeals court here- requirement significantly will appellant’s vacate convictions driv- help police higher achieve rate of arrest revocation, ing after using than would more conventional means posses- and no driver’s license alcohol apprehending impaired drivers. sion, as product Ascher, Therefore, at 186. an unlawful seizure. We limit the retroac- of protect- balance must be struck favor tive application ruling of this to cases public ing traveling from even the pending on the date this decision in “minimally intrusive” seizure present here. constitutionality which the of this statute Id. at 187. properly timely has been raised in a fash- recognize that We of im- ion. pounding plates may standard license fur- Reversed. ther interest the state’s public from repeat drunken drivers. The

state has an obvious substantial inter- MEYER, (dissenting). Justice in safeguarding est our roads such I respectfully majori- with the disagree subsequent drivers. the issu- ty’s conclusion that Minn.Stat. special plates ance of the allow (2002) violates the Minnesota again be and federal necessarily driven does not further the state’s constitutions. interest Officer Maitland’s of public, the but enable or facilitate Henning, the Joel as it inquiring limited was to studies, upon legislature directly The dissent relies numerous the that could address conclusions, and statistics anecdotal which problem repeat the of drunken drivers with- record, part are the of in order to trampling rights out on the constitutional an unconstitutional intrusion. There obvious- citizens, including simply declining our to is- ly important policy are considerations in- subjecting sue the or the vehicle addressing problem repeat volved with the driven to forfeiture. options drunken drivers. Other are available

387 license, Then, §§ 169A.54-.60.1 in or- MinmStat. his driver’s validity the about by prefix denoted the plates and therefore not der obtain seizure was a reasonable WZ, requested sper father these Henning’s the state or federal by either prohibited cial-issue and demonstrated to the type stop, authorized constitution. This that statute, court he owned the vehicle and had a because the sub- safeguarding our valid license to drive.2 interest stantial state repeatedly drive from drivers who roads The Amendment of the United Fourth the focused impaired, while combined Constitution, I, States as well as Article outweigh limit- practice, nature Constitution, Section 10 of the Minnesota liberty. intrusion on individual Aside ed implicated “stop are in this case because balancing weighs test from whether the ping detaining and its occu automobile reasonableness, favor of the seizure’s a ‘seizure’ pants constitute within because the own- upheld statute should be constitution], meaning though even [the suspi- to a gave consent er of stop’ and the limited applied spe- for the cionless when he resulting quite Delaware detention brief.” cial 653, 648, 1391, v. 440 99 S.Ct. U.S. (1979). system im- state has devised The 59 L.Ed.2d 660 What both consti part of license as its over- all pounding prohibit tutions is “not searches and traveling public seizures, keeping all scheme of unreasonable and searches has legislature States, The Elkins, safe on roads. v. 364 seizures.” United in- driving under the making laws passed 1437, 4 L.Ed.2d U.S. 80 S.Ct. drugs alcohol a crime. Minn. fluence or (1960); amend. 1669 see also U.S. Const. (2002).Violating ch. 169A these stat- I, TV; 10; art. v. Minn. Const. State misdemeanor, gross once is utes Olson, 50, 57, 135 271 N.W.2d jail sent to repeat offenders can be (1965). After it has been established 186 (2002). § 169A.275 months. Minn.Stat. that a to a search practice amounts li- will an individual’s The state revoke seizure, analysis of what searches impound to drive and individu- cense unreasonable, are and there seizures period plates during license al’s unconstitutional, balancing involves fore §§ 169A.54-.60 revocation. Prouse, 440 U.S. competing interests. See license is a Taking away the Larsen, 1391; State v. in this important step proce- particularly (Minn.2002); Ascher v. N.W.2d dure, individuals because it ensures Safety, Pub. N.W.2d Comm’r of our offenders of (Minn.1994). balancing test 185-86 illicitly laws will not able to drive factors: gravity involves three vehicles unnoticed. seizure; served public concern degree to the seizure advances Henning record had establishes interests; severity of the public and the impaired years. twice within driven while Asch violations, liberty. interference with individual im- Because those er, (citing at 185 Brown and revoked his pounded Texas, 50-51, 2637, 47, license required driver’s as statute. Henning's impounded include plates were un- 2. Other circumstances issuance 1. Joel li (1998), a limited when the violator himself has 168.042 der perform cense to essential tasks. See repealed, carried the same substan- now 6; 13; 169A.60, §§ provisions tive 169A.54-.60. as sections (1979)). question The pre L.Ed.2d intended to further in public this case is whether state sented in is.reason interest peace officer to a driver of a repeatedly able for a individuals who drive under the inquire vehicle and about his or her WZ influence without a driver’s license. without additional par driver’s license Highway Safety The National Traffic Ad- suspicion. (NHTSA) ticularized reports ministration that ap- one-third proximately of all drivers arrest- weigh The factor to in the first balance ed or of driving impaired convicted while gravity is the concern public served year repeat each are offenders. National by the has a seizure. substan Administration, Highway Safety Traffic in our keeping tial interest roads safe. Sanctions, Vehicle & License Plate 658, 440 U.S. at See S.Ct. 1391. www.nhtsa.gov/people/outreaeh/safe at safe, part keep As efforts to roads (last sobr/19qp/factsheets/vehiele.html vis- grapple problem the state must with the 2003). addition, ited June In repeat people who drive under the influence. We offenders in “overrepresented fatal recognized multiple have occasions the crashes have a greater and relative risk of See, problem. of this e.g., seriousness fatal crash involvement.” In Id.5 addition Ascher, (citing 519 N.W.2d at 185 the mag many second- third-time convicted problem nitude of with drunk in DWI offenders are traffic of- involved strong state and the interest eradicating fenses or during suspension. crashes it); v. Dirkswager, Heddan Id. I that repeat conclude offenders of our (Minn.1983) (discussing 62-63 the relation ' against driving impaired laws while pose a ship tragedy of drunk driving to on the safety serious other threat travel- highways). Despite leg the best efforts of ers, and the seizure authorized this enforcement, islators and law impaired statute addresses that threat. present very drivers continue to real causing a danger, disproportionate number balancing second factor in the test of traffic deaths each year.3 Thesé acci efficacy stops concerns at issue. tragic dents exact on the cost families of presented The court no with statistics the individuals involved and are a drain on frequently as to peace officers find how the financial resources of the state.4 legal at the they stop drivers wheel when more specifically, cars special-issue plates Even of this vari- (cid:127) impounding issuing ety. standard a study of Minnesota’s 3. there were 226 alcohol-related 5.Interestingly, among traf- the NHTSA includes Minnesota, fic fatalities which constituted strengthening its recommendations for states’ year. of all traffic deaths in 40% ers Moth- plate license allowing sanctions that states Driving, Against Drunk State-by-State special-issue plates "incorporate provision http:// at Fatalities — Traffic permits officers to vehicle for the www.madd.org/stats/0,1056,4809,00.html checking sole whether the driver is (last 30, 2003)¿ June visited operating the vehicle while their license is suspension.” Highway National Traf- average 4. It is estimated that alcohol- Administration, Safety fic fatality Vehicle & License related costs the State bf Minnesota Sanctions, www.nhtsa.gov/people/out- $3.5 Public million. Services Research Insti- Plate at tute, .Minnesota, Impaired Driving reacb/safesobr/19qp/factsheets/vehicle.html www.nhtsa.gov/peopIe/iniury/alcohol/MN.htm (last 30, 2003). visited June Minnesota is one (last 2003). Using June visited the num- of three that issue states in, reported ber of deaths note alco- .traffic part as efforts of its to monitor offend- hol-related fatalities cost Minnesota an esti- ers. Id. $791 mated year million in the

389 by licensing agency. them our system signif- found “a lowed impoundment plate potentially intimi- Although aggravating, for violators recidivism decrease icant of dating, embarrassing, purpose versus the plates impounded their had who limited and deten- resulting whose the the did not. Violators violators brief, just long the offi- by enough the ar- tion is impounded were license li- de- cer to ensure the driver has a valid percent a 50 resting officer showed 2-year period cense.6 in recidivism over a crease (when violators who compared with DWI gravity considered Having the Id. experience impoundment).” not did presented by repeat concern offend- public that suggests in recidivism The decrease laws, of drunk the focused driving ers our the furthering scheme is impoundment

the of'this statute as of the state’s part nature public the interest state’s scheme, the enforcement and the extent of repeat driving habits of the unsafe from intrusion involved when an officer asks to key As our WZ are a offenders. drive, I operator’s the con- see ensuring offenders do aspect repeat of that is a seizure clude this driving by motoring public harm the not violate and therefore statute does revocation, and this during period the state or federal constitution. I either narrowly popula- to the tailored statute here that emphasize scope sei- offenders, reasonably ad- it tion of limited; authorized zure statute is public interest. vances a authorizes the in order to vehicle factor, li- validity “na- of the driver’s to the third determine

I turn now Anything beyond that limited intrusion on liber- cense. quality” ture and Terry justified by pro- need to scope, the seizure. See state’s ty entailed 1868, Ohio, public 20 who re- tect individuals 392 U.S. 88 S.Ct. case, influence, face drive under could peatedly 889 In this we L.Ed.2d Terry, in which narrow class of be See unreasonable. situation driving (noting with WZ that 88 S.Ct. people “evidence —individuals introduced if it was stopped by an officer not be discovered plates —can they op- by means of seizure and search ensuring that reasonably scope scope al- were not related erating the within the 1999) (finding .predatory majority as sub offender 6. The describes the statute legitimate possibility jecting appellant); motorists "to the applied as statute constitutional being stopped by every Chambers, law enforcement State v. 589 N.W.2d they case officer encounter.” The facts this (Minn. 1999) (finding life sentence without government do not establish the actual release, appellant, possibility applied as invasive; unnecessarily there is intrusion is constitutional); Wayzata, City Wheeler v. of Hen- no indication members other (Minn.1995) (finding driving. ning’s family were harassed while zoning Wayzata’s "not constitu ordinance case, Henning whose this was the individual here”). applied applied tionally invalid as As caught license had been revoked after he facts, concerning the statute’s to these issues the influence of alcohol signifi do not take constitutional .breadth drugs years. Henning twice within And majority expresses concern also cance. The Mait- the individual behind the wheel when might suspicion- statute authorize noticing stopped the car after land qualified stop of a who was not less driver plates. Regardless, I defer that con would original party I would also revocation. day only decide the cern for another day defer that concern another constitutionality 168.0422 as involve whose viola facts before us a driver See, e.g., applied to the facts before us. Bout original caused tion revocation. LaFleur, (Minn. in v. 390

justification their initiation” and that of establishing invalidity. burden its He Carton, by 355, justified protection police frisks of v. idbreder 645 N.W.2d 372 (Minn.2002). bystanders officers and must be confined “possibility” The mere designed to to hidden repeatedly an intrusion discover lawful drivers stopped could be in an not instruments that used as- should suffice to meet the appellant’s Fort, sault); v. heavy establishing see also State N.W.2d burden of 660 statute’s (Minn.2003) (“the scope invalidity. and dura- Nothing 418 in the record before stop tion investigation of a traffic must be us “absolutely convinces me neces justification limited to stop”). sary” for the to strike down this statute. majority attempts analogize The to if this Even we were to conclude police prac- case to the unconstitutional regulating state’s interest DWI tices at issue Prouse Ascher. outweigh offenders does not intrusion distinguishable part Those cases are liberty, on those drivers’ I would neverthe- many intrusion because the affected more less conclude that the statute is constitu- people than does the intrusion authorized tional because the owner by gave 168.0422. In consent suspicionless to a stop police issue practice arbitrary at was the applying special plates. That con- stop any car on the road. at Henning’s sent eliminated ex- Ascher, 99 S.Ct. 1391. And in pectation privacy, at least insofar as it at was temporary issue roadblocks expectation included be free from an tests, sobriety used for investigative which detained all stop to confirm he a li- was a particular Perkins, vehicles at intersection. 519 censed driver. v. See State 588 (Minn.1999) (“But at N.W.2d 184. In both of cases the these N.W.2d even a practices potentially large could impact expectation privacy may be populations, limiting efficacy conduct, if a objectively waived defendant’s stop. in light totality viewed cir- cumstances, ‘mandates conclusion that An additional difference between the in expectation any privacy was unreason- stant case and Ascher is that Ascher did able’”) (quoting Tungland, v. State police not involve a action authorized (Minn.1979)) (internal N.W.2d el- sobriety statute. The checks issue in at omitted). lipsis attempt Ascher were an by the police use innovative tools to drunk majority opinion imply decrease refuses to driving, (1) but prescrib there no statute to a suspicionless stop consent ing the roadblocks. Because Henning the court was stated his view the officer faced with constitutionality separate him, needed reason statute, (2) practice, not a the court free there was Henning no evidence that place proof burden on the state. was on put notice that Ascher, 519 accepted N.W.2d 187. In this case a were on the condition that law issue, statute is at which shifts the burden enforcement could vehicle at proof. presumed Statutes are constitu But time. the existence of a reasonable tional, and the court uses traditionally expectation privacy, as a prerequisite to seizure, power declare statute unconstitutional an unlawful search and depends “only absolutely necessary.” merely when subjective State party’s expec (Minn. Larsen, tations, on his or objective also her 2002). party challenging expectations. of B.R.K, the constitu In re Welfare tionality (Minn.2003) (“First, of the statute heavy bears the we whether B.R.K. exhibited must determine REQUEST In the Matter of FOR subjective expectation privacy

an actual QWEST’S and, second, IN whether SERVICE TOFTE in the home reasonable.”). EXCHANGE. expectation Henning did is officer that he was on notice admit to the No. C2-02-2079. which the of the conditions under (in fact, he debated with plates were issued Appeals Court of of Minnesota. interpre appropriate the officer about the conditions). Henning is July tation of those 2003. law, notice law

charged with

expresses those conditions. See State (Minn.2001).7

Calmes, implied, neither

Because consent person applied

violator nor expectation has a in the privacy vehicle. violator upon theoretical rely expecta

cannot might possessed by

tion privacy than violator

someone other or

applicant.

I hold that would MinmStat. constitutional, only it authorizes of individuals who

reasonable seizures continually privi-

have abused and,

leges alternatively, authorizes individual who has

stop of an revoked expectation privacy

or her reasonable Therefore, I would affirm the vehicle. appeals.

court of

BLATZ, (dissenting). Chief Justice join Meyer.

I in the dissent of Justice

HANSON, (dissenting). Justice join Meyer.

I in the dissent of Justice clarity here. I not read majority It is not clear whether the is of the sufficient do legislature foreclosing view that the could never condi- efforts majority opinion as further tion the issuance of on the applicant’s con- legislature to make the applicant's suspicionless consent to searches explicit. sent more legislature only did not do with so

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Henning

Court Name: Supreme Court of Minnesota

Date Published: Jul 31, 2003

Citation: 666 N.W.2d 379

Docket Number: C9-01-1985

Court Abbreviation: Minn.