Apparently not in Minnesota
The Minnesota Supreme Court on Wednesday tossed out a man's alcohol-related driving conviction because the arresting officer's police department did not have enough liability coverage.
Essentially an individual was charged with first-degree DWI and first-degree test refusal. The DWI charge was dismissed but the individual was convicted on the test refusal charge.
Upon appeal that the arresting officer was not actually a peace officer, the state high court the ruled he was an officer as long as his department met all state requirements. The department only carried $3 million in liability coverage when the state requirement is $3.6 million. Because of this the conviction was reversed.
Is this a case of the court being too specific in its reading of the law? Or a case of the law makers being too explicit when they wrote the law?
I am thinking the intention of the law was to ensure police departments in the state carry substantial liability insurance, not to define whether they are or are not a police department based on some arbitrary value of insurance coverage.