The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Great Debates

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-28-2011, 02:31 AM
Hbns Hbns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Is a peace officer still a peace officer if he doesn't have insurance?

Apparently not in Minnesota.

Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 04-28-2011, 03:11 AM
Fear Itself Fear Itself is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: 847 mi. from Cecil
Posts: 25,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hbns View Post
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 blame the judge for a lousy ruling. He opened the door when he defined "peace officer" as the department meeting all requirements. The defense merely drove through the hole he opened by scouring the requirements for a deficiency.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-29-2011, 07:13 PM
Lumpy Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 10,995
This is the sort of thing that gives tax protesters hope that some obscure legality means they're immune to taxation.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.