Is a peace officer still a peace officer if he doesn't have insurance?

[Hbns]

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.

[Fear_Itself]

@Hbns

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.

[Lumpy]

This is the sort of thing that gives tax protesters hope that some obscure legality means they’re immune to taxation.