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

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-peace-officer-still-a-peace-officer-if-he-doesnt-have-insurance/580005>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [April 28, 2011, 7:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-peace-officer-still-a-peace-officer-if-he-doesnt-have-insurance/580005 "2011-04-28T07:31:42Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Hbns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hbns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hbns)\
**Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 7:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-peace-officer-still-a-peace-officer-if-he-doesnt-have-insurance/580005/1 "2011-04-28T07:31:42Z")

</div>

Apparently not in [Minnesota](http://www.startribune.com/local/120787219.html).

> [@](#):
>
> 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.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\
**Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-peace-officer-still-a-peace-officer-if-he-doesnt-have-insurance/580005/2 "2011-04-28T08:11:42Z")

</div>

> [@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.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\
**Post date:** [April 30, 2011, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-peace-officer-still-a-peace-officer-if-he-doesnt-have-insurance/580005/3 "2011-04-30T00:13:15Z")

</div>

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