Traffic stops solely for cracked windshields just got more challenging for law enforcement in Minnesota, and a leading civil liberties group sees the raising of the bar as a victory for the rights of motorists across the state.
A state Court of Appeals panel ruled last week that a motorist in Isanti County should not have been pulled over for having a cracked windshield, because it was not visually impairing his ability to drive.
Writing for the three-judge panel, Judge Kevin Ross said the appeal by James W. Poehler in 2016 "requires us to answer whether an officer's seeing any windshield crack — regardless of its extent — constitutes a reasonable basis" to suspect a violation of the obstructed-vision statute. … Our answer is 'no.' "
The Minnesota chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union on Wednesday hailed the ruling, saying it should make officers think twice before pulling over someone merely for a tiny windshield blemish.
"Low-level offenses like having a cracked windshield are fertile ground for arbitrary traffic stops by law enforcement," especially of minorities, said John B. Gordon, the chapter's executive director.
"This ruling should reduce, at least by a little bit, the number of people who get caught up in the criminal justice system and end up in a downward spiral of losing their driver's licenses, then their jobs, then their financial security," Gordon said. "We are hoping that fewer people will end up going down that rabbit hole."
A Cambridge police officer pulled over Poehler in August 2016 after noticing a crack in his windshield and seeing that he was not wearing his seat belt. The officer saw signs of Poehler being drunk, and a breath test at the scene measured his blood alcohol content at 0.174 percent, more than twice the legal limit.
Poehler, 65, of Cambridge, was charged with drunken driving, but he sought to have the district court throw out all of the evidence collected during the stop because the officer violated the U.S. Constitution's prohibition of "unreasonable searches and seizures." The lower court denied his motion, setting up his appeal to the Court of Appeals.