After last week’s high of the Court of Appeals publishing my case you knew we would be in for an inevitable letdown. The COA published a case about equal protection argument for sex offenders. Essentially saying that a mistake of age defense as to the victim age’s only worked if you are no more than 120 months (1o years for non-math majors)
The COA published a case about equal protection argument for sex offenders. Essentially saying that a mistake of age defense as to the victim age only is allowed to be used if you are no more than 120 months (1o years for non-math majors) older than the victim. So a 44-year-old can’t claim a mistake of age defense with a 15-year-old victim. Well, that was challenged for equal protection. Well, the COA said it is not. Editorializing here, but a law saying Rosa Parks has to sit in the back violates equal protection claims. Not some 44 year old with Zima getting caught by Chris Hansen or is it Chris Harrison?
So the dream is dead there. For now.
The next case that caught my eye was a defendant named Michael Scott Torfin, but his last name matters very little. Having the first name as Michael and the middle name of Scott is awesome and makes me wish I would have named my kid that instead of a Gaelic name that means “son of” instead. Despite the amazing potential for middle names on that. Michael Scott was appealing to the decision of the district court
Michael Scott was appealing to the decision of the district court to uphold the suspension of his DL. He was stopped for speeding before he drove in the lake. I really hated that storyline. That is the show, not the facts. The seamless switching back and forth may confuse the reader. It will continue. On September 27, 2016, a Victoria officer who must be a fan of Downton Abbey heard aggressive accelerating, usually attributable to a Honda Civic with a spoiler. The officer clocked the regional manager going 57 in a 45. So not that aggressive. The officer could smell alcohol and Blind Guy McSqueezy, (MS alias) admitted to having a couple on a booze cruise.
The officer could smell alcohol and Blind Guy McSqueezy, (MS alias) admitted to having a couple on a booze cruise. Michael Scran did not want to blow in the preliminary breath test because he did not want to find himself in trouble with corporate. He failed field sobriety and got arrested and had to become Prison Mike. But he challenged the Victorian officer’s expansion of the stop.
In some seems like all instances, a police officer may conduct a limited, investigative traffic stop without a warrant when the officer has reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21-22, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1880 (1968). A traffic stop initially supported by reasonable suspicion may be expanded, so long as the expansion is “strictly tied to and justified by the circumstances which rendered the initiation of the stop permissible.” State v. Asherooth, 681 N.W.2d 353, 364 (Minn. 2004) (quotations omitted). Justification comes from “(1) the original legitimate purpose of the stop, (2) independent probable cause, or (3) reasonableness, as defined in Terry v. Ohio.”Minnesota courts have articulated several bases on which an officer may permissibly expand the scope of a traffic stop to investigate a driver’s possible intoxication. Some indicators of intoxication include the odor of alcohol, slurred speech, glassy eyes, and poor balance. Johnson v. State, Dept. of Pub. Safety, 351 N.W.2d 2, 5 (Minn. 1984).
So the police had a legitimate reason to pull over Mr. Scott’s 2004 Chrysler Sebring but did they have a reason to expand the stop. If Mary Jo Copeland was coming home from dancing at the Lookout they couldn’t make her do field sobriety if there was nothing there, but here there was reasonable suspicion. There was aggressive acceleration. It was late at night, the officer smelt that Michael Scott was “doing alcohol.” Michael Klump admitted to drinking and he didn’t make eye contact. More than enough. Not really much of a review. Just wanted to write about Michael Scott.
