Fog line graze grounds for traffic stop, appeals court rules in precedent-setting case

Kristine Goodrich, The Free Press, Mankato, Minn.
·2 min read

Mar. 31—Even touching tires to a fog line is adequate grounds for a traffic stop, the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled in a precedent-setting opinion stemming from a Blue Earth County DWI case.

The Court of Appeals on Monday upheld a Mankato man's DWI conviction and driver's license suspension. The man had appealed claiming a traffic stop on Highway 14 in 2019 was unconstitutional.

Francis Christopher Soucie was charged with misdemeanor DWI in September 2019. A State Patrol trooper stopped him on Highway 14 in Mankato and a breathalyzer showed he had a breath alcohol concentration of 0.09, according to court documents.

Soucie asked Blue Earth County District Judge Krista Jass to dismiss the case, but the judge declined. Kass found Soucie guilty and sentenced him to probation.

Soucie appealed, arguing the stop was unconstitutional because the trooper did not have enough reason to stop him.

The appeals court disagreed and upheld the conviction as well as the suspension of Soucie's license.

The appeal got a bit complicated because the trooper's testimony and her squad video indicated Soucie's vehicle initially crossed fully over the fog line. The appeals court has already ruled that is a good enough reason to pull him over.

But Jass' ruling rejecting Soucie's challenge concentrated on a later moment when some of Soucie's tires only touched the inside of the fog line.

The appeals court thus limited its review to that moment as well and decided that too constituted a violation of state law requiring drivers to stay in their lane.

"When an officer sees that a car's tires even merely graze the inside edge of the fog line, she can usually be sure — and for our purposes, she at least has reasonable ground to suspect — that part of the car has moved from the lane, violating the statute," the ruling states.

The trooper thus had a legally valid reason to stop Soucie, the ruling concluded.

The appellate judges classified their ruling as "precedential," meaning the decision may be used to help decide future similar cases.