State v. Meyer
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
GORDON W. SHUMAKER, Judge.
Appellant challenges the stop of his vehicle, arguing that because the officer was outside of his territorial jurisdiction and performing only “ministerial” activities when he observed the alleged violation, the officer was not acting in the course and scope of his employment and did not have the authority to stop his vehicle. Because the officer was acting within the course and scope of his employment when he observed the violation, he was acting within his jurisdiction and had the authority to stop appellant’s vehicle. We affirm.
FACTS
Daniel Bunde is employed…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Brookfield Trade Center, Inc. v. County of RamseySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1998
- Windschitl v. Commissioner of Public SafetySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
- State v. BundeCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1996
- State, Department of Public Safety v. NystromSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1974
- Hentges v. ThomfordCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1997
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Yoraway v. Commissioner of Public SafetyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2003