Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Lee
Where does it say there was lots of traffic? Where does it say there is no shoulder?  |
Try to spin it all you want. Here's the actual case upon appeal.
FACTS
Constans is an adult male in his late 50’s. At 11:42 p.m. on June 10, 2008,
Constans was driving home to Lester Prairie when he was stopped by a Carver County sheriff’s deputy on Highway 5 in Victoria
for swerving over the center line and crossing the fog line. The officer’s record noted that Constans had been stopped four times in the last year for the same driving conduct. As a result of the June stop, the officer asked the department of public safety (department), driver and vehicle services division, to conduct a driver evaluation A-5 interview with Constans. During the interview with a driver improvement specialist Constans denied that he was crossing the center and fog line. He also denied that he had four previous encounters with the police for “erratic driving.” The driver improvement specialist noted that Constans had “very good knowledge” of traffic signs and laws and no further action against Constans was taken.
About 12:30 a.m. on May 8, 2011, a Lester Prairie police officer received a call from McLeod County that a Ford pickup truck was seen headed west on Highway 7 just west of Waconia and
was “all over the road,” going over the center and fog lines, and traveling at “a very slow speed” in a 55 mile per hour zone. The officer saw a pickup matching the description, pulled it over, and identified the driver as Constans. Constans was driving home from his work as a disc jockey. The officer described to Constans why his driving conduct was concerning, Constans denied crossing the center line and explained that he did not travel faster than 48 miles per hour because his truck has high mileage. The officer told Constans that he would follow him home and continue to observe his driving conduct. Constans then continued west on Highway 7 driving 30 – 45 miles per hour. The officer again pulled Constans over and explained that he could not drive that slowly because it was unsafe for other motorists and he could potentially cause an accident. The officer drove Constans the rest of the way home and noted that it “didn’t seem like [Constans] understood” safe driving conduct.
As a result of the May 8, 2011 stop, Constans was required to participate in a second A-5 interview. The driver-improvement specialist noted that Constans claimed that he drives slowly to save gas and that he planned to continue doing so. The specialist specifically told Constans,
and he acknowledged in writing, that if he continued to drive slowly and to impede traffic, his license could be canceled as inimical to public safety. As a result of this second interview, Constans was required to take written and road driving tests, which he passed.
On July 19, 2012, a Carver County sheriff’s deputy observed Constans driving eastbound on the shoulder of Highway 7 at County Road 11.
Constans’s hazard lights were not on, he appeared to be driving 40 miles per hour, and all four tires were completely over the fog line. The officer stopped Constans who then explained that he was driving on the shoulder and going slower than other traffic because he was trying to find “the sweet spot for gas mileage.”
The officer noted that Constans had nine previous contacts with law enforcement since 2007 for similar reasons, and advised Constans that it is illegal to drive on the shoulder. The officer was concerned that Constans appeared unable to understand why impeding traffic is dangerous and that he “truly did not comprehend why it was an issue” to drive under the speed limit. The officer notified the department after the stop because there was a notation on Constans’s license to do so “for any and all driving issues.” Upon receiving this information, the department notified Constans that his driver’s license was canceled as inimical to public safety, effective August 13, 2012. Just before the cancellation took effect, Constans met with Pamela Moe, a driver-improvement specialistat the department, to discuss the cancellation notice. Moe explained that Constans’s license was canceled because (1) her office received another request to examine him, (2) her office received another report that Constans had been impeding traffic by driving too slowly
and with all four wheels over the fog line, and (3) Constans had signed a statement acknowledging that if vehicle services received another report, his license would be canceled. Moe also explained to Constans why his driving conduct was dangerous and got the impression that he was not going to change his conduct. At the reinstatement hearing, Moe Testified that Constans’s license was canceled not because of her impressions, but because “[i]t was already set up that if we would get a report on him, it would get canceled.”
After the cancellation, Constans petitioned the district court to reinstate his license. See Minn. Stat. § 171.19 (2012). He argued that he was
entitled to reinstatement and his driving was not inimical to public safety because it did not threaten physical harm or involve driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. A reinstatement hearing was held on October 25, 2012. In addition to the testimony of the driver-improvement specialist, Moe, and the admission of the department and police files relating to Constans’s driving history and two A-5 interviews, Constans testified at the hearing. He explained that he has not had any car accidents in 35-plus years, and that he had received only one traffic citation in the past five years,
which was for impeding traffic. He explained that he had been required to participate in the A-5 interviews because of erratic driving, but denied driving erratically on any occasion. Constans also testified that he signed the statement acknowledging that his license would be cancelled upon his next offense because he thought that if he did not, he would not get his license back. Constans also testified that he complies with traffic regulations when he is driving. He admitted that he might have crossed the fog line, but he did not think he was breaking any traffic laws because he was going above the minimum speed limit at all times and because crossing the fog line is discouraged, but not prohibited. Constans also explained that he sets his cruise control at 48 miles per hour because that is his vehicle’s “sweet spot” for gas mileage and because driving slowly keeps him from hitting “critters,”or animals,in “critter zones.” It is important for him to not hit any animals, Constans explained, because he only carries liability insurance on his truck. Constans also testified that he pulls over to the shoulder to let cars pass when he is driving slowly but that he drives the posted speed limit when he drives to visit his grandchildren, some of whom live out of state in California and North Dakota.
Finally, Constans testified that he was willing to change his driving conduct by “get[ing] rid of the sweet spot” and driving the speed limit in the future. The district court noted that Constans’s driving conduct was concerning and that it violated Minnesota laws. Specifically, the district court cited Minnesota Statutes section 169.15, subdivision 1(2012), which provides that “[n]operson shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation,”and section 169.18, subdivision 7(a) (2012),
which requires drivers on highways with clearly marked lanes to drive entirely within a single lane. The district court explained its understanding that, despite Constans’s driving history, the department was willing to consider reinstating his driver’s license “just simply based on two things: No. 1, that [he] complete a driver’s education class, which might be overkill, and, No. 2, that [he] modify [his] driving conduct and start driving 55 miles per hour on 55-mile-per-hour roadways.”
The district court emphasized that, based on testimony
and the history of at least nine prior police contacts stemming from his driving conduct, it understood why the commissioner said “enough is enough.” The district court told Constans that it was “concerned about five, six cars coming up behind you and people that are antsy to get moving, one of them goes by you when they shouldn’t or when it isn’t safe to do so.” The district court found that it “cannot find that the commissioner’s decision to cancel [Constans’s] driving privileges is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable,” and sustained the cancellation.
***
This case is not about driving slowly or using hypermiling as an excuse - as much as some would like to make it appear.
In many states it is illegal use the shoulder as a lane of travel. Apparently in Minnesota they call that area of roadway the "fog line".
He pissed off the cops by deliberately doing the same thing repeatedly. He insisted he has a right to drive erratically by not staying in lane. He refused to change his driving behavior despite numerous attempts to convince him that what he was doing was unsafe. They gave him every chance to reform his ways. But he wanted to rebel against authority.
The lesson here? If you pissed off the cops repeatedly, and you blew off the driver's ed specialist, and you couldn't convince the judge at your trial, and you lost your license and then ultimately lost your appeal - you went looking for trouble and you found it
Driving is not a right; it's a privilege granted by the state. By the time someone's case reaches the desk of the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles of their state, they've got a real reputation. And yes, the authorities do have the power to revoke your license - especially if you have an "attitude" that shows blatant disregard for highway safety.
So Frank, don't tell us the commissioner is an A******. That's just as rebellious and immature a stance to take as Mr. Constans did.