Minnesota police can no longer ask why a driver thinks they’ve been pulled over

Many drivers across Minnesota have likely heard the same question asked of them by police officers during a traffic stop: “Do you know why I pulled you over?”

But as of two weeks ago, officers statewide can no longer pose the question to drivers they have stopped and must inform them why they initiated the stop.

The change in law is one of many provisions included in the judiciary and public safety supplemental budget bill passed by the Legislature and signed into law by Gov. Tim Walz at the end of the session in late May. The package includes millions of dollars in grants for services targeting crime victims, as well as changes to statutes ranging from traffic stop reform to law enforcement training requirements.

This month, MinnPost will be highlighting a specific provision each week. 

Advertisement

Limits on traffic stop questioning

According to the new language, a peace officer making a stop for a traffic violation can no longer ask the driver to identify the reason for the stop, but must instead tell the driver a reason “unless it would be unreasonable to do so under the totality of the circumstances.” An officer’s failure to do so, however, wouldn’t allow for the dismissal of a charge, citation or evidence collected during the stop.

Jeff Potts, executive director of the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association, said officers opened with the question as a way to start a conversation with drivers. But in recent years, many departments have moved away from asking the question and start the interaction by telling the driver why they were stopped, he said.

Related | Minneapolis coalition seeks other methods to get police accountability on ballot after falling short of signatures

“There were some organizations that thought it put the driver in a position of self-incrimination, that they’d be admitting to something, and in an arrest situation, of course, that’s not okay unless they’ve been read their rights,” said Potts, who was a member of the Bloomington Police Department for 30 years, with 12 of those years as its chief. “You don’t want to start the conversation in a position where the violator has to make an admission of guilt or something like that, so it’s just a more positive way to have the interaction with the driver of the vehicle.”

Lawmakers in California enacted a nearly identical law that went into effect in January in an effort to limit pretextual stops, or stops initiated by officers for minor traffic violations as a way to conduct investigations or search for evidence into other unrelated crimes. Those types of stops have become controversial in recent years due to data that suggests police disproportionately target Black drivers – a concern that was confirmed in Minneapolis by the findings of an investigation by the Minnesota Department of Human Rights into the city’s police department. 

Several jurisdictions across Minnesota, including Minneapolis, limited such stops after ex-Brooklyn Center Police Officer Kim Potter killed 20-year-old Black motorist Daunte Wright during a 2021 traffic stop in which Potter stopped Wright for expired license tabs and an air freshener dangling from his rearview mirror. Efforts at the Legislature motivated by Wright’s death to outright ban pretextual stops statewide have not been successful.

Related | Cobb family calls for DOJ probe into Minnesota State Patrol after trooper murder charges dropped

Michelle Gross, president of the local chapter of Communities United Against Police Brutality, said the change in law is much needed to prevent drivers statewide from potentially incriminating themselves by answering the question, but it’s not perfect. 

Gross said she doesn’t believe the new law will help prevent pretextual stops or lead to fewer instances of escalation during traffic stops because officers can still give any reason for a stop despite not being allowed to pose the traditional question. In addition, the last sentence of the new language removes any repercussions for officers who don’t comply, she said. 

“By saying the failure to comply with this statute won’t serve as the basis for exclusion of evidence or dismissal of a charge or citation, then you’re just saying to the cops that even if they do this anyway, there’s no consequences for it and they can still go forward with their bogus charges,” she said.

Editor’s note: Mohamed Ibrahim wrote this story for MinnPost.com. Ibrahim is MinnPost’s environment and public safety reporter.

This article first appeared on MinnPost and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

MinnPost is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media organization whose mission is to provide high-quality journalism for people who care about Minnesota.