20
C
ASE: 3
You Be the Judge!
You Be the Judge!
Sources
The case brie ng above contains excerpts and direct extractions from the sources noted
below that have been combined with the author's own expert legal input. The case has
been condensed and formatted from its original content for purposes of this workbook.
State v. Stallman, 519 N.W.2d 903 (Minn. App. 1994).
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
July 26, 1994. Opinion written by the Honorable Justice R.A. Randall.
Anti-cruising ordinances
were designed to
alleviate traffi c in
specifi c areas. They
prohibited cars from
cruising between certain
checkpoints more than
two times within a given
time frame.
To remain in or hang
around an area for no
obvious purpose is known
as loitering.
and 2 am in a "No Cruising Zone."
2) "Tra c Control Point" means any point or points within a
"No Cruising Zone" where cruising is monitored by police.
3) "Cruising is prohibited and no person shall operate a motor
vehicle in such a manner so as to constitute cruising. A viola-
tion of this section shall constitute a petty misdemeanor."
e city council established "no cruising zones" at Main Street
and one block on each side of Main Street, from a park at one end to
the Anoka city limits.
Large signs leading into Anoka read, "Cruising and Loitering
Ordinances Are Enforced." On Main Street, signs read "No Cruis-
ing 9 pm to 2 am." e signs did not indicate the boundaries of the
zone. e signs did not indicate that a tra c control point was at
any intersection or at any other point where the police selected to set
up temporary monitoring. e Anoka Police Department had the
discretion to choose a tra c control point at any location during the
pertinent time frame. e o cer could arbitrarily choose to be at the
point for minutes or hours. Although ensuring the safe passage of
emergency vehicles was one of the reasons for the ordinance, nothing
in the ordinance expressly or impliedly directed those areas to be traf-
c control points.
Stallman argued that the "anti-cruising" ordinance was unconsti-
tutional becasue it impermissibly restricted intrastate travel. e city
argued that the ordinance was a necessary tool of its police powers to
control tra c and crime in Anoka.
For Evaluation Purposes Only