3.6: DAC-IPS, Ted Foss Move Over Law & Bias-Free Traffic Stops

Three traffic-stop questions that test judgment, not just memorization

A Minnesota traffic stop can involve a driver whose license status is dangerous, a motorist passing an emergency scene, or an officer deciding whether observed conduct justifies a stop. These topics share a principle: make decisions from objective, articulable facts and current records, not labels, hunches, or stereotypes. This section does not repeat DWI-degree rules. Instead, it concentrates on driving after cancellation—inimical to public safety (DAC-IPS), the Ted Foss Move Over Law, and bias-free enforcement.

DAC-IPS: what the status means

Cancelled—inimical to public safety (IPS) is a Minnesota driver's-license status imposed by the Department of Public Safety when the commissioner determines the person's continued driving would be inimical to public safety. It is more serious than treating every license problem as a routine expired-card issue. The status can be associated with serious driving history and other statutory grounds, but an officer should not infer its basis from the acronym or speculate to the driver.

Before taking enforcement action, verify the current status through the authorized driver-and-vehicle record system. Check identity, status, dates, limitations, notices, reinstatement information available to the officer, and any applicable warrant or court order. Dispatch information is valuable, but resolve mismatches carefully: a similar name, wrong date of birth, outdated return, or stolen identity can lead to an unlawful stop or arrest if the officer does not confirm the record.

Driving after cancellation IPS is addressed in Minnesota's driver's-license criminal statutes, including Minn. Stat. § 171.24. The exact offense level and charging consequences depend on the current statute and facts. Do not answer a question by automatically calling it a DWI. A DAC-IPS driver may have a separate DWI issue, but the IPS cancellation is its own driving-privilege status. The prudent field approach is to articulate the observed driving or verified record basis, identify the driver, confirm the record, take the action authorized by law and policy, and arrange a lawful disposition of the vehicle.

Reinstatement is an administrative process

A driver cannot self-reinstate by saying, “I paid a ticket,” “my suspension ended,” or “I need to get to work.” Cancellation IPS remains in effect until the Department of Public Safety restores the privilege under the applicable reinstatement process. The requirements can include a period of no driving, fees, examinations, treatment or abstinence requirements, ignition-interlock compliance, proof of insurance, or other conditions, depending on the basis for cancellation. Officers should not give legal advice or promise reinstatement steps from memory. Direct the person to official DPS processes while enforcing the current verified status.

Ted Foss Move Over Law

Minn. Stat. § 169.18, subd. 11 is commonly called the Ted Foss Move Over Law. It protects people working near traffic by regulating how drivers pass a parked authorized emergency vehicle displaying flashing lights. The practical rule is: when approaching the emergency vehicle, a driver must move over one full lane away if possible, or slow down if unable to move over safely. On a two-lane road, the driver must reduce speed as required by the statute when a lane change cannot safely be made. The exact application turns on roadway configuration, the authorized vehicle, lights, traffic, and safety.

Officers should protect their own stops by choosing safe positioning, activating appropriate emergency lighting, using a public-address system or cones when available, and recognizing that the statute does not make a dangerous lane change mandatory. A driver should not create a collision to move over. The officer observes whether the driver had a reasonable opportunity to change lanes or reduce speed and then articulates the facts: lane availability, traffic, weather, speed, lights displayed, and the driver's actual movement.

Do not confuse the Move Over Law with an unlimited basis to stop every vehicle near a squad. The statute includes a specific probable-cause limitation: a violation of the passing requirement does not itself constitute probable cause to stop or detain a driver for a traffic violation. That unusual language is an exam-worthy detail. Officers may enforce as the law allows, but they must not convert the rule into a pretext for detention where no independent lawful basis exists. Confirm the current statutory language and agency enforcement policy.

Pretextual stops and racial profiling

A pretextual stop occurs when an officer has an objectively valid traffic or equipment violation but also hopes to investigate another matter. Under constitutional doctrine, an officer's subjective motive generally does not invalidate a stop that is supported by an actual observed violation or other lawful objective basis. The phrase does not mean officers may invent violations, selectively enforce based on race, or extend a stop without legal justification.

Racial profiling is different. It is using race, ethnicity, national origin, or another protected characteristic rather than behavior or information identifying a particular suspect as the basis for law-enforcement action. A specific suspect description may lawfully include race when it is one part of a reliable identifying description. “The driver looked like a member of a racial group” is not an individualized traffic basis. Neither is a neighborhood's demographics, a surname, language, clothing associated with culture, or a vague claim that someone “looked out of place.”

Minn. Stat. § 626.8471 addresses policies to prevent racial profiling. Agencies must adopt a policy prohibiting it and include required components such as training, complaint procedures, corrective action, and data collection/reporting elements specified by law. An officer should know the agency policy, make stops from observed violations or reliable articulable information, communicate the reason professionally, and accurately record the basis for the stop and disposition.

Bias interruption during a stop

Implicit bias refers to associations that can affect perception or decision-making without conscious intent. It is not an excuse for biased conduct; it is a reason to use decision safeguards. Before the stop, state the objective reason: “speed measured at 52 in a 35,” “no rear plate,” or “confirmed registered owner has a cancelled IPS privilege, with a match to the driver where legally sufficient.” During the stop, use the same professional tone, explanations, and safety procedures used for similarly situated drivers. Afterward, document the objective facts, not assumptions about the driver's identity or community.

The Minnesota training framework in § 626.8469 includes recognizing diversity and cultural differences, implicit-bias training, and training to identify, respond to, and report crimes committed in whole or substantial part because of protected characteristics. Minn. Stat. § 626.5531 addresses reporting crime motivated by bias, and § 626.8451 concerns related peace-officer education and training. In a traffic stop, a hateful slur or bias indicator is not automatically enough to prove a hate crime; document the words, conduct, target, witnesses, and offense facts, notify the appropriate investigator, and make the required report. Do not minimize a bias-motivated incident as merely “offensive language” when an underlying crime may be involved.

Applying the rules to scenarios

An officer observes a vehicle travelling normally and learns from a reliable record check that the registered owner is cancelled IPS. The officer must apply current law on whether the owner information, observable driver characteristics, and other facts create a lawful basis to stop; a plate return is not a substitute for comparing available facts. Once stopped lawfully, the officer still explains the reason, checks identity, and limits the detention to its lawful mission unless new reasonable suspicion develops.

In another scenario, an SUV passes a stopped squad with flashing lights on a multilane highway without moving over despite an open adjacent lane and no apparent hazard. The officer should document the scene facts. If the question asks about the statute's special probable-cause language, remember that the Move Over violation itself does not provide probable cause to stop or detain for a traffic violation under § 169.18, subd. 11. Do not choose an answer that treats the safety rule as unlimited detention authority.

A repeatable answer framework

For DAC-IPS: verify status and identity; distinguish cancellation from other license actions; enforce current law; do not promise reinstatement. For Move Over: establish the authorized vehicle, flashing lights, road design, safe opportunity to move, and speed response; remember the statute's stop limitation. For profiling: identify the actual traffic violation or reliable particularized information; avoid demographic proxies; use professional, consistent procedures; and document facts.

The strongest POST answer is usually the one that advances roadway safety while remaining individualized and lawful. It protects officers at roadside scenes, protects the public from unsafe driving, and protects every driver from enforcement based on bias rather than conduct.