Read this before you buy those spiffy tail light covers
Go Deeper.
Create an account or log in to save stories.
Like this?
Thanks for liking this story! We have added it to a list of your favorite stories.
If you're going to drive drunk, don't buy these types of things to jazz up your truck.
A Meeker County man today lost his attempt to have his DUI license revocation thrown out. His tail light covers did him in.
Joseph Hoekstra was driving his pickup truck in December 2011 when state trooper Casey Meagher, who had been conducting "safe and sober" stops, noticed him pull over to the side of the road. The trooper didn't notice Hoekstra driving erratically, but he did suspect the tail light "covers," violated Minnesota law. After Hoekstra pulled back onto the road, Meagher stopped him for the suspected tail light infraction, and determined he was under the influence.
Hoekstra challenged his arrest, saying the tail lights emitted light and he shouldn't have been stopped. But today the Minnesota Court of Appeals rejected the assertion. It said the rule against "covering" tail lights applies to anything that partially covers them.
Turn Up Your Support
MPR News helps you turn down the noise and build shared understanding. Turn up your support for this public resource and keep trusted journalism accessible to all.
The law reads:
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), it is prohibited for any person to: (1) equip a motor vehicle with any equipment or material that covers a headlamp, tail lamp, or reflector; or (2) operate a motor vehicle fitted with or otherwise having equipment or material that covers a headlamp, tail lamp, or reflector.
Hoekstra contends that the word "covers" in the law means "covered completely," but the Court disagreed, upholding the revocation of his driver's license.
