If you get pulled over for a lowly traffic stop and they find illegal drugs, guns, etc. Hennepin County will not prosecute felony charges found during traffic stops.

And people wonder why crime is rampant when no one is held accountable.

Hennepin County Law Enforcement Leaders are outraged

They announce they’ve been making legal traffic stops and seizing hundreds of illegal guns and drugs

Minnesota Democrats just made the decision they can no longer prosecute traffic stop felonies

What is going on??

‘Hennepin… pic.twitter.com/68g7X9vSWU

— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) October 22, 2025

I had a government professor explain that he could end drunk driving overnight.

Just raise the legal limit to to 0.50 and you'll never arrest another drunk driver again.

The underlying problem didn't go away; it's just no longer illegal.

It's on purpose.

Crime is going down, comrade, and we've got the stats to prove it.

If you live in Minnesota, at this point, you deserve everything that will happen to you and your family. They've given you two decades to show you what they think of you, the non-leftist voter.

Esteban du Plantier said:

---

Just raise the legal limit to to 0.50 and you'll never arrest another drunk driver again.

---

Challenge accepted.

It's (D)ifferent

Is there a link to this new policy. Are the cops being told to ignore felonies and just issue traffic tickets?

Mary Moriarty being Mary Moriarty

The violations were not evenly spread across the right demographic groups so they decided in the interests of "restorative Justice", they simply wouldn't "find" the criminal violations so they wouldn't have to document them and have them reflect poorly upon the violators. There is no interest in public safety, only political outcomes at stake.

BQ_90 said:

---

Is there a link to this new policy. Are the cops being told to ignore felonies and just issue traffic tickets?

---

Policy

Some context missing here: what the county attorney has declared is that they will not prosecute felony cases arising from what they consider "pretextual" stops. The following offenses are included:

Quote:

---

1. Failure to display registration tabs or driving with expired registration tabs.
2. Failure to illuminate license plate.
3. Rim or frame obscuring license plate, except for the plate letters and numbers.
4. Driving with only one functioning and visible headlight, brake light, or taillight.
5. Driving with only one functional sideview mirror present.
6. Driving without a rearview mirror, with the rearview mirror obstructed, or with an item
dangling from the rearview mirror.
7. Driving without working windshield wipers.
8. Failure to signal a lane change or a turn, unless the driver is operating a vehicle in an
unsafe manner or creating an imminent safety hazard.
9. Cracked windshield unless it substantially obscures the driver's view.
10. Window tint that does not comply with Minnesota law unless it creates an imminent
hazard to safety.

---

Speeding and reckless driving as well as suspicion of driving under the influence are not included. The goal is to reduce traffic stops for violations that supposedly do not pose a direct risk to public safety.

Deputy Travis Junior said:

---

Esteban du Plantier said:

---

Just raise the legal limit to to 0.50 and you'll never arrest another drunk driver again.

---

Challenge accepted.

---

Make sure your have your Subway sandwich with you.

As a former prosecutor i may be biased, but this is the wrong way to do this. Cases can always be dismissed under prosecutorial discretion but to announce it to the world that they wont be subject to arrest in the first place invites more bad actors to be bad.

SoTxAg said:

---

invites more bad actors to be bad.

---

just another in a long list of Marxist tactics deployed by democrats

This is about crime statistics, period. This will reduce the general stats for crimes committed per capita and skew data on who is committing the crimes.

This is third-world stuff here. We can no longer point and laugh at rogue states and banana republics. Our own government stats are going to be useless.

HumpitPuryear said:

---

This is about crime statistics, period. This will reduce the general stats for crimes committed per capita and skew data on who is committing the crimes.

---

but doesn't it reduce racism too?!

racist cops cannot just assume the race of the driver when they pull over certain cars for speeding or running a red light.. and they cannot just assume once they pull them over for that violation they will find outstanding warrants, felony controlled substances, illegal firearms, etc. because even if they do, the speeding ticket is all they're allowed to cite them with. boom. racism ended AND crime stats reduced. everyone else is safer on the streets! what could go wrong?

YokelRidesAgain said:

---

BQ_90 said:

---

Is there a link to this new policy. Are the cops being told to ignore felonies and just issue traffic tickets?

---

Policy

Some context missing here: what the county attorney has declared is that they will not prosecute felony cases arising from what they consider "pretextual" stops. The following offenses are included:

Quote:

---

1. Failure to display registration tabs or driving with expired registration tabs.
2. Failure to illuminate license plate.
3. Rim or frame obscuring license plate, except for the plate letters and numbers.
4. Driving with only one functioning and visible headlight, brake light, or taillight.
5. Driving with only one functional sideview mirror present.
6. Driving without a rearview mirror, with the rearview mirror obstructed, or with an item
dangling from the rearview mirror.
7. Driving without working windshield wipers.
8. Failure to signal a lane change or a turn, unless the driver is operating a vehicle in an
unsafe manner or creating an imminent safety hazard.
9. Cracked windshield unless it substantially obscures the driver's view.
10. Window tint that does not comply with Minnesota law unless it creates an imminent
hazard to safety.

---

Speeding and reckless driving as well as suspicion of driving under the influence are not included. The goal is to reduce traffic stops for violations that supposedly do not pose a direct risk to public safety.

---

Hmmmm….. My understanding is they will not prosecute felonies that are discovered as a result of a stop for the traffic offenses you listed

For example

Subject is stopped for driving without a rear view mirror

During the stop, officer exercises a legal search and finds a stash of illegal weapons and 50 kilos of cocaine

Under new policy, local prosecutor won't prosecute the felony gun and drug cases, even if the search and seizure was legal under the 4th Amendment, since the initial stop was for one of those "pretext" traffic offenses

YokelRidesAgain said:

---

BQ_90 said:

---

Is there a link to this new policy. Are the cops being told to ignore felonies and just issue traffic tickets?

---

Policy

Some context missing here: what the county attorney has declared is that they will not prosecute felony cases arising from what they consider "pretextual" stops. The following offenses are included:

Quote:

---

1. Failure to display registration tabs or driving with expired registration tabs.
2. Failure to illuminate license plate.
3. Rim or frame obscuring license plate, except for the plate letters and numbers.
4. Driving with only one functioning and visible headlight, brake light, or taillight.
5. Driving with only one functional sideview mirror present.
6. Driving without a rearview mirror, with the rearview mirror obstructed, or with an item
dangling from the rearview mirror.
7. Driving without working windshield wipers.
8. Failure to signal a lane change or a turn, unless the driver is operating a vehicle in an
unsafe manner or creating an imminent safety hazard.
9. Cracked windshield unless it substantially obscures the driver's view.
10. Window tint that does not comply with Minnesota law unless it creates an imminent
hazard to safety.

---

Speeding and reckless driving as well as suspicion of driving under the influence are not included. The goal is to reduce traffic stops for violations that supposedly do not pose a direct risk to public safety.

---

I still don't understand I guess. The police are not prevented from making these stops, the DA just will ignore any felonies that arise from these stops? Is,that correct. Which I don't understand how they can ignore the law.

BQ_90 said:

---

YokelRidesAgain said:

---

BQ_90 said:

---

Is there a link to this new policy. Are the cops being told to ignore felonies and just issue traffic tickets?

---

Policy

Some context missing here: what the county attorney has declared is that they will not prosecute felony cases arising from what they consider "pretextual" stops. The following offenses are included:

Quote:

---

1. Failure to display registration tabs or driving with expired registration tabs.
2. Failure to illuminate license plate.
3. Rim or frame obscuring license plate, except for the plate letters and numbers.
4. Driving with only one functioning and visible headlight, brake light, or taillight.
5. Driving with only one functional sideview mirror present.
6. Driving without a rearview mirror, with the rearview mirror obstructed, or with an item
dangling from the rearview mirror.
7. Driving without working windshield wipers.
8. Failure to signal a lane change or a turn, unless the driver is operating a vehicle in an
unsafe manner or creating an imminent safety hazard.
9. Cracked windshield unless it substantially obscures the driver's view.
10. Window tint that does not comply with Minnesota law unless it creates an imminent
hazard to safety.

---

Speeding and reckless driving as well as suspicion of driving under the influence are not included. The goal is to reduce traffic stops for violations that supposedly do not pose a direct risk to public safety.

---

I still don't understand I guess. The police are not prevented from making these stops, the DA just will ignore any felonies that arise from these stops? Is,that correct. Which I don't understand how they can ignore the law.

---

That is my understanding of exactly what they're doing

Why? Because it's Minnesota and their county attorney is a liberal. Liberals do destruction

All you need to know

BQ_90 said:

---

I still don't understand I guess. The police are not prevented from making these stops, the DA just will ignore any felonies that arise from these stops? Is,that correct.

---

Yes. The DA has discretion to proceed with a criminal charge after an arrest, or not. The DA is trying to prevent these stops from happening by removing the incentive (which is, to look for serious crimes). They cannot directly prevent the police from pulling someone over for excessive window tint or having fuzzy dice hanging from their rear view mirror, etc., but they can refuse to prosecute any charges arising from such an enforcement action.

Captain Pablo said:

---

During the stop, officer exercises a legal search and finds a stash of illegal weapons and 50 kilos of cocaine

---

There is sufficiently fuzzy language in the policy about a "compelling public safety interest" to allow the DA to prosecute whatever they want anyway. If a cop finds a dead hooker in the trunk after a stop for a busted tail light, the DA is probably not going to literally let someone get away with murder. And if they tried, the state AG would likely overrule and take over the prosecution anyway. (Which has happened with some of the Hennepin DA's bizarre charging decisions; when Keith Ellison thinks you're too liberal and soft on crime, it's a sure sign that you are a real whackadoodle.)

Fifty kilos of coke would result in federal charges anyway.

So why don't the cops refuse t pull anyone over or patrol. Just say they're hanging out at the station until they get a call. If the DA can ignore the law and the job why can't the police do the same thing

BQ_90 said:

---

So why don't the cops refuse t pull anyone over or patrol. Just say they're hanging out at the station until they get a call. If the DA can ignore the law and the job why can't the police do the same thing

---

When Minneapolis cops don't feel like working they just claim they have PTSD and go collect disability. As several hundred of them did after the George Floyd riots.

YokelRidesAgain said:

---

BQ_90 said:

---

Is there a link to this new policy. Are the cops being told to ignore felonies and just issue traffic tickets?

---

Policy

Some context missing here: what the county attorney has declared is that they will not prosecute felony cases arising from what they consider "pretextual" stops. The following offenses are included:

Quote:

---

1. Failure to display registration tabs or driving with expired registration tabs.
2. Failure to illuminate license plate.
3. Rim or frame obscuring license plate, except for the plate letters and numbers.
4. Driving with only one functioning and visible headlight, brake light, or taillight.
5. Driving with only one functional sideview mirror present.
6. Driving without a rearview mirror, with the rearview mirror obstructed, or with an item
dangling from the rearview mirror.
7. Driving without working windshield wipers.
8. Failure to signal a lane change or a turn, unless the driver is operating a vehicle in an
unsafe manner or creating an imminent safety hazard.
9. Cracked windshield unless it substantially obscures the driver's view.
10. Window tint that does not comply with Minnesota law unless it creates an imminent
hazard to safety.

---

Speeding and reckless driving as well as suspicion of driving under the influence are not included. The goal is to reduce traffic stops for violations that supposedly do not pose a direct risk to public safety.

---

All of those definitely pose risk to safety.

Captain Pablo said:

---

YokelRidesAgain said:

---

BQ_90 said:

---

Is there a link to this new policy. Are the cops being told to ignore felonies and just issue traffic tickets?

---

Policy

Some context missing here: what the county attorney has declared is that they will not prosecute felony cases arising from what they consider "pretextual" stops. The following offenses are included:

Quote:

---

1. Failure to display registration tabs or driving with expired registration tabs.
2. Failure to illuminate license plate.
3. Rim or frame obscuring license plate, except for the plate letters and numbers.
4. Driving with only one functioning and visible headlight, brake light, or taillight.
5. Driving with only one functional sideview mirror present.
6. Driving without a rearview mirror, with the rearview mirror obstructed, or with an item
dangling from the rearview mirror.
7. Driving without working windshield wipers.
8. Failure to signal a lane change or a turn, unless the driver is operating a vehicle in an
unsafe manner or creating an imminent safety hazard.
9. Cracked windshield unless it substantially obscures the driver's view.
10. Window tint that does not comply with Minnesota law unless it creates an imminent
hazard to safety.

---

Speeding and reckless driving as well as suspicion of driving under the influence are not included. The goal is to reduce traffic stops for violations that supposedly do not pose a direct risk to public safety.

---

Hmmmm….. My understanding is they will not prosecute felonies that are discovered as a result of a stop for the traffic offenses you listed

For example

Subject is stopped for driving without a rear view mirror

During the stop, officer exercises a legal search and finds a stash of illegal weapons and 50 kilos of cocaine

Under new policy, local prosecutor won't prosecute the felony gun and drug cases, even if the search and seizure was legal under the 4th Amendment, since the initial stop was for one of those "pretext" traffic offenses

---

If you're pulled over for a simple tail light out, and no other evidence of a crime, what legal reason is there to search the car?

The once proud men of Minnesota have surrendered their women and children to perverts and third world animals. The time for rebellion is now.

SoTxAg said:

---

As a former prosecutor i may be biased, but this is the wrong way to do this. Cases can always be dismissed under prosecutorial discretion but to announce it to the world that they wont be subject to arrest in the first place invites more bad actors to be bad.

---

They are cultural Marxists. They don't care what you think. Nor do they care about the good of the country. They're trying to overthrow our system of government.

Esteban du Plantier said:

---

Captain Pablo said:

---

YokelRidesAgain said:

---

BQ_90 said:

---

Is there a link to this new policy. Are the cops being told to ignore felonies and just issue traffic tickets?

---

Policy

Some context missing here: what the county attorney has declared is that they will not prosecute felony cases arising from what they consider "pretextual" stops. The following offenses are included:

Quote:

---

1. Failure to display registration tabs or driving with expired registration tabs.
2. Failure to illuminate license plate.
3. Rim or frame obscuring license plate, except for the plate letters and numbers.
4. Driving with only one functioning and visible headlight, brake light, or taillight.
5. Driving with only one functional sideview mirror present.
6. Driving without a rearview mirror, with the rearview mirror obstructed, or with an item
dangling from the rearview mirror.
7. Driving without working windshield wipers.
8. Failure to signal a lane change or a turn, unless the driver is operating a vehicle in an
unsafe manner or creating an imminent safety hazard.
9. Cracked windshield unless it substantially obscures the driver's view.
10. Window tint that does not comply with Minnesota law unless it creates an imminent
hazard to safety.

---

Speeding and reckless driving as well as suspicion of driving under the influence are not included. The goal is to reduce traffic stops for violations that supposedly do not pose a direct risk to public safety.

---

Hmmmm….. My understanding is they will not prosecute felonies that are discovered as a result of a stop for the traffic offenses you listed

For example

Subject is stopped for driving without a rear view mirror

During the stop, officer exercises a legal search and finds a stash of illegal weapons and 50 kilos of cocaine

Under new policy, local prosecutor won't prosecute the felony gun and drug cases, even if the search and seizure was legal under the 4th Amendment, since the initial stop was for one of those "pretext" traffic offenses

---

If you're pulled over for a simple tail light out, and no other evidence of a crime, what legal reason is there to search the car?

---

None. Why?

That's 90% of what good police work is. Unless you're just a few years away from retirement, if you're a cop there, ya gotta get out. Just go somewhere else.

So, if you're thinking about committing a felony just be sure you unplug one of your headlights or take off a windshield wiper first, got it. Thanks for the advice sheriff!

Found the Comrade

Esteban du Plantier said:

---

Captain Pablo said:

---

YokelRidesAgain said:

---

BQ_90 said:

---

Is there a link to this new policy. Are the cops being told to ignore felonies and just issue traffic tickets?

---

Policy

Some context missing here: what the county attorney has declared is that they will not prosecute felony cases arising from what they consider "pretextual" stops. The following offenses are included:

Quote:

---

1. Failure to display registration tabs or driving with expired registration tabs.
2. Failure to illuminate license plate.
3. Rim or frame obscuring license plate, except for the plate letters and numbers.
4. Driving with only one functioning and visible headlight, brake light, or taillight.
5. Driving with only one functional sideview mirror present.
6. Driving without a rearview mirror, with the rearview mirror obstructed, or with an item
dangling from the rearview mirror.
7. Driving without working windshield wipers.
8. Failure to signal a lane change or a turn, unless the driver is operating a vehicle in an
unsafe manner or creating an imminent safety hazard.
9. Cracked windshield unless it substantially obscures the driver's view.
10. Window tint that does not comply with Minnesota law unless it creates an imminent
hazard to safety.

---

Speeding and reckless driving as well as suspicion of driving under the influence are not included. The goal is to reduce traffic stops for violations that supposedly do not pose a direct risk to public safety.

---

Hmmmm….. My understanding is they will not prosecute felonies that are discovered as a result of a stop for the traffic offenses you listed

For example

Subject is stopped for driving without a rear view mirror

During the stop, officer exercises a legal search and finds a stash of illegal weapons and 50 kilos of cocaine

Under new policy, local prosecutor won't prosecute the felony gun and drug cases, even if the search and seizure was legal under the 4th Amendment, since the initial stop was for one of those "pretext" traffic offenses

---

If you're pulled over for a simple tail light out, and no other evidence of a crime, what legal reason is there to search the car?

---

You understand that getting the car stopped for a legal traffic purpose allows the officer to interact with the driver and develop one of the exceptions to the search warrant requirement to search a vehicle.

The most common: consent, plain view of a crime or contraband, the smell of marijuana, or the discovery of warrants of the occupants.

YokelRidesAgain said:

---

Captain Pablo said:

---

During the stop, officer exercises a legal search and finds a stash of illegal weapons and 50 kilos of cocaine

---

There is sufficiently fuzzy language in the policy about a "compelling public safety interest" to allow the DA to prosecute whatever they want anyway. If a cop finds a dead hooker in the trunk after a stop for a busted tail light, the DA is probably not going to literally let someone get away with murder. And if they tried, the state AG would likely overrule and take over the prosecution anyway. (Which has happened with some of the Hennepin DA's bizarre charging decisions; when Keith Ellison thinks you're too liberal and soft on crime, it's a sure sign that you are a real whackadoodle.)

Fifty kilos of coke would result in federal charges anyway.

---

This policy, it seems, is set by their version of the county commissioners. The elected DA should give them the finger and say I will prosecute any and every case I want to prosecute, regardless of what the commissioners say. Pre-text arrests were approved by the USSC in Whren v. US back in 1996. And many subsequent cases since then.

And if the elected DA will not do this then he/she is complicit in this decision or spineless to stand up for what is right. And in Minnesota it could easily be both.