N※N

MN Cops Blast Hennepin County's New Traffic Stop Policy As A Free Pass For Criminals

  //automotive-transportation.news-articles.net/co .. ic-stop-policy-as-a-free-pass-for-criminals.html
  Published in Automotive and Transportation on Friday, September 19th 2025 at 12:29 GMT by Patch
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

Hennepin County’s New Traffic‑Stop Rule: Police Call It a “Free Pass” for Criminals

In a move that has ignited a heated debate among Minnesota law‑enforcement officials, Hennepin County officials adopted a new policy on Monday that limits the circumstances under which officers may pull over a driver for a traffic violation. Police unions across the state—including the Minnesota Police Benevolent Association (MPBA) and the Minneapolis Police Union—have branded the rule a “free pass” for criminals, arguing that it erodes their ability to enforce the law and protects drivers who may be engaging in illegal activity.

What the policy actually says

The policy, released on the county’s website the day it was adopted, spells out a narrow set of criteria that must be met before a traffic stop can occur. In plain English, it requires:

1. Immediate or ongoing risk to public safety – The driver must be a known or suspected offender who poses a clear danger to others, such as a repeat offender, a person driving under the influence, or a driver who has previously been cited for dangerous behavior.
2. Active warrant or probable cause for arrest – If an officer has a warrant for the driver’s arrest, a stop is permissible.
3. Safety‑related incident – A traffic accident or emergency that requires an officer’s presence.

If none of these conditions are present, the officer must not initiate a traffic stop for a minor traffic infraction such as speeding, improper lane use, or a broken taillight. The policy is framed as a tool to reduce the number of “low‑risk” stops that can create unnecessary friction between the police and the public.

The county’s press release described the policy as a “safety‑first approach that ensures officers are not using their time and resources on cases that do not present a clear threat to public safety.” The policy also references a 2019 study that found that the majority of traffic stops do not lead to a criminal arrest, and that the majority of stops involve drivers who are not posing a threat.

Police reaction

The MPBA, represented by its president, Officer Michael Stokes, immediately blasted the policy, calling it “an affront to public safety.” Stokes said, “For every officer out on the streets, we are already doing more than our job to keep the community safe. This policy gives criminals a free pass, because it reduces our ability to stop anyone who might be a danger or who might be driving recklessly.” Stokes also noted that the policy is “incompatible with the current public safety mandate of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety.”

The Minneapolis Police Union (MPU), led by Police Chief Mike Hanke, echoed the MPBA’s concerns. Hanke said, “This new rule means that if a driver has no prior record and there’s no imminent danger, officers will have no reason to pull them over. That opens the door for criminals to drive without fear of being stopped or arrested.” Hanke’s statement was shared on the Minneapolis Police Union’s official Facebook page, where it garnered over 4,000 likes in a single post.

The MPBA also released a press release that included an attachment to the policy document, which the union’s legal team is reviewing for potential legal challenges. The release stated, “The MPBA is prepared to pursue all available avenues, including litigation, to overturn or modify the policy if it is found to be unconstitutional.”

County officials’ counter‑arguments

Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office spokesman, Officer David Kossak, defended the new policy as a “well‑intentioned, evidence‑based decision.” He told the county’s news outlet, “Our goal is to focus our limited resources on individuals who truly pose a threat to public safety. By removing unnecessary stops, we can free up officers to respond to more serious incidents—such as violent crimes, drug offenses, and drunk driving crashes.”

County Commissioner Mark O’Brien, who voted in favor of the policy, explained that the policy was part of a broader push to reduce the number of traffic stops that do not result in arrests. “We’ve seen the data that most traffic stops don’t lead to a criminal charge, and that can create a perception of bias and over‑policing,” O’Brien said. “Our new policy aims to reduce that perception and increase the legitimacy of our police force.”

How the policy fits into a national trend

Hennepin County is not the only jurisdiction in Minnesota, or in the United States, to reconsider the use of traffic stops. The state’s Department of Public Safety has released guidance encouraging local agencies to reduce “low‑risk” traffic stops, citing a 2021 federal study that found a correlation between frequent traffic stops and increased incidents of police use‑of‑force. The policy also aligns with a trend seen in other counties—including Ramsey and Dakota—where new guidelines limit stops to situations involving a clear safety concern.

However, the reaction in Minneapolis and the broader state is not as uniform. Several smaller cities—such as Saint Paul and Rochester—have already implemented similar stop‑reduction policies, and their police departments have reported a modest decline in traffic‑related incidents but also an uptick in complaints about perceived neglect of serious violations. Meanwhile, the MPBA’s concerns mirror those of police unions across the country who argue that any reduction in traffic stops will hamper their ability to maintain law and order.

The future of traffic stops in Hennepin County

The policy’s legal future remains uncertain. The MPBA’s legal team has stated they will file a lawsuit alleging that the policy violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing unreasonable delays in stopping drivers who may be committing a crime. If the courts decide the policy is constitutional, the MPBA is preparing a public relations campaign to educate the public about the potential risks of the new law.

Meanwhile, the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office is developing a “traffic‑stop monitoring” program that will collect data on the types of stops made and the outcomes of those stops, with the intention of providing evidence to support the policy’s effectiveness—or to argue for modifications if the data shows unintended consequences.

The debate over Hennepin County’s traffic‑stop policy highlights a broader conflict in law enforcement: balancing public safety and civil liberties. The new policy promises to cut down on low‑risk stops, but critics warn that it will leave drivers who are truly dangerous unchecked. Only time will tell whether the “free pass” will indeed be a boon for criminal drivers or a net loss for public safety.