Cited by

(“E ven observing a motor vehicle weaving within its own lane in an erratic manner can justify an officer stopping a driver.”); (upholding the traffic stop of a vehicle driving slow and “weaving within its lane”); (listing “failure to drive vehicle in a straight line” as a sign of impairment).

For a brief investigative detention to be constitutional, “a police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, together with reasonable inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the invasion of a citizen’s personal security.”

“[T]he factual basis required to support a stop for a ‘routine traffic check’ is minimal.” State v. Engholm , d 780, 783 (Minn. 1980) (quotation omitted).

d 575, 578 (Minn. 1997); (“To lawfully stop a person.

See, (holding that the failure to raise an issue before the district court precludes its litigation on appeal); (“The law is clear in Minnesota that the constitutionality of a statute cannot be challenged for the first time on appeal.”).

“[T]he constitutionality of a statute cannot be challenged for the first time on appeal.” d 577, 583 (Minn. App. 2012).

(citizen reported vehicle as driving “all over the road” and responding officer saw it cross fog lines multiple times); (officer saw vehicle driving “exceptionally” slowly and weaving within lane as officer followed); Wilkes v. Comm’r of Pub.

The state also argues questions of credibility are within the exclusive province of the jury, citing State v. Engholm

“The law is clear in Minnesota that the constitutionality of a statute cannot be challenged fo r the first time on appeal.” d 780, 784 (Minn. 1980).

More significantly, he also failed to raise the argument when he petitioned our court for review.”); s (“The law is clear in Minnesota that the constitutionality of a statute cannot be challenged for the first time on appeal.

Co. , , 584 n.2 (Minn. 2010) ("Generally, issues not presented to the trial court may not be raised for the first time on appeal."); State v. Engholm , , 784 (Minn. 1980) ("The law is clear in Minnesota that the constitutionality of a statute cannot be challenged for the first time on appeal.").

“[T]he factual basis required to support a stop for a ‘routine traffic check’ is minimal.” (quotation omitted).

When invalidation of a statute for constitutional infirmity is sought, “[t]he law is clear in Minnesota that the constitutionality of a statute cannot be challenged for the first time on appeal.” State v. Engholm

Thus, any suggestiveness of E.B.’s identification went only to the weight of the evidence, and “[t]he weight and credibility of the testimony of individual witnesses is for the jury to determine.” See Moore, d at 108 (citing State v. Engholm , ).

“[T]he factual basis required to support a stop for a 5 ‘routine traffic check’ is minimal.” (quotation omitted).

We have repeatedly stated that “[t]he law is clear in Minnesota that the constitutionality of a statute cannot be challenged for the first time on appeal.” ().

(“[I]t is well-settled in Minnesota that it is the province of the jury to determine the credibility and weight to be given to the testimony of any individual witness.”); d 368, 373 (Minn. 1998) (noting that “the jury determines the weight and credibility of indi

“The weight and credibility of the testimony of individual witnesses [are] for the jury to determine.” ().

See, (stating stop was valid based on vehicle traveling at exceptionally slow speed and weaving within its lane shortly after local bars had closed).

As a general rule, “it is well-settled in Minnesota that it is the province of the jury to determine the credibility and weight to be given to the testimony of any individual witness.”

“Generally, if an officer observes a violation of a traffic law, no matter how insignificant the traffic law, that observation forms the requisite particularized and objective basis for conducting a traffic stop.” (upholding stop where defendant was observed driving slowly and weaving within his lane); State v. Barber, 308 Minn. 204, 207, (upholding traffic stop based on officer’s observation that a vehicle’s license plate was wired, not bolted on); Gerding v. Comm’r of Pub.

“The law is clear in Minnesota that the constitutionality of a statute cannot be challenged for the first time on appeal.”

(“The law is clear in Minnesota that the constitutionality of a statute cannot be challenged for the first time on appeal.”).

Because appellant did not raise this argument to the district court, and because “[t]he law is clear in Minnesota that the constitutionality of a statute cannot be challenged for the first time on appeal,” we do not reach the constitutional question.

Hampton v. Hampton, 303 Minn. 500, 501

5) (stating vehicle stops are constitutional where police have reasonable belief that traffic violation has occurred); Marben v. State, Dep’t of Public Safety, (concluding that hazardous driving reported by another driver was sufficient to provide officer with a specific and articulable suspicion of a violation sufficient to warrant vehicle stop); (concluding officer had specific and articulable reasons to suspect driver was under the influence of some intoxicant; thus investigative stop of vehi