Sheila Laurel Jensen, petitioner, Appellant,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A19-1126

Sheila Laurel Jensen, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Commissioner of Public Safety,
Respondent.

Filed March 9, 2020
Affirmed
Segal, Judge

Pine County District Court
File No. 58-CV-19-124

Robert M. Christensen, Robert M. Christensen, P.L.C., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for
appellant)

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Nicholas R. Moen, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul,
Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Cochran, Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Segal,
Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
SEGAL, Judge
In this appeal from the district court’s order sustaining the revocation of her driver’s
license for driving while impaired (DWI), appellant argues that the district court committed

2
clear error in crediting the arresting officer’s testimony regarding the legal justification for
stopping appellant’s vehicle. Because the court did not commit clear error, we affirm.
FACTS
At about 1:40 a.m. on March 3, 2019, a Pine County sheriff’s deputy was patrolling
the area near Airport Road and Highway 61. The deputy was behind a vehicle driven by
appellant Sheila Laurel Jensen. As the deputy followed behind her, Jensen activated her
left turn signal and slowed down as if to turn left on to Henriette Road but missed the turn
and continued driving on Highway 61 for a short distance. Jensen then pulled off onto the
right shoulder, c rossed two lanes of traffic and made a U -turn. The deputy, who had
maintained a distance of approximately three car lengths, had to “tap [his] brakes and slow
down to prevent a risk of getting into an accident” when Jensen made the U -turn. The
deputy initiated a traffic stop, later identifying an “illegal U-turn” as the reason for the
stop.1 During the stop, the deputy noticed indicia of intoxication. Jensen took a breath test
which revealed an alcohol concentration above 0.08. Ultimately, Jensen was arrested for

1 The applicable portion of the U-turn provision is as follows:

No vehicle shall be turned to proceed in the opposite direction
upon any curve, or upon the approach to or near the crest of a
grade, where the vehicle cannot be seen by the driver of any
other vehicle approaching from either direction within 1,000
feet, nor shall the driver of a vehicle turn the vehicle to proceed
in the opposite directio n unless the movement can be made
safely and without interfering with other traffic.

Minn. Stat. § 169.19, subd. 2 (2018).

3
suspicion of DWI. This appeal arises out of the subsequent revocation of Jensen’s driver’s
license by respondent Commissioner of Public Safety.
Jensen petitioned for judicial review of the revocation of her driving privileges. At
the hearing, she contested the legality of the stop. The deputy was the only witness. Jensen
argued that the deputy’s testimony about having to tap his brakes and slow his speed to
avoid a collision must not be credited because, among other arguments, the deputy’s police
report did not include this information . While the report, itself, was not admitted into
evidence, the following portion of the report was read into th e record by the deputy on
cross-examination as follows: “[The vehicle] turned on its left blinker to turn onto Henriette
Road. The vehicle missed the turn, and then pulled over to the right shoulder and made a
U-turn in front of me. I pulled the vehicle over afte r it got onto Henriette Road.” The
district court found the deputy’s testimony credibl e and sustained Jensen’s license
revocation. This appeal follows.
D E C I S I O N
Jensen argues that the district court committed clear error by crediting the officer’s
testimony about the traffic stop. The United States and Minnesota Constitutions prohibit
the government from conducting unreasonable searches and seizures. U.S. Const. amend.
IV; Minn. Const. art. I, § 10. However, a law-enforcement officer may conduct a limited
warrantless stop if he h as reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity. State v.
Munson, 594 N.W.2d 128, 136 (Minn. 1999) (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 22, 88 S. Ct.
1868, 1880 (1968)). “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

4
objective basis for conducting a traffic stop .” Wilkes v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety , 777
N.W.2d 239, 243 (Minn. App. 2010) (quotation omitted).
This court defers to the district court with regard to credibility determinations. State
v. Klamar, 823 N.W.2d 687, 691 (Minn. App. 2012); see also Wilkes, 777 N.W.2d at 246
(“[C]redibility determinations are the province of the district court.”). Findings of fact will
not be set aside unless they are clearly erroneous. Frost v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety , 348
N.W.2d 803, 804 (Minn. App. 1984).
Jensen argues that the district court committed clear error when it credited the
officer’s testimony regarding the illegal nature of the U-turn that instigated the traffic stop.
First, she claims that the deputy’s testimony is not credible because his police report does
not contain “one objective fact that supports” the assertion that she made an illegal U-turn.
The deputy’s testimony, however, was not in any way inconsistent with his report. There
is also no requirement that, in order to justify a stop, police reports must contain the level
of detail being sought by Jensen.
Second, Jensen argues the deputy’s testimony is “not credible because it is
illogical.” Jensen claims that “no one ‘taps’ the brakes to avoid an accident from three car
lengths back.” The deputy , however, testified that he needed to slow down in order to
avoid a possible col lision with Jensen’s vehicle while Jensen made the U -turn, and the
district court found the deputy’s testimony to be credible . Jensen’s arguments to the
contrary were raised and lost at the district court level. She has failed to show clear error
on this appeal.

5
Finally, the fact the deputy had to brake and slow his speed to avoid a collision due
to the U-turn satisfies the elements for a violation of the traffic law. It is illegal to make a
U-turn “unless the movement can be made safely and without interfering with other
traffic.”2 Minn. Stat. § 169.19, subd. 2. This provision does not suggest that another driver
had to slam on his brakes to avoid a collision to be a violation. Having credited the deputy’s
testimony that he had to apply his brakes to avoid a collision, the district court correctly
concluded that the deputy’s basis for the stop, the illegal U -turn, was valid under the
constitution.
Jensen also argues that the district court misinterpreted the statute regarding the
1,000-foot sight-line rule. However, because the district court correctly interpreted the
statute with regard to the requirement that a U-turn may only be made if it is safe to do so,
we need not reach this issue.
Because credibility determinations are the province of the district court and there is
sufficient evidence to support the court’s conclusions , the district court did not err in
finding the deputy’s testimony credible and sus taining the revocation of Jensen’s driver’s
license.
Affirmed.

2 Jensen argues that the U-turn was not conducted where there were any hills or curves in
the road, but that is not the portion of the U-turn statute relied on by the deputy.