Lisa Marie Hellerud-Schuth, petitioner, Appellant,

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A25-0636

Lisa Marie Hellerud-Schuth, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Commissioner of Public Safety,
Respondent.

Filed December 8, 2025
Affirmed
Schmidt, Judge

Carver County District Court
File No. 10-CV-24-1415

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

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Cassandra L. Buehler, Assistant Attorney General,
St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Schmidt, Presiding Judge; Bratvold, Judge; and Bentley,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
SCHMIDT, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court’s order sustaining the revocation of her
driver’s license. Because the record supports the district court’s determination that law
enforcement had reasonable, articulable suspicion to initiate the traffic stop, we affirm.
2
FACTS
A law enforcement officer on patrol observed an individual on a motorcycle who
was behind a car being driven by appellant Lisa Marie Hellerud-Schuth. The officer saw
Hellerud-Schuth’s car turn off the road towards a construction zone, then immediately
merge back into the traffic lane. The officer observed that Hellerud- Schuth did not yield
to the motorcycle when she abruptly reentered traffic and that the motorcycle hit its brakes
and swerved. The officer turned on the squad car lights to initiate a traffic stop. The officer
arrested Hellerud-Schuth for driving while intoxicated.
Respondent commissioner of public safety revoked Hellerud- Schuth’s license.
Hellerud-Schuth challenged the revocation of her license, arguing that the officer lacked
reasonable, articulable suspicion to initiate the traffic stop. The district court held an
implied consent hearing at which the officer testified. The district court also received into
evidence the officer’s squad-car camera footage.
After the implied consent hearing, the district court sustained the revocation of
Hellerud-Schuth’s license. Hellerud-Schuth appeals.
DECISION
Hellerud-Schuth challenges the district court’s order sustaining the revocation of
her license. Hellerud-Schuth argues that the officer lacked reasonable, articulable
suspicion to stop her vehicle. We disagree.
Both the United States and Minnesota Constitutions prohibit unreasonable searches
and seizures. U.S. Const. amend. IV; Minn. Const. art. I, § 10. “[A] limited investigatory
stop of a motorist” is constitutionally permissible “if the state can show that the officer had
3
a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal
activity.” State v. Anderson, 683 N.W.2d 818, 822-23 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).
“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.” Id. at 823.
On appeal from an order revoking a driver’s license following an implied-consent
hearing, we review questions about the legality of a traffic stop de novo. Mesenburg v.
Comm’r of Pub. Safety, 969 N.W.2d 642, 646 (Minn. App. 2021) , rev. denied (Minn.
Mar. 15, 2022). But “when the district court hears testimony on the legality of
investigatory stops, the district court’s factual findings are entitled to deference” and are
reviewed under the clear -error standard. State v. Wagner, 637 N.W.2d 330, 336 (Minn.
App. 2001) (citation omitted).
The district court made the following findings of fact after hearing testimony from
the officer who initiated the stop and after watching the squad car footage: (1) the officer
on patrol observed a car driving in front of a motorcycle; (2) the officer saw the car try to
turn into a construction site; (3) the officer observed that the car “quickly right[ed] its
course and veer[ed] back onto the roadway”; (4) as the car veered back into the road, the
officer saw the car “disregard[] oncoming traffic”; (5) as the car moved back into the road,
the officer saw the motorcycle “brake and swerve to avoid a collision”; (6) the officer
“testified that he was concerned for the driver’s disregard for the right of way of traffic”;
and (7) the officer then “activated his emergency lights and initiated a traffic stop.”
4
Citing the squad-car video, Hellerud-Schuth argues that the district court’s findings
of fact— and its decision to credit the officer’s testimony—are clearly erroneous. But the
squad-car video does not, as Hellerud-Schuth contends, demonstrate that the district court
clearly erred by crediting the officer’s testimony.1 The video does not conclusively show
whether the motorcycle swerved to avoid Hellerud-Schuth’s vehicle. The video does,
however, corroborate the officer’s testimony that the motorcycle braked after Hellerud-
Schuth veered back into traffic.
The video was not the only evidence that was presented to the district court. The
district court also heard testimony from the officer. The officer testified:
OFFICER: . . . [S] o the car pulled into that construction
entrance, which is actually gated off, and then quickly
did . . . an abrupt turn back onto [the road].

ATTORNEY: And what did you observe as the car made that
abrupt turn back onto [the road]?

OFFICER: So it was clear that the person made this turn and
abrupt action back onto [the road] without looking at traffic,
because the motorcyclist that had been in front of me and
behind the vehicle that we’re talking about was now right about
where this vehicle had turned off . . . the motorcyclist had to
swerve and brake to avoid a collision.

. . . .

ATTORNEY: When [Hellerud-Schuth] [v]eered back onto the
road, did the motorcyclist have to brake their vehicle?

OFFICER: Yes.

ATTORNEY: Did the motorcyclist have to veer their vehicle?

1 This is far from a situation in which an officer testified that the traffic light was red and
the squad-car video conclusively shows that the light was green.
5
OFFICER: Yes.

ATTORNEY: And was there any other basis for the traffic stop
that you haven’t told the Court?

OFFICER: I don’t think so.

Contrary to Hellerud- Schuth’s argument, the video corroborates the officer’s
testimony as it depicts Hellerud-Schuth attempting to turn into a construction zone and
veering back into the road, and the motorcycle breaking in response to Hellerud-Schuth’s
driving conduct. Because the officer’s testimony and the video support the district court’s
findings, we conclude that we cannot disturb them. See Wagner, 637 N.W.2d at 336.
Affirmed.