Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Vehicle‑pursuits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel forwards bill to toughen penalties for fleeing police in vehicles
Summary
House File 340 was advanced to the Transportation Committee after amendments; the measure would add felony levels and longer sentences for certain fleeing behaviors and widen the statutory definitions used to prosecute dangerous pursuits.
The House Public Safety Committee on Feb. 19 advanced House File 340, which would increase penalties for certain types of fleeing a peace officer in a vehicle and add newly defined offenses. Representative Steer presented the bill to address a reported rise in motor‑vehicle fleeing incidents and vehicle thefts.
Steer told the committee that in 2023 there were about 2,262 agency‑initiated pursuits and that stolen vehicles were up nearly 30% from 2019. He said the bill would amend Minnesota Statute §609.487 (fleeing a peace officer) to add offenses and increase maximum imprisonment terms: for fleeing while exercising culpable negligence, felony exposure with sentencing up to four years (an increase from three years); and for failing to obey traffic signs, signals or keeping on the proper side of the road while fleeing, penalties up to five years.
Shane Myrie, president of the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association (MPPOA), described recent incidents involving high‑speed and dangerous fleeing that have injured motorists. “Fleeing suspects have created a public safety crisis on our roadways,” Myrie said, and the MPPOA supported the bill as one way to give prosecutors tools to address conduct that falls short of causing death or severe bodily harm but is still highly dangerous.
Imran Ali, general counsel for MPPOA and a former prosecutor, urged stronger penalties and a public messaging campaign to deter fleeing. “There is a negative view of law enforcement in our state and in our country,” Ali said, adding that fleeing offenders often perform a “risk‑benefit” analysis about whether to stop for police and that stronger consequences and education could change that calculus.
Committee members discussed statutory language, technical drafting, and the fiscal note. Representative Muller and others asked the sponsor to refine certain statutory cross‑references (for example, the committee discussed whether the bill intended to incorporate all of Minn. Stat. §169.18 or only specific dangerous behaviors such as driving the wrong way). The committee adopted the A2 amendment (which removed a tracking‑device provision and added a four‑year license revocation) and then voted to refer the bill to the Transportation Committee.
Representative Steer said he would work with members on clean‑up language and messaging if the bill advances; the committee recorded no roll‑call vote in the transcript for the referral motion and the chair announced that the motion carried.
