§
Subdivision 1.Scope.
The provisions of this chapter applicable to the drivers of vehicles upon the highways shall apply to the drivers of all vehicles owned or operated by the United States, this state, or any county, city, town, district, or any other political subdivision of the state, subject to such specific exemptions as are set forth in this chapter with reference to authorized emergency vehicles.
§
Subd. 2.Stops.
The driver of any authorized emergency vehicle, when responding to an emergency call, upon approaching a red or stop signal or any stop sign shall slow down as necessary for safety, but may proceed cautiously past such red or stop sign or signal after sounding siren and displaying red lights, except that a law enforcement vehicle responding to an emergency call shall sound its siren or display at least one lighted red light to the front.
§
Subd. 3.One-way roadway.
The driver of any authorized emergency vehicle, when responding to any emergency call, may enter against the run of traffic on any one-way street, or highway where there is authorized division of traffic, to facilitate traveling to the area in which an emergency has been reported; and the provisions of this section shall not affect any cause of action arising prior to its passage.
§
Subd. 4.Parking at emergency scene.
An authorized emergency vehicle, when at the scene of a reported emergency, may park or stand, notwithstanding any law or ordinance to the contrary.
§
Subd. 5.Course of duty.
No driver of any authorized emergency vehicle shall assume any special privilege under this chapter except when such vehicle is operated in response to any emergency call or in the immediate pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the law.
Notes of Decisions
Vassallo ex rel. Brown v. Majeski, 842 N.W.2d 456 (Minn. 2014).
· cites it 27× “The specific question presented is whether Deputy Majeski violated a ministerial duty created either by the provisions of Minn.Stat. § 169.03, subd. 2 (2012), or by the policies of the Hennepin County Sheriffs Office, depriving him of the otherwise-applicable immunity.”
Martinco v. Hastings, 122 N.W.2d 631 (Minn. 1963).
· cites it 8× “” Section 169.03, par. 1, reads as follows: “The provisions of this chapter applicable to the drivers of vehicles upon the highways shall apply to the drivers of all vehicles owned or operated by the United States, this state, or any county, city, town, district, or any other…”
Pletan v. Gaines, 494 N.W.2d 38 (Minn. 1992).
· cites it 2× “, Minn.Stat. § 169.03, subd. 2, and § 169.17.”
State v. Hoben, 98 N.W.2d 813 (Minn. 1959).
· cites it 5× “2 By § 169.03 it is provided that the provisions of the chapter shall be “applicable and uniform throughout this state and in all political subdivisions and municipalities therein, and no local authority shall enact or enforce any rule or regulation in conflict with the…”
State v. Tanksley, 809 N.W.2d 706 (Minn. 2012).
· cites it 4× “Minn.Stat. § 169.03, subd. 2. The statute thus provides three methods for proving the requisite alcohol concentration, and does not express a preference for one method over another.”
Wajda v. Kingsbury, 652 N.W.2d 856 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 169.03, subd. 2 (2000). As the district court correctly recognized, a “central part” of appellants’ case was the contention that the squad car’s siren was activated during a particular time.”
City of St. Paul v. Ulmer, 111 N.W.2d 612 (Minn. 1961).
· cites it 10× “Section 169.03 provides in part: "The provisions of this chapter shall be applicable and uniform throughout this state and in all political subdivisions and municipalities therein, and no local authority shall enact or enforce any rule or regulation in conflict with the…”
City of Bloomington v. Kossow, 131 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1964).
· cites it 4× “” As far as this case is concerned, we may limit the application of the above statement to such prosecutions under municipal ordinances as do not come within the meaning of § 169.03. By that statute it is provided that local authorities may adopt traffic regulations which are…”
State v. Gladden, 144 N.W.2d 779 (Minn. 1966).
· cites it 4× “(2d) 813 , 818: “* * * As we interpret § 169.03, it was the intention of the legislature that the application of its provisions should be uniform throughout the state both as to penalties and procedures, and requires a munici *536 polity to utilize state criminal procedure in…”
State v. Hartman, 112 N.W.2d 340 (Minn. 1961).
· cites it 3× “Section 169.03 thereof provides that the provisions of the chapter shall be applicable and uniform throughout the state and in all political subdivisions and municipalities therein and that no local authority shall enact or enforce any rule or regulation in conflict with its…”
State v. Simonsen, 89 N.W.2d 910 (Minn. 1958).
· cites it 2× “1 It is plainly evident from the reading of the aforesaid sections of the ordinance and M. S.”
— Minn. Stat. § 169.03(3) — 2 cases
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.