Every licensee shall have the license in immediate possession at all times when operating a motor vehicle and shall display it upon demand of a peace officer, an authorized representative of the department, or an officer authorized by law to enforce the laws relating to the operation of motor vehicles on public streets and highways. Unless the person is the holder of a limited license issued under section 171.30, no person charged with violating the possession requirement shall be convicted if the person produces in court or the office of the arresting officer a driver's license previously issued to that person for the class of vehicle being driven which was valid at the time of arrest or satisfactory proof that at the time of the arrest the person was validly licensed for the class of vehicle being driven. The licensee shall also, upon request of any officer, write the licensee's name in the presence of the officer to determine the identity of the licensee.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
12
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1968–2025 · leading case:
State v. Henning, 666 N.W.2d 379 (Minn. 2003).
State v. Henning, 666 N.W.2d 379 (Minn. 2003).
· cites it 20× “2 (2002), no driver's license in possession, Minn.Stat. § 171.08 (2002), and no current proof of insurance, Minn.”
State v. Askerooth, 681 N.W.2d 353 (Minn. 2004).
· cites it 4× “[7] Askerooth's statement that he did not have a driver's license may have provided probable cause for a new misdemeanor violation, see Minn.Stat. § 171.08 (2002) (stating it is a misdemeanor to drive without a license in immediate possession).”
State v. Varnado, 582 N.W.2d 886 (Minn. 1998).
· cites it 6× “The Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure permit a custodial arrest for misdemeanors only under certain circumstances.”
State v. Brooks, 838 N.W.2d 563 (Minn. 2013).
· cites it 2× “3 (2012), and not having a driver’s license in his possession, Minn.Stat. § 171.08 (2012). After the Prior Lake incident, Brooks was also charged with fourth-degree assault of a peace officer, Minn.”
State v. Hickman, 491 N.W.2d 673 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 6× “The state tried to find statutory authority for what it termed a “routine” license check, by pointing to Minn.Stat. § 171.08 (1974): Every licensee shall have his license in his immediate possession at all times when operating a motor vehicle and shall display the same, upon…”
State v. Bauman, 586 N.W.2d 416 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 171.08 (1996). This requirement allows an officer to verify that a driver has a valid license to operate a vehicle.”
Johnson v. Morris, 445 N.W.2d 563 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 2× “A violation of this requirement is a misdemeanor. Minn.Stat. § 171.”
State v. Fish, 159 N.W.2d 786 (Minn. 1968).
“08, which, so far as applicable here, provides: “Every licensee shall have his license in his immediate possession at all times when operating a motor vehicle and shall display the same, upon demand * * * by an officer authorized by law to enforce the laws relating to the…”
State v. Yarnado, 582 N.W.2d 886 (Minn. 1998).
· cites it 6× “The Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure permit a custodial arrest for misdemeanors only under certain circumstances. Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 6.”
State v. Fairchild, 444 N.W.2d 572 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 4× “Minn. Stat. § 171.08 further requires the driver to have the license in his possession.”
Rangel v. Satele (D. Minnesota 2025).
· cites it 2× “Minn. Stat. §§ 171.08 , 171.241 (addressing refusal to produce driver’s license); Minn.”
Hoel (D. Minnesota 2025).
· cites it 2× “Minn. Stat. §§ 171.08 , 171.241. Had Mr. Hoel been driving, his refusal to produce his license would have given the officers probable cause to think he violated these statutes and arrest him.”
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.