§
Subdivision 1.Violations.
With regard to any driver's license, including a commercial driver's license, it shall be unlawful for any person:
(1) to display, cause or permit to be displayed, or have in possession, any fictitious or fraudulently altered driver's license or Minnesota identification card;
(2) to lend the person's driver's license or Minnesota identification card to any other person or knowingly permit the use thereof by another;
(3) to display or represent as one's own any driver's license or Minnesota identification card not issued to that person;
(4) to use a fictitious name or date of birth to any police officer or in any application for a driver's license or Minnesota identification card, or to knowingly make a false statement, or to knowingly conceal a material fact, or otherwise commit a fraud in any such application;
(5) to alter any driver's license or Minnesota identification card;
(6) to take any part of the driver's license examination for another or to permit another to take the examination for that person;
(7) to make a counterfeit driver's license or Minnesota identification card;
(8) to use the name and date of birth of another person to any police officer for the purpose of falsely identifying oneself to the police officer;
(9) to display as a valid driver's license any canceled, revoked, or suspended driver's license. A person whose driving privileges have been withdrawn may display a driver's license only for identification purposes; or
(10) to submit a false affidavit or statement to the department on the certification required under section 171.05, subdivision 2, paragraph (a), clause (1), item (ii), subitem (C), to issue an instruction permit to a homeschool student.
§
Subd. 2.Penalties.
Any person who violates subdivision 1, clause (7) or (8), is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. Any person who violates any other provision of subdivision 1 is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases, 1985–2011 · leading case:
State v. Cripps, 533 N.W.2d 388 (Minn. 1995).
State v. Cripps, 533 N.W.2d 388 (Minn. 1995).
· cites it 4× “Cripps was later charged by complaint in Blue Earth County District Court on the following three counts: using the name and date of birth of another person to a police officer for the purpose of falsely identifying oneself to the police officer, a gross misdemeanor, in violation…”
State v. Cassidy, 567 N.W.2d 707 (Minn. 1997).
· cites it 4× “5, and presenting false identification in violation of Minn.Stat. § 171.22(3) (1996). The facts underlying Cassidy's arrest and conviction are as follows.”
State v. Reynua, 807 N.W.2d 473 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “We conclude that the state, for example, is not barred from prosecuting the crime of display or possession of a fictitious or fraudulently altered Minnesota identification card, Minn.Stat. § 171.22, subd. 1(2), merely because that card has been presented in support of an 1-9…”
State v. Laducer, 676 N.W.2d 693 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “10 or greater within two hours of driving); (3) Minn.Stat. § 171.22, subd. 1(4) (2002) (providing fictitious name or date of birth to a police officer); (4) Minn.”
State v. Clark, 375 N.W.2d 59 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 3× “129 (1984); and unlawful acts, Minn.Stat. § 171.22(5) (1984). Appellant claims the *61 trial court erred by allowing evidence of a prior DWI conviction to be submitted to the jury when he had offered to stipulate unequivocally to the conviction with regard both to the aggravated…”
State v. Streeter, 377 N.W.2d 498 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 2× “1(a) (1984), and of presenting a false driver’s license, see Minn.Stat. § 171.22(3) (1984). He moved for a new trial on these convictions, asserting prosecutorial misconduct in the closing argument.”
State v. Stern, 653 N.W.2d 222 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 22× “” The license purported to be from Illinois and bore a different birth date than that on Stern’s Minnesota license.”
State v. Delaney, 406 N.W.2d 584 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 2× “79 (1984), and giving false information to a peace officer in violation of Minn.Stat. § 171.22(5) (1984). Delaney argued at a Rasmussen hearing that the investigatory stop of his vehicle was unconstitutional.”
— Minn. Stat. § 171.22(3) — 2 cases
State v. Cassidy, 567 N.W.2d 707 (Minn. 1997).
“5, and presenting false identification in violation of Minn.Stat. § 171.22(3) (1996). The facts underlying Cassidy's arrest and conviction are as follows.”
State v. Streeter, 377 N.W.2d 498 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985).
“1(a) (1984), and of presenting a false driver’s license, see Minn.Stat. § 171.22(3) (1984). He moved for a new trial on these convictions, asserting prosecutorial misconduct in the closing argument.”
— Minn. Stat. § 171.22(5) — 2 cases
State v. Clark, 375 N.W.2d 59 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985).
“129 (1984); and unlawful acts, Minn.Stat. § 171.22(5) (1984). Appellant claims the *61 trial court erred by allowing evidence of a prior DWI conviction to be submitted to the jury when he had offered to stipulate unequivocally to the conviction with regard both to the aggravated…”
State v. Delaney, 406 N.W.2d 584 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987).
“79 (1984), and giving false information to a peace officer in violation of Minn.Stat. § 171.22(5) (1984). Delaney argued at a Rasmussen hearing that the investigatory stop of his vehicle was unconstitutional.”
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.