Estimated reading time: 8 minutes
Minnesota has two variations on “Fleeing Police” crimes. One is “Fleeing Police in a Motor Vehicle.” The other is “Fleeing Police – Other Than Vehicle.” Both crimes are in Minnesota Statutes Section 609.487.
Fleeing Police in a Motor Vehicle
Fleeing Police in a Motor Vehicle is now a felony. The base felony carries a three year maximum prison. And enhancers for “substantial bodily harm” carry a five year max; “great bodily harm” up to seven years, and death up to 40 years. But the most common charge is the base level, Fleeing Police in a Motor Vehicle (no injuries).
Subd. 3. “Fleeing officer; motor vehicle. Whoever by means of a motor vehicle flees or attempts to flee a peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of an official duty, and the perpetrator knows or should reasonably know the same to be a peace officer, is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than three years and one day …”
Subd. 4. “Fleeing officer; death; bodily injury. Whoever flees or attempts to flee by means of a motor vehicle a peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of an official duty, and the perpetrator knows or should reasonably know the same to be a peace officer, and who in the course of fleeing in a motor vehicle or subsequently by other means causes the death of a human being … or any bodily injury to any person other than the perpetrator may be sentenced to imprisonment as follows:
Minnesota Statutes § 609.487 (2025)
(a) if the course of fleeing results in death, to imprisonment for not more than 40 years …; or
(b) if the course of fleeing results in great bodily harm, to imprisonment for not more than seven years …; or
(c) if the course of fleeing results in substantial bodily harm, to imprisonment for not more than five years …”
For my related article on criminal charges in a motor vehicle accident with injuries, see: Criminal Vehicular Operation Charges & Defense in Minnesota.
In addition to the criminal penalties, the court “certifies” any conviction to the Minnesota Department of Public Safety (DPS). Minnesota Statutes § 609.487, Subd. 5. Then DPS will revoke the convicted defendant’s driver’s license. See: Driving After Revocation.
“Motor vehicle” means every self-propelled vehicle, including snowmobiles, off-road recreational vehicles, and motorboats. Minn. Stat. § 609.487, Subd. 2a.
Fleeing Police: Not in a Vehicle
For the “Other than in a Vehicle” version of the offense, the penalty is a misdemeanor. And, since it does not involve a motor vehicle, Minnesota has no driver’s license revocation.
Subd. 6. “Fleeing, other than vehicle. Whoever, for the purpose of avoiding arrest, detention, or investigation, or in order to conceal or destroy potential evidence related to the commission of a crime, attempts to evade or elude a peace officer, who is acting in the lawful discharge of an official duty, by means of running, hiding, or by any other means except fleeing in a motor vehicle, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Minnesota Statutes § 609.487, Subd. 6 (2025)
Every criminal law requires factual proof that various “elements” or key ingredients of the criminal statute are proven. If the evidence does not prove the elements of the criminal statute, then the defendant is “not-guilty.” And this includes Fleeing Police cases.
One of the elements of every criminal statute is “criminal intent.” Minnesota laws describe different levels of criminal intent. But without knowledge of a predicate fact, there can be no criminal intent. And knowledge is a threshold fact issue in many Fleeing cases.
“Did the person know, or reasonably should have known, that a police officer wanted the person to stop.” Of course, we humans are unable to read minds. We must communicate with each other in some way, in order to be understood.
“Reasonably know to be a peace officer”
The Other: When we attempt communication, we usually feel that we made our intentions clear. And we often feel that the other’s failure to understand us is “unreasonable.” But that is not always true.
We have a reasonableness standard in the law; a more objective standard for determining a person’s subjective “intent” (including “knowledge”). Cases sometimes refer to this as a “reasonable person standard.”
A police officer may indicate an intent to invoke state-power, and order a stop with the take-down lights. If that did not work quickly enough, the police officer might activate the squad car siren. Failing that, the officer might give a verbal command over the car’s PA speaker. And police have even more methods of communication available. But a person cannot be fleeing police unless police clearly communicate their intent to stop the person.
“Because the innocent will flee violence and injustice as quickly as the guilty; fleeing cannot be true evidence of guilt.”
Attorney Thomas Gallagher
In a pedestrian Fleeing case case, the police officer may not have technology to help communicate a stop order. They may simply make a verbal demand, sometimes shouting in a commanding tone.
In some cases, the person did not stop quickly enough, unaware that a police officer wanted them to stop. If so, that person is not-guilty of this crime.
Another issue is the statute’s requirement: “Knows or should reasonably know the same to be a peace officer.” We see news stories frequently about people impersonating police. How, and when, do we know they are real? Does any evidence support that conclusion?
Objective Fact of “Peace Officer”
The statute includes three requirements related to the term “peace officer:”
- Subjective but reasonable point-of-view of the person;
- Objective fact that pursuer is actually a “peace officer;”
- If so, “acting in the lawful discharge of an official duty?”
That means a person cannot be guilty of fleeing unless an actual “peace officer” was involved, the person reasonably should have know that it was a “peace officer” who wanted them to stop, and that the “peace officer was acting in the lawful discharge of an official duty.
I discuss the definition of what is a “peace officer” for purposes of this criminal statute below.
Defense: “acting in the lawful discharge of an official duty”
By the terms of this statute, it is no crime to flee a peace officer unless they were “acting in the lawful discharge of an official duty.” See, Minn. Stat. § 609.487, Sunds. 3, 4, and 6. And for a discussion of “lawful duty,” see my article Obstruction & Resisting Arrest in Minnesota.
Are Federal ICE Law Enforcement Officers “Peace Officers?”
No, under this section of Minnesota Statutes, federal ICE law enforcement officers are not “peace officers.” Why? Words and key terms in statutes sometimes have a “statutory definition.” And when they do, that statutory definition overrides any common usage or common understanding of the meaning of that word. We see many examples of this in many contexts. For example, see my article: How Gallagher won Serial Number (Privately Made Firearm) cases. And here, the term “peace officer” in this Minnesota Statutes Section does have a statutory definition, in Subdivision 2. “‘Peace officer’ has the meaning given in Minnesota Statutes § 609.487, Subd. 2:
“Peace officer; definition. For purposes of this section, ‘peace officer’ means:
Minn. Stat. § 609.487, Subd. 2 (2025)
(1) an employee of a political subdivision or state law enforcement agency who is licensed by the Minnesota Board of Peace Officer Standards and Training, charged with the prevention and detection of crime and the enforcement of the general criminal laws of the state and who has the full power of arrest, and shall also include the Minnesota State Patrol and Minnesota conservation officers;
(2) an employee of a law enforcement agency of a federally recognized tribe, as defined in United States Code, title 25, section 450b(e), who is licensed by the Minnesota Board of Peace Officer Standards and Training; or
(3) a member of a duly organized state, county, or municipal law enforcement unit of another state charged with the duty to prevent and detect crime and generally enforce criminal laws, and granted full powers of arrest.
That does not mean that federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) law enforcement officers (federal law enforcement agents under the Department of Homeland Security) cannot lawfully arrest or pursue in Minnesota. But It does mean that this Minnesota fleeing statute, Minn. Stat. § 609.487, cannot be used to prosecute people in Minnesota state court for fleeing a federal ICE law enforcement officer.
“Intent to” elude or avoid arrest, detention
In another common “fleeing police” fact pattern, the person does stop but not fast enough to satisfy the police officer. The police officer may experience adrenaline-effects where time seems in slow-motion. Meanwhile the driver or pedestrian is experiencing real time.
And the laws of physics always trump human laws. So a body in motion at a constant velocity will tend to remain in motion. And deceleration takes some time. In this situation, the police officer may perceive events differently than the rest of us. But fortunately, these days we often have squad-car and body-cam video recordings, with time stamps in the video.
Sometimes a driver has anxiety about whether an apparent traffic stop by a police officer is legit. (This law only requires stopping for real police, licensed, etc.) Or, the driver may be looking for a safe place to pull over, not fleeing police. And here again, it’s possible for a police officer and the driver to perceive things differently.
But if the real issue is one of perception, the law resolves doubt in favor of the driver. Why? Because a key premise of any crime is intent (including knowledge). Therefore, the law requires the jury to view the facts from the point-of-view of the defendant (not the police).
Vehicle Forfeiture: Sometimes police will seize a motor vehicle and issue the owner a Notice of Administrative Forfeiture. For more on challenging that, see our page on Asset Forfeiture cases. But spoiler alert: the law has short deadline for taking action to challenge the forfeiture in court. So don’t wait.
Specific Intent Requirement
“Specific intent” means a person not only intended to do the act prohibited by the statute, but also intended a particular outcome or goal specified, requiring prosecutors to prove this double mental state. It’s more than general intent (intending the act but not necessarily the result), which is the level of intent in most criminal statutes. And statutes often require a specific intent element with words like “purposely,” “willfully,” “knowingly,” or “with intent to.” The prosecution must attempt to prove the defendant’s specific goal, not just their voluntary action. Examples of specific intent crimes include attempt, burglary, forgery, larceny, and first-degree murder. General intent only requires the intent to perform the prohibited act (e.g., most assault crimes), while specific intent requires an additional, defined purpose for doing the prohibited act.
The offense of fleeing a peace officer is a specific-intent crime. So, it requires requires proof of specific intent before a person can be guilty of that crime. See, State v. Anderson, 468 N.W.2d 345, 346 (Minn. App. 1991 (the offense of fleeing peace officer in motor vehicle “requires a specific intent to attempt to elude the officer”); see also, State v. Wilson, 830 N.W.2d 849, 852-54 (Minn. Supreme Court 2013) (offense of fleeing peace officer by means other than motor vehicle “is a specific-intent crime”).
Resulting in an Injury Crash
In fleeing cases where the fleeing driver causes serious injury or death to another, that driver may face these more serious felony charges:
Criminal Vehicular Operation or Criminal Vehicular Homicide
How much is Bail for Fleeing?
The maximum bail in Minnesota to get out of jail on pretrial release after an an arrest for misdemeanor Fleeing Police – Not in a Motor Vehicle, is $2,000. But there is no maximum bail in law for a felony in Minnesota, including felony Fleeing Police – In a Motor Vehicle. A person in jail for Fleeing Police, if not released sooner, will be brought before a judge for a bail (or pretrial release) hearing within a few days, often the next business day.
At the Pretrial Release (Bail) Hearing a judge will set conditions for pretrial release pending trial, which could include money bail and-or other conditions intended to ensure future court appearances or enhance public safety.
For more on Pretrial Release (Bail) Hearings in Minnesota, see my article: Bail Hearing | Pre-trial Release.
Question? Call Attorney Thomas Gallagher, 612 333-1500
Attorney Thomas Gallagher’s luck follows hard work and persistence. Could you benefit? You are welcome to give him a phone call.
More: Fleeing Police
Gallagher Wins No Serial Number | Privately Made Firearm case
How to Assert Your Rights: Protect Yourself from Police
Public Order Crimes and Their Defense
Leaving the scene, “hit and run” cases in Minnesota
Careless Driving | Reckless Driving – Charges & Defense