Bounds v. Commissioner of Public Safety
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1986, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
6 later published cases cite this decision.
- Davis v. Director, North Dakota Department of Transportation (N.D. 1991)
- Olson v. N.D. Dep't of Transp. (N.D. 2018)
- Gehringer v. Iowa Department of Transportation, Motor Vehicle Division (Iowa Ct. App. 1988)
- Shull v. Commissioner of Public Safety (Minn. Ct. App. 1986)
- Schmidtbauer v. Commissioner of Public Safety (Minn. Ct. App. 1986)
- Hansen v. Commissioner of Public Safety (Minn. Ct. App. 1985)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
SUMMARY OPINION
FACTS
The facts relevant to this appeal are contained in Bounds v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 353 N.W.2d 659 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984) {Bounds I). In Bounds I, this court held that, in the absence of a fresh pursuit, a peace officer outside his jurisdiction has the authority of a private citizen, but may not administer post-D.W.I. arrest procedures. The Commissioner of Public Safety petitioned the Minnesota Supreme Court for review of this decision, and the supreme court remanded the matter to us for reconsideration in light of its subsequent opinion in Windschitl v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 355 N.W.2d 146 (Minn. 1984).
*146 DECISION
1. In Windschitl, the Minnesota Supreme Court considered a claim that a preliminary screening test for D.W.I. was improperly administered because the police officer was outside his jurisdiction. 1 The court held alternatively that:
(1) the officer was within his jurisdiction and could therefore lawfully administer the preliminary screening test; and
(2) if he was outside his jurisdiction, the arrest was a valid citizen’s arrest even without the preliminary breath test. Id. at 148-149.
“We conclude that, whether it be considered an arrest by a peace officer or by a private citizen, it was a valid arrest.” Id. at 147.
2. The court did not directly confront the issue presented in Bounds I: whether the peace officer making a citizen’s arrest outside his jurisdiction in the absence of hot pursuit may administer post-D.W.I. arrest procedures. However, the Windschitl opinion indicates that a peace officer making a citizen’s arrest retains his status as peace officer and may engage in some activities otherwise barred to a citizen, such as using flashing lights and a siren. Id. at 149. It follows that once a valid arrest is made, a peace officer may then implement post-D.W.I. procedures under this special status. Bounds I is thus vacated in light of the supreme court opinion in Wind-schitl. The trial court’s order sustaining the revocation of Bounds’ driving privileges is affirmed.
Trial court’s order affirmed.
. We recognize that this issue was also addressed in State, Department of Public Safety v. Juncewski, 308 N.W.2d 316, 321 (Minn. 1981).
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.