Name:     ID: 

State v. Stallman



Identify the Plaintiff(s) in the case.     


Identify the Defendant(s) in the case     


How many times did Stallman drive past the police officer and in what span of time?


How does the city ordinance define “cruising”?


How does the city ordinance define a “traffic control point”?


How does a police officer choose a “traffic control point”?


State the reasons the city council established an “anti-cruising”ordinance around its main streets?


What type of notices did the drivers receive regarding the “no cruising” law in Anoka?


Did the notices explain “cruising” to the driver entering a “no cruise” zone?


Did the notice explain to the drivers the consequences of traveling past a traffic control point within the five-hour period?


What is “intrastate travel”?


Did the ordinance allow a suspected driver to offer a lawful explanation for why he/she drove past the traffic control points three or more times within a five-hour period?


Why did Stallman believe the “anti-cruising” ordinance was unconstitutional?


Did the ordinance sufficiently define “cruising”?


Were the “traffic control point” signs adequate to give drivers notice of exactly where the zones were located?


Did the signs give adequate notice to drivers of the consequences of passing a police vehicle three times at a traffic control point within the five-hour period?


Was the “anti-cruising” ordinance narrowly tailored to meet significant city objectives?  In other words, was the City of Anoka’s objective in reducing congestion, eliminating safety hazards, ensuring clear passage for emergency vehicles, and reducing the criminal activity resolved by this ordinance at the expense of infringing on legitimate rights to travel in the affected areas?


You Be The Judge

Explain your decision.

         Start Over