default.html.twig template not found for page: /resources/legal-not-so-eze/september-2025Minn. Stat. § 169.444, subd. 1, requires the driver of a vehicle approaching a school bus stopped on a street or highway to stop at least 20 feet away from the bus if the bus’s stop-signal arm is extended and red lights are flashing. Appellant was convicted of failing to stop for a school bus under section 169.444, subd. 1, after driving her truck past a school bus as its stop- signal arm was extending. Video recordings showed that in the same second as the stop-signal arm reached full extension, the front of Appellant’s truck entered the frame and continued past the bus.
“Extended” is not defined by statute. However, all dictionary definitions “evoke an image of something lengthened to its fullest extent.” Thus, section 169.444, subd. 1, plainly “requires a stop-signal arm to be fully stretched out, such that it cannot be extended farther.” Here, Appellant was already within 20 feet of the bus when its stop-signal arm was fully extended. Thus, her conduct did not violate section 169.444, subd. 1. Appellant’s conviction is reversed. State v. Waln, A24-2021, 2025 WL 2691090 (Minn. Ct. App. Sept. 22, 2025).
Appellant was ordered to pay restitution to 13 victims following his conviction for 29 offenses and filed an affidavit challenging each restitution award. The District Court vacated 4 awards, but each was reinstated by the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court addresses whether Appellant’s affidavit, which disputed only whether the restitution awards were tied to his convictions and not the amount of the victims’ loss, was sufficient to satisfy Appellant’s initial burden of production and shift the burden to the State to prove the amount of the victims’ loss.
To challenge a restitution award, section 611.045, subd. 3, requires an offender to file an affidavit setting forth all challenges to restitution or items of restitution and specifying all reasons justifying restitution amounts that differ from the amounts requested by the victims. Thereafter, the State must prove the amount of the victim’s loss or the appropriateness of an item of restitution by a preponderance of the evidence. Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 3(a).
The Supreme Court interprets an offender’s statutory burden of production as requiring the offender to “specific whether they are alleging that the entire item of restitution is invalid, or that the amount of the victim’s loss does not support the amount awarded.” If an offender wishes to bring challenges to a restitution item and to an amount of restitution, section 611.045, subd. 3(a), requires the offender to so state in his or her affidavit.
Here, Appellant’s affidavit did not state his intent to challenge the amount of the victim’s loss and, therefore, the burden should not have shifted to the State to prove the amount of loss. However, the matter is remanded for further proceedings, as the court recognizes that prior case law “could be read as supporting the conclusion that a challenge to an entire item of restitution also encompasses a challenge to the amount of restitution.” State v. Seeman, A23-0571, 25 N.W.3d 858 (Minn. Sept. 24, 2025).