The trial court granted the motion, and the state appealed. There are no facts in dispute. The trial court ruled that a traffic stop based solely on a child passenger restraint system violation is unlawful because a companion statute prohibits traffic stops solely for seat belt violations. Without using the specific term, the trial court ruled Minn. Stat. In reviewing a district court's pretrial suppression order on undisputed facts, we determine independently as a matter of law whether the evidence must be suppressed.
Statutes are in pari materia if they relate to the same person or thing or have a common purpose.
Statutes in pari materia are to be construed together and read in harmony so as to effectuate legislative intent, purpose, and policy. Minnesota law requires motor vehicle drivers, front seat passengers, and front and rear seat passengers between ages four and ten to wear seat belts. In addition, the statute provides that A peace officer may not issue a citation for a violation of this section unless the officer lawfully stopped or detained the driver of the motor vehicle for a moving violation other than a violation involving motor vehicle equipment. The court further held that the legislature specifically intended to prohibit traffic stops solely for seat belt violations. 169.685 refers both to seat belts and child passenger restraint systems.