A man who led police on a chase through two states was charged with fleeing from a police officer in both states. While the driver argued that Minnesota should not prosecute him for the offense because North Dakota had already done so, the Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that the man was not entitled to double jeopardy.

Grand Forks Police received a report of a hit-and-run accident on September 11, 2020, witnessed by a Grand Forks County Deputy. After the accident, the vehicle driven by Alan James Bear left the scene. The Deputy followed the vehicle and observed Bear committing several traffic violations. Although the Deputy attempted to conduct a traffic stop, Bear fled. The Deputy continued the pursuit, with officers from the Grand Forks Police Department joining.

The chase continued into East Grand Forks, Minnesota. At this point, East Grand Forks Police officers joined and took over the pursuit. They witnessed the driver commit several traffic violations.

Bear then drove back into North Dakota, with Grand Forks police taking over the pursuit. They eventually managed to stop the vehicle. The driver was identified as Bear.

North Dakota charged Bear with several misdemeanors, including fleeing from a police officer. Ultimately, Bear was found guilty on these and other charges and sentenced to 360 days in a reformatory.

Minnesota subsequently charged Bear with fleeing a peace officer. However, Bear moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that his criminal prosecution in Minnesota was barred because he had been convicted in North Dakota for the same incident. After the district court denied Bear's motion to dismiss the case, the case was tried on its own. Bear was found guilty and placed on probation for three years.

On appeal, Bear reiterated that Minnesota's double jeopardy law prevented Minnesota from prosecuting him. “The legislature clearly intended there to be a prohibition on prosecuting the same offense,” asserted Alexander Reichert of Reichert Law Office, who represented Bear. Reichert insisted that fleeing from police officers in North Dakota and Minnesota were not separate acts. “If I had driven from downtown Minneapolis with a police officer across the Mississippi River to the University of Minnesota and across another bridge back to downtown Minneapolis, which is exactly what happened in this case, I committed only one offense. The fact that the two bridges my client crossed were on a state line should not change that. The legislature had that in mind when they passed this law.”

However, the court found that the legal and factual elements of the two offenses were not identical. “North Dakota law does not criminalize fleeing from a peace officer within the state of Minnesota, nor does Minnesota law criminalize fleeing from a peace officer within the state of North Dakota,” wrote Judge Peter Reyes. “The criminal conduct must occur within each state to be prosecuted under the laws of that state.”

Reyes also pointed out a difference between the two states' escape laws, concluding that the legal elements are not identical. “Minnesota's escape law specifically requires the state to prove that a defendant knew or reasonably should have known that he was fleeing from a police officer, an element not listed in North Dakota law,” Reyes reiterated.

The court also noted that while Minnesota's complaint described probable cause as to how Bear eluded police in both Minnesota and North Dakota, the charges related only to Bear's conduct in Minnesota.

“The facts about the defendant's conduct in Minnesota were therefore not material to prove his guilt in North Dakota, nor were the facts about his conduct in North Dakota material to prove his guilt in Minnesota,” Reyes added.[A]The complainant’s conduct in each State justifies independent criminal charges in those States.”