The Rusty Moore lawsuit is a Minnesota driver’s license case in which Rusty James Moore tried to undo the revocation of his license after a traffic stop where a state trooper concluded he was driving under the influence of Adderall. He lost in Morrison County District Court, appealed, and lost again when the Minnesota Court of Appeals issued a nonprecedential opinion on August 25, 2025 sustaining the revocation.1Leagle. Moore v. Commissioner of Public Safety, A24-1896
What the Trooper Observed
A citizen called in a vehicle “driving all over the road,” and a responding officer confirmed jerky movements within the lane. Minnesota State Patrol Trooper Megan Boser made the stop and documented bloodshot, watery, and glassy eyes, fast speech, trembling hands, a visibly pulsating carotid artery, and dry mouth.2CaseMine. Moore v. Commissioner of Public Safety
Field sobriety testing added more. Moore’s pulse started at 116 BPM and rose to 130. He had full-body tremors, swayed while standing, struggled with balance, missed the heel-to-toe requirement on the walk-and-turn, and had trouble following instructions.2CaseMine. Moore v. Commissioner of Public Safety Moore told officers the substance involved was Adderall and that he had taken it as prescribed.
Why the Prescription Did Not Save His License
The central legal issue in Moore’s challenge was whether a valid prescription protected him from a revocation. It did not. The revocation came through Minnesota’s implied consent law, an administrative process separate from criminal DWI prosecution. Any driver on Minnesota roads is deemed to consent to chemical testing when an officer has probable cause to believe the driver is impaired.3Minnesota State Law Library. DWI Basics
What matters under that framework is whether the substance actually impaired the driver’s ability to operate a vehicle, not whether the driver had legal authorization to take it. A prescription bottle in the console does not answer the impairment question one way or the other.
The District Court Ruling
Moore filed his petition for judicial review in Morrison County District Court on August 14, 2024, under case number 49-CV-24-1067.4Trellis Law. Rusty James Moore vs. Commissioner of Public Safety After an October 2024 hearing, the court denied the petition and sustained the revocation. It found that the erratic driving, the physical signs Trooper Boser observed, and the field sobriety results together established that Adderall “impaired his ability to operate a motor vehicle,” and that the prescription did not change that conclusion.2CaseMine. Moore v. Commissioner of Public Safety
The Court of Appeals Decision
Moore appealed under docket number A24-1896. A panel of Judges Harris, Bjorkman, and Bratvold heard the case, with Moore arguing the district court had abused its discretion in letting the revocation stand.1Leagle. Moore v. Commissioner of Public Safety, A24-1896
On August 25, 2025, Judge Bratvold authored a nonprecedential opinion resolving the case. Nonprecedential opinions in Minnesota decide the dispute between the parties but do not create binding authority for future cases, so the outcome closes Moore’s challenge without establishing new law on prescription drugs and impairment revocations.1Leagle. Moore v. Commissioner of Public Safety, A24-1896