UPDATES:
3/30/2026 at 5:29 a.m.
Key Testimony Sequence (Verbatim x7 over four days):
1. Officer reviewed license/insurance
2. Driver asked reason for stop
3. Officer: "THEY were doing random alcohol checks"
4. No odor detected
5. Verbal advisory given for unrelated issue → No citation issued
Core Contradiction: Why did officer say "THEY were doing random alcohol checks" when Lt. Strop claims three separate traffic stops for specific violations? (See below.) "Random" directly contradicts "three justified reasons.".
3/29/2026:
FORMAL PUBLIC REQUEST: Bodycam Footage for All March 26 Stops
This outlet formally requests Rochester Police Department immediately release bodycam footage for ALL traffic stops occurring 8:00-9:00pm on March 26, 2026, at the commercial cluster of Sam's Club, Walmart, Wild Wings, and Kwik Trip near 55th St NW—including Lt. Strop's referenced three stops (two equipment, one moving violation).
Eyewitness testimony conflicts directly with RPD's "no random alcohol checks" denial, alleging explicit officer admission of pretextual purpose. Federal protection order holder suffered documented economic loss (DoorDash shift termination at 9:11pm). Transparency demands complete footage, not selective narrative control.
Minnesota Data Practices Act (Stat. §13.01) guarantees public access to law enforcement recordings absent specific exemption. RPD shall produce complete, unedited footage within 10 business days or provide statutory denial with appeal rights.
Email to Chief Franklin
textTo: jfranklin@rochestermn.gov
CC: estrop@rochestermn.gov, media@rochestermn.gov
Subject: FORMAL Data Practices Act Request - Bodycam Footage, March 26, 2026 Traffic Stops
Chief Jim Franklin
Rochester Police Department
March 29, 2026
Dear Chief Franklin,
Under authority of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (Minn. Stat. § 13.01 et seq.), Rochester Sun Times formally requests the following public data:
BODYCAM FOOTAGE - ALL TRAFFIC STOPS
Date: March 26, 2026, 8:00 PM - 9:00 PM
Location: Sam's Club, Walmart, Wild Wings, Kwik Trip commercial area near 55th St NW
Scope: COMPLETE, UNEDITED footage for each referenced stop (including Lt. Strop's stated 3 stops: 2 equipment violations, 1 moving violation)
This request responds to Lt. Strop's March 27 email denying "random alcohol checks" while eyewitness testimony alleges explicit officer admission of pretextual purpose. Federal protection order holder suffered documented economic harm.
RPD shall provide data within 10 business days per MGDPA § 13.04 or issue written denial with specific statutory exemption cited. Appeal rights preserved.
Public has right to see complete evidence, not curated narrative.
Sincerely,
Lisa Loucks-Christenson
Rochester Sun Times
3/27/2026: Eric Strop <estrop@rochestermn.gov> Mar 27, 2026, 11:53 AM (1 day ago) to me
Thank you for reaching out. I have some concerns about your evidence-based journalism and the accuracy of your online story.
https://rochestersuntimesnews.com/blogs/news/lisa-investigates-rochester-police-s-random-alcohol-check-stops-raise-legal-questions
The Rochester Police Department does not perform random checks for alcohol – officers must have probable cause or reasonable suspicion to initiate a traffic stop. Additionally, RPD does not use a process of pulling drivers over near busy exits. Safety is our top priority, and officers initiate stops where they feel it would be the safest for both themselves and the party that they are stopping. RPD officers conducted three traffic stops the evening of March 26 in the area of 41 ST & 55 St. NW, two of which were for equipment violations, one for a moving violation. RPD was not involved in any activity like described in your article.
We welcome the opportunity to discuss this further and provide accurate information to support responsible reporting.
Lieutenant Eric Strop Executive Officer Administrative Operations Rochester Police Department 4001 West River Parkway, Rochester, MN 55901 Office: 507-328-2728
**Drivers Clarification:** Original reference to "drivers" meant one driver who, blinded by extremely bright lights, saw what he believed were other squads and believed another vehicle was pulled over. Core testimony unchanged.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE PUBLISHED 3/26/2026
Lisa Investigates™
Rochester Police’s “Random Alcohol Check” Stops Raise Legal Questions
Byline:
Lisa Loucks-Christenson, Investigative Reporter for the Rochester Sun Times News (RSTN)
Published March 26, 2026, by Rochester Sun Times News (RSTN) at 10:23 p.m. CDT.
Rochester, Minn. (RSTN) — Rochester Police conduct random alcohol checks tonight in NW Rochester, but is it legal?
Around 8:30 p.m. on March 26, 2026, DoorDash drivers and other motorists in northwest Rochester say they were pulled over near a cluster of busy businesses — a Walmart, Texas Roadhouse, Culvers, and Kwik Trip — in what officers described as a “random check for alcohol.”
The drivers, who say they had not been drinking and were simply trying to finish their shifts, lost tips, dropped orders and valuable time getting home. At the same time, city records and Minnesota court rulings show sobriety checkpoints are not allowed under the state constitution, raising questions about whether the stops were lawful or simply a heavy‑handed enforcement tactic hitting some of the city’s most economically vulnerable workers.
In Minnesota, officers may conduct saturation patrols and stop vehicles for specific traffic or equipment violations, but they may not set up roadblocks whose primary purpose is to randomly screen drivers for alcohol without individualized suspicion. State case law, including the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Ascher, has made clear that such checkpoints violate Article I, Section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution.
Yet tonight, drivers describe being funneled to the side of the road near the Kwik Trip, watching another motorist get pulled over as they were told the stop was part of a “random alcohol check.” The officers involved were polite and professional, operators say, but the structure of the operation — targeting exits from high‑traffic retail corridors where gig‑economy drivers congregate — looks more like a prohibited checkpoint than a traditional traffic enforcement effort.
For gig workers, the cost is real: lost tips, missed deliveries and the risk of late‑night delays that push them off schedule with little recourse. For the Rochester Police Department, the practice invites scrutiny not just over fairness, but over whether one of Minnesota’s clearest constitutional limits on DWI enforcement is being quietly ignored on busy commercial roads.
Lisa Loucks‑Christenson, Investigative Reporter for the Rochester Sun Times News, reached out to Rochester Police for comment on the March 26 alcohol‑check operation and the department’s policies governing saturation patrols. This column will be updated as further information becomes available.