1. HaroldSowards
CJ 322, Tu/Th 9:30
9/17/15
State v. Loge
608 N.W. 2d 152 (Minn. 2000)
1. Facts
StevenMark Loge borrowshisdad’spickupon Sept.2,1997
Is stoppedby2 AlbertLeaCityPO @ 8:15 PMfor speeding
Duringthe stop,one of the POs seesabeer bottle stickingoutof a brownpaperbag
underthe passengerseat,itwasretrieved,whichresultsinafull searchof the truck.
Thisresultsinthe findingof 1 full unopenedcanand1 emptycan
Loge passesall standardfieldsobrietytestsstill givena citationforviolatingMinn.Stat.
169.122, Subd.3 (1998)
Trial court says that undersubd.3, he had “absolute liability”andissentencedto5 days
injail,executionstayed,placedonprobationfor1 yr, fined$150 and$32.50
Stevenappeals
The Court of Appealsaffirmsthe trial courtsstatingthatknowledge of the bottle inthe
truck isn’trequiredtosustainaconviction
Grantedpetitionforfurtherreview,the AttorneyGeneral isgivenresponsibilityandhe
arguesthat there isno knowledgerequirementundersubd.3
Decisionisaffirmed
2. Issue
Is the meaningof Statute 169.122 clearand free fromall ambiguity?
Is knowledgeanecessaryelementof the opencontaineroffense?
3. Holdings
No
No
4. Reasoning
Theystate that Minn. Stat.169.122 subd.3 establishesliabilityforthe driverwhenthatdriver
“keepsorallowstobe kept”anyopenbottle containingintoxicatingliquorwithinthe area
normallyoccupiedbythe driverandpassengers.Sincethese twoconceptsare separatedbythe
disjunctive“or”,theyusedtheirpreviousholdingsthatsince there isanabsence of some
ambiguitysurroundingthe legislature’suse of the word“or”, theyread that the disjunctive
requiredonlyone of the possiblefactual situationsbe presentinorderforthat statute tobe
satisfied.Theylimitedtheiropinionstothe word“to keep”.If knowledge wasrequiredthan
there wouldbe difficultyindeterminingproof,sotheythoughtthe legislature decidedthata
proof of knowledgeundersubd.3wasn’tnecessaryinordertoprotectsociety. Since Steven
2. tookcontrol of the truck, theydecidedthathe tookcontrol overall the contentsof the truck
whichincludedthe openbottles.
