State v. Loge

608 N.W.2d 152 (2000)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D borrowed his father's pick-up truck to go to work. D was stopped by two police officers because he appeared to be speeding. P got out of his truck and stood by the driver's side door. The officer was standing by the passenger side of the truck, observed a bottle, which he believed to be a beer bottle, sticking partially out of a brown paper bag underneath the passenger's side of the seat. He retrieved that bottle. It was open and had foam on the inside. A search found one full, unopened can of beer and one empty beer can. D stated that he had two beers while working and was on his way home. D passed sobriety tests. D got citations for having no proof of insurance and for a violation of the open bottle statute but not for speeding. D did not raise a probable cause challenge to either the stop or the officer's actions in observing the open bottle on the floor of the truck. D testified that the bottle was not his; he did not know it was in the truck. The trial court held that the statute creates 'absolute liability' on a driver/owner to 'inspect and determine * * * whether there are any containers' in the motor vehicle in violation of the open bottle law and found D guilty. D was placed on probation for one year and fined $150 plus costs of $32.50. D appealed the verdict. The court of appeals affirmed. It held that proof of knowledge that the bottle was in the truck is not required to sustain a conviction. D argues that the words 'to keep or allow to be kept' implicitly and unambiguously require a defendant to have knowledge of the open container in the motor vehicle in order for criminal liability to attach. P argues that the language of subdivision 3 creates a strict liability offense.