902 N.W.2d 441
Minn.2017Background
- Chantel Carson was arrested three times after officers found her slumped or passed out in a vehicle; testing detected 1,1-difluoroethane (DFE) and clonazepam.
- DFE was present in cans of Dust-Off (a compressed-air refrigerant propellant) found in Carson’s car on each occasion.
- The State charged Carson in three cases with two third-degree DWI counts each: one for being under the influence of a hazardous substance and one for being under the influence of a controlled substance; the State later dismissed the controlled-substance counts and proceeded on hazardous-substance counts.
- At a stipulated-facts bench trial on the hazardous-substance counts, a forensic scientist testified that DFE is inhaled as an inhalant, is flammable, under pressure, and can cause injury.
- The district court convicted Carson; the court of appeals affirmed, reasoning DFE fits the occupational-safety definition of a hazardous substance. The Minnesota Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Carson) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DFE is a “hazardous substance” under Minn. Stat. § 169A.03, subd. 9 | DFE is not a hazardous substance because it is not specifically included on the hazardous-substance list in Minn. R. 5206.0400, subp. 5 | The rule’s definitional subpart 7(B) lists hazardous characteristics; DFE meets those characteristics and thus is a listed hazardous substance under the rules adopted under chapter 182 | DFE is not a hazardous substance under § 169A.03, subd. 9 because the statute requires chemicals to be “listed as a hazardous substance in rules adopted under chapter 182,” and the court reads that phrase as pointing to the enumerated list in Minn. R. 5206.0400, subp. 5 rather than the definitional characteristics in Minn. R. 5206.0100, subp. 7(B). |
Key Cases Cited
- Christianson v. Henke, 831 N.W.2d 532 (Minn. 2013) (standard of review: statutory interpretation de novo)
- Larson v. Nw. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 855 N.W.2d 293 (Minn. 2014) (use of dictionary to determine plain meaning)
- Axelberg v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, 848 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 2014) (courts must apply statutes as written; public-policy concerns belong to Legislature)
- ILHC of Eagan, LLC v. Cty. of Dakota, 693 N.W.2d 412 (Minn. 2005) (interpret statutory provisions in context)
- Troyer v. Vertlu Mgmt Co., 806 N.W.2d 17 (Minn. 2011) (interpret rules as a whole; avoid rendering language superfluous)