*1 Minnesota, Appellant, STATE PECK, Respondent. Ruth
Sara A08-579.
No. of Minnesota. Court
Supreme 22, 2009.
Oct. *2 Ruth drug-
dent Sara Peck with several offenses, including first-degree related of a controlled substance. The first-degree possession charge alleged that possessed grams Peck 37.17 water positive presence tested for the methamphetamine. Peck moved to dis- first-degree miss the controlled-substance cause, arguing for lack of probable grams that as a matter of law the 37.17 bong water did not constitute a “mixture” (2008). 152.01, § under MinmStat. subd. 9a granted The district court Peck’s motion. appeal. filed a pretrial The State appeals granted court of affirmed. We petition State’s for further review. 30, 2007, August County On the Rice Department executed a search Sheriffs warrant for Peck’s residence located in County, Minnesota. Peck and her two minor children were home the time search, During police of the search. items, including a seized several small plastic bag purse found contain- positive a tested for substance General, Swanson, Attorney St. Lori methamphetamine, plastic bag another Minnesota; Beaumaster, Paul, Paul and G. residue,” a containing “crystalline digital County Attorney, Benjamin Bejar, scale, residue, glass pipe a with a spoon Faribault, Attorney, County Assistant residue, apparent with Minnesota, appellant. for glass liquid water with it. Delapena, Special Assistant Bradford S. glass taken of the Photographs Defender, Paul, Public St. Minneso- it with police indicate that the found ta, respondent. for placed opening. button over the small water to a police transferred OPINION jar the water to the glass and submitted ANDERSON, BARRY, G. Justice. Department Police Crime Labora- St. Paul 4, 2007, tory testing. September On A con- person commits indicating that report crime lab issued a person pos- crime if that trolled-substance liquid exhibiting jar “pink contained a one or more “mixtures” that contain sesses odor,” weighed fruity and that the weigh substance and that controlled positive tested for the 152.021, grams or more. Minn.Stat. methamphetamine. presence 2(1) (2008). In con- appeal subd. we the Rice applies September “mixture” On sider whether term Peck Attorney complaint against filed a positive water that tests first-degree possession charging her with presence Appel- of a controlled substance. under Minn.Stat. charged respon- of a controlled substance lant State of Minnesota 2(1) (2008), substances. Rauenhorst testified that fifth-degree subd. under a controlled substance while a can use a without possession of 2(1) (2008), normally used with water. under Minn.Stat. endangerment child the water “is explained Rauenhorst *3 1(b)(2) (2008). 609.378, Janu- § subd. On in sucking the smoke from the end of 24, 2008, ary challeng- Peck filed a motion up [bong] through the ball of the the water the first- ing probable the State’s cause on agreed to the consumer.” Rauenhorst charge. Peck degree controlled-substance smoking a with a “[w]hen a matter of law the 37.17 argued as they ordinarily bong pipe, don’t inhale the bong of water not constitute a did ... ingest the water.” [o]r 152.01, § under subd. “mixture” Minn.Stat. further testified that Rauenhorst (defining preparation, “mixture” as “a 9a pink coloring fruity odor of the mixture, compound, or substance contain- in bong significant. discovered Peck’s was substance, regardless a controlled explained He water is not nor- purity”). mally colored or scented. When asked hearing An omnibus was held on Febru- why keep bong a narcotics user would 29, 2008, ary presented and the its replied, Rauenhorst “for future use through testimony of Minne- evidence drinking shooting ... either it or it in the Trooper Douglas Patrol Rauen- sota State veins.” Rauenhorst further testified that horst. Rauenhorst was not involved knowledge he had actual of narcotics users case, search and seizure but tes- consuming methamphetamine. water with experience training tified based on his cross-examination, On Rauenhorst was un- a Rau- as certified narcotics K-9 handler. might sure whether users flavor the explained enhorst that he and his K-9 water in order to flavor the smoke. 1,000 partner responded had to more than narcotic-related incidents. Rauenhorst On March the district information, that he testified reviewed granting court issued its order Peck’s mo reports, photographs pertaining tion to dismiss the controlled- Rauenhorst, Through ease. in- the State probable substance for lack of report troduced the of the St. Paul Police order, In cause. the court did not Department Laboratory. Crime statutory consider whether the definition addition, “mixture” In ambiguous.
Rauenhorst also testified about the com- of
usage
mon
of a bong.
explained
He
that a
the court did not find that
the State’s
inherently
is often used to smoke controlled
evidence was
incredible.1 In
we,
required,
viewing
resulting
1. The district court was
as are
ter
the evidence and all
resulting
state”);
view
the evidence and all
infer
Henry
inferences in favor of the
W.
Rud,
ences in favor of the State.
See State
Nordby,
&
McCarr
Jack S.
Minnesota Prac
(Minn. 1984) (explaining
359 N.W.2d
(3d
tice—Criminal Law & Procedure
probable
that a motion to
lack
dismiss for
ed.2001)
that,
(explaining
judge's
since the
support
charged
cause to
offense should
extend
function does not
to an assessment of
be denied if the record establishes that "the
credibility
conflicting testimony,
a mo
prosecutor possesses substantial evidence that
probable
tion to dismiss for lack of
cause to
will be admissible at trial and that would
charged
support offense
be
should
denied
justify
judgment
denial of a
a
motion” for
prosecutor supplements
when a
the record
acquittal);
Slaughter,
State v.
N.W.2d
with substantial evidence admissible at trial
(Minn.2005) (explaining
74-75
that "the test
incredible,
inherently
and not
which would be
granting
for
for a directed verdict
motion
adequate
judg
to withstand motion for a
present
whether the evidence
sufficient
acquittal).
light
ment of
When viewed in a
determination,
question
jury's
fact
af-
construction,
the court held that
stead,
usage
standard
based on the
that Peck had not re-
bong and the fact
the term “mixture” as used MinmStat.
the court
bong,
from the
moved the water
9a,
subd.
should be interpreted
[the
that Peck “intended
concluded
“something
prepared
that has been
part
bong,
water]
particular
purpose
this context
—which
on its determina-
paraphernalia.” Based
use, sale,
would be the
or manufacture of
water was better classi-
tion that the
Peck,
controlled substances.”
any
“material of
kind” under
fied as
at 515. Because the district court found
provided
drug paraphernalia definition
that the
water seized
Peck’s resi
(2008),
by-product
dence was an accidental
*4
first-degree possession
dismissed the
court
drug usage,
appeals
the court of
held the
concluded that al-
charge. The court also
bong water was not a “mixture” within the
of the water to be used
lowing
weight
152.01,
9a,
meaning of MinmStat.
subd.
crime to a first-
to enhance the
therefore,
first-degree possession
and
of
“unjust.”
charge was
degree possession
a controlled substance
could not be
pretrial appeal
The
filed a
to the
State
Peck,
sustained.
substance, is clear and free from all ambi- dissent, we conclude Unlike guity.7 containing Because the water containing methamphet the water stored not rea stored in the does amine falls within the definition of drug para sonably “mixture,” fit the definition we reverse the court lower deci- any which includes material phernalia, proceedings sions remand further knowingly inject, opinion. used to consistent with this intentionally or substance, or inhale a controlled ingest, Reversed remanded. (2008). Al subd. 18 MinmStat. (dis- ANDERSON, H., PAUL to a Justice
though person may add “water” senting). ingestion facilitate the or inhala bong to does methamphetamine,
tion of
respectfully
majori-
I
dissent from the
containing methamphet
not add “water
First,
ty’s decision for two reasons.
in
amine” to a
to facilitate the
support
conclude the law does not
methamphet
gestion or
inhalation
majority.
ma-
result reached
residual controlled
amine. Unconsumed
jority’s
permit bong
decision to
water to be
*6
materials
to in
substances are not
support
first-degree felony
used to
a
eon-
ject,
ingest, or inhale a controlled sub
charge
counter to
trolled-substance
runs
addition, holding
In
stance.
“water
laws,
legislative
structure of our
found in a
containing methamphetamine
sense,
not make common
and borders
does
bong”
part
of the
because “wa
majority
on the absurd. The
reaches its
to the
to facilitate
ter” is added
misapplies
plain-
conclusion
because
inhalation would lead to ab
ingestion or
rule
fails to consider the stat-
meaning
and
results —a mixture of water and
utory language
application
surd
syringe
in a
would become
and in the context of the
heroin found
facts at hand
syringe
a
because a
as a whole. The result is a deci-
part statute
water,
to undermine
comparable liq-
potential
some
sion that has the
must add
or
upon the
pulling
which include other laws
same
6. One method of heroin use involves
syringe
subjects
consequences
heroin into a
filled with
and the
similar
shaking
syringe
injecting
and then
it di-
particular interpretation.
not
Peck has
raised
ah,
rectly into the vein. See Thomas Kerr et
process
due
and constitutional
issues of
Drug
Impacts
The Public Health and Social
not,
vagueness. Consequently,
of
we need
A
Evi-
Market
dence,
Review
note,
not,
Enforcement:
of
decide those issues. We
howev-
do
(2005);
Drug Pol’y
16 Int’l J.
States,
er,
Chapman
that in
v. United
500 U.S.
Victoria,
City
Fitting
Together:
the Pieces
453, 468,
water to the Saint Police many prison With so of our citizens in Laboratory. laboratory Crime re- world, compared with the rest of the ported that the awas only possibilities: there are two Either odor, fruity positive tested we are home to the people most evil on methamphetamine, weighed *7 doing something earth or we are differ- grams. seized, liquid The amount of vastly ent—and counterproductive. Ob- grams, equals approximately two and one- viously, the answer is the latter. tablespoons half of water. Webb, Why
Senator Jim We Must Fix throughout country, As is common Prisons, Parade, Our Mar. at 4.1 drug Minnesota charged offenses are agree with weight. Senator Webb—Americans are on based See Minn.Stat. ch. 152 majority suggests County 1. The using that the Rice water seized in Peck's prosecutor’s charging decision is the basis of support first-degree felony residence "to my Supra explicitly dissent. at 6 n. 3. While I charge controlled-substance runs counter to express my County’s frustration with Rice legislative structure of our laws.” decision, charging charging decision is majority’s suggestion can at best be obviously legal my not the foundation for dis- misreading my construed as a of the basis for My sent. dissent does not focus on the clear case, any dissent. In I am led to conclude analyz- abuse of discretion standard used for majority that the fact the takes this tack in decisions, ing charging but instead consists of illustrates, addressing my part, dissent approximately pages per- twelve devoted to position majority's weakness of the and forming that it analysis. At the risk of redundant, being may straining argument plausi- my be to make its the basis of dissent is be, i.e., precisely what it is characterized to ble. (2008). Methamphetamine dosages they get smoking done and the water is 1,000 range milligrams users from 100 to a gone,” presumably meaning that users typ- day, depending on the user’s tolerance lev- ically discard the bong water. When Highway el. National Safety See Traffic why asked a user keep bong water, would Administration, Drugs and Human Per- replied Rauenhorst the user would be Fact Methamphetamine Sheets: “[k]eeping formance containing metham- (and Amphetamine), http://www.nhtsa.dot. phetamine for future use.”2 The Rice gov/People/injury/ re- County prosecutor asked, then “what are search/jobl85drugs/methamphetamine.htm some of those uses your based on training (last 2009). Sept. visited Based on experience?” Emphasis added. Rau- levels, such usage pos- found in responded, enhorst “either drinking it or session of 25 more metham- shooting it in the veins.” Rauenhorst later phetamine guilty of the most serious added that may users consume urine as drug offense under Minnesota law—a first- well. degree controlled-substance crime. Minn. County The Rice prosecutor also asked 2(1). Stat. Based on the Rauenhorst pink about the color fruity weight seized, of the bong water it odor of water. Rauenhorst testi- County charged Peck with a first-degree fied that based on his training exper- crime, controlled-substance which is a felo- tise, bong water is not normally pink and ny charge carrying a presumptive sentence fruity, sugar and that does not alter the of 86 months. Minn. Sent. Guidelines IV. high felt a user. When defense counsel probable Peck made a challenge, cause inquired into whether water was ever arguing that the bong water could not be smoke, altered so as to flavor the Rauen- used to first-degree sustain a controlled- responded, horst “Pm not sure. I ha- charge. substance ven’t—I prior don’t have experience in probable At the hearing only cause one smoking methamphetamine so don’t testified, witness witness State— know.”3 Minnesota Trooper Douglas Rauen- horst. participate Rauenhorst did not County District Judge Court the execution of the search warrant at Thomas Neuville held that Rice Peck’s personal residence or have knowl- probable did not have cause to Rather, edge of case. Rauenhorst Peck with a controlled-sub- testified based on general experience, his charge. stance Based on the function wa- information, and knowledge as a law en- ter serves in usage and the fact that reports forcement officer and the provided forming the basis of Peck’s *8 by to him County. Rice charge was found while still in the bong, Judge “apparent Neuville found it that the Rauenhorst testified that users do not ordinarily by water which was seized ingest inhale or the State was bong water when intended a smoking bong pipe. part bong, drug a of the Rauenhorst explained that paraphernalia.” “most of the bong time The Minnesota [the Court is not in the bong anymore court, water] when Appeals affirmed the district con- appears It quick that did rudimentary Rauenhorst not consider 3. A Internet search possibility the suggests bong that some users are not commonly that water is altered tidy housekeepers might immediately using fruity flavors in an effort to mask the water, discard their methamphet- nor did defense chemical flavor common pursue questioning. counsel such line of amine. and the substance bong water burned weight of the the eluding first-degree typically sustain discarded. not be could Peck charge against controlled-substance argues that it is within County of a meth byproduct post-use the because a first- charge Peck with discretion mixture.4 not a bong is amphetamine charge because degree possession (Minn. Peck, used to sustain bong water App.2008). weight of of a total ] is a “mixture! limited in the record evidence There is ... metham- containing or more information bong operates, but how a as to 152.021, § subd. Minn.Stat. phetamine.” in under- helpful is the use on 2(1). by as “a defined statute A mixture is A this case. standing the essence of mixture, or sub- compound, preparation, that can be used essentially pipe a water is substance, a controlled containing stance substances, including to- various to inhale purity.” regardless bacco, methamphetamine. marijuana, and County argues subd. 9a. cylinder, a tube or The is standard in case—a bong water that the cylinder is sealed one end where presence positive which tested filled bong cylinder partially is shut. The plain within the to be smoked with water. The substance —fits Af- bowl with a stem. of mixture. packed separate meaning into of the definition inserted of the bowl is The stem to The American making ter reference bong cylinder such side of the Dictionary, majority agrees Heritage in the water inside of the stem rests base unam- water is with Rice bong. containing mixture metham- biguously a Supra at 772. phetamine. piece packed the bowl The substance by ignited then the smoker. ambiguity apply- and find disagree, mouth over places then his or her smoker 2(1), ing Minn.Stat. seal, tube, open end of the creates from Peck’s residence. bong water seized inhales, As the smoker and then inhales. majority employs very narrow statu- burning substance is smoke from the looking up tory interpretation standard — cylinder. in the pulled through the water question in the dictio- the word or words passes through the As the smoke the dictio- nary determining whether and cools it. the water filters smoke applies. But Minn.Stat. nary definition smoke, the cylinder Once the is filled with (2008) to look be- requires courts seal, usually by pull- smoker releases the specifically, More yond dictionaries. cylin- out of the ing the bowl and its stem for statu- majority ignores parameters can then inhale the der. The smoker tory construction set out cylinder. pro- trapped in the This smoke the manner which we and deviates from until repeated cess is the substance historically statutory con- performed have entirely After a smoker bowl is smoked. done, struction. remaining ashes of both *9 distribution, ly a medium for its specifically, appeals held use water as the court of More post-use byproduct meaning that "the of a metham- interpretation of mixture’ our phetamine bong not a 'mixture' as defined requirement co-requisite scienter 9a.” State v. in Minn.Stat. met, weight likely be and the would Peck, 510, (Minn.App.2008). N.W.2d 516 756 to determine the water could be used say that if "dealers But the court went on to penalty.” Id. at 517. and the begin ... to intentional-
777 general of statutory interpreta- rule result, situation.” As a enough is not tion is that the words of a law in simply “[w]hen look up a definition the nearest application their an existing dictionary; rather, situation we must consider are clear ambiguity, and free from all the whether the words used in the statute are letter of the law shall not be disregarded ambiguous as applied to the facts of the pretext under the of pursuing spirit.” case at hand. 645.16. In years, recent our More importantly, majority does not statement of interpretation consider whether the statute’s relation to standards has focused more on the latter and interaction with other provisions in the part of this sentence than on the former. statutory scheme ambiguity. create We In our efforts to ensure that we are not are instructed the legislature that “[e]v- disregarding the “letter of law ... under ery construed, law shall be if possible, to the pretext pursuing spirit,” we give effect to all provisions.” Minn. sight have often lost of considering the Stat. 645.16. It long has recognized been
words of a statute in their application. are to “[w]e read and construe a recent, Under this more more narrow statute as a whole and must interpret each review, we begun have to focus on a stat- section in light of the surrounding sections “language” here, ute’s majority as the does conflicting avoid interpretations.” Am. writing that the “threshold issue” is Family Schroedl, Ins. Group v. 616 whether “the language statute’s ambigu- 273, (Minn.2000) N.W.2d 277-78 (citing Er- Supra ous.” at 7 (citing Wiltgen, State v. Assn., ickson v. Sunset Mem’l Park 259 561, (Minn.2007); 737 532, N.W.2d 570-71 543, State Minn. 434, 108 N.W.2d 441 (Minn.2000)) Loge, 152, v. (1961); 608 N.W.2d 155 Asperen Olds, Inc., Van Darling v. added). (emphasis cases, In other 62, 73-74, we have 690, 254 Minn. 93 N.W.2d 698 similarly (1958)); described this threshold ask- Underdahl, accord State v. 767 ing whether “the language, 677, statute’s on its (Minn.2009); N.W.2d 682 State v. face, Clark, is clear ambiguous.” 241, (Minn.2008). Gomon v. 755 N.W.2d “ Ltd., Northland Family Physicians, Further, we have said that ‘[statutes (Minn.2002) N.W.2d (emphasis relating to subject the same presumed added). to be imbued with spirit the same and to passed have been with deliberation and full Focusing on “language, on its face” knowledge of all existing legislation on the permits majority to declare the statu- subject regarded by the lawmakers as tory language at issue in this case is unam- ” being parts Clark, of a connected whole.’ biguous on a dictionary based definition. (citing Kaljuste N.W.2d 249-50 course, every Of word a Minnesota Commn., Hennepin County Sanatorium dictionary law has a meaning, so if the 240 Minn. majority’s plain-meaning approach is taken (1953)). must, therefore, beyond We look conclusion, logical to its no word is ambig- an isolated word or term and view the majority’s uous. But the formalistic ver- statute as whole order to determine sion of plain-meaning rule is not the whether ambiguous the law at issue is standard the has instructed applied. courts to when interpreting statuto- ry language. Section 645.16 does not in- Taking into account full standard for only struct us to language; look at the statutory interpretation and the facts of rather, it case, instructs us to look at “the words ambiguity does arise. Here the application law in their existing police to an seized a it. *10 water, I turn the to “mixture” to the can fit the defini- the seized
While com- to resolve preparation, construction mixture —“a rules of of a tion containing a mixture, or substance rules of statu- Under the pound, ambiguity. substance,” Minn.Stat. construction, ambig- controlled a statute is tory when fit the definition also can 9a—it legislature is uous, intention of the the “knowing- material paraphernalia- drug (1) the occasion by looking at: —a ascertained inhale ingest to intentionally used” ly or (2) law, circum- the necessity for the substance, Minn.Stat. controlled enacted, the law was stances under which the subd. 18.5 While (4) remedied, (3) the mischief definition, consequences of either fits (5) attained, if the former law object to be are dramatical- interpretations the various (6) consequences particular any, ly different. (7) contemporaneous legis- interpretation, mixture, bong water as If we treat (8) and ad- history, legislative lative to a first- raises the crime weight of which interpretations. ministrative crime, controlled-substance degree felony § 645.16. for a first-time of- sentence presumed controlled-sub- current Minnesota’s -just over would be 86 fender months— was enacted statutory framework stance have a felo- the offender would years—and weight- five tiers of 1989 and established on his or her record. ny drug offense 1, 1989, ch. Act of June based offenses. But if we treat IV. Minn. Sent. Guidelines 3, 290, Minn. Laws 1595-1612. art. paraphernalia, the same bong water as Act ex- sponsors of the 1989 One of no more receive a fine of defendant would fighting “aimed at that the Act was petty plained misdemeanor dollars and than $300 Minnesota, preserve her to go drugs not on his or on conviction that would war se- disparity society.” safety stability criminal record. of our two between these verity Wolfe, sentence and Poli- Beverly J. Constitutional enormous. This enor- possible charges is Weight-Based to cy Pertaining Concerns severity sentencing cre- disparity mous Statutory Minnesota Classifications for to how the ambiguity ates Ham. Offenses, 15 J. Controlled Substance apply intended the statutes (1994) (quoting Pol’y Pub.L. & facts of this case. Before the 3-H.F. 59 Hearings on S.F. Justice, on Criminal Senate Subcomm. ambiguity I find whether
Because (statement Leg., Minn. Mar. the term 76th legislature intended phernalia precisely it was used as majority in a because asserts that while “water” 5. The argues, illogical- majority paraphernalia. The bong may paraphernalia, fit the definition of ly, that it does. containing methamphetamine” "water could paraphernalia "a does not be because states, majority without source or also containing methamphetamine' add 'water “[ujnconsumed explanation, residual ingestion or inhala- to a to facilitate the materials used controlled substances are not Supra methamphetamine.” at 9. The tion of inject, ingest, or inhale a controlled sub- majority’s presents a assertion distinction prevent a Supra at 9. But what is to stance.” a difference. When "water” is added without being more than once with from facilitate the inhalation to a and used to water in it? In such a circum- the same stance, methamphetamine, the smoke from burn- re- water —or "unconsumed passes through ing methamphetamine plainly sidual controlled substance” —is water, turning being the water into "water contain- used to inhale a controlled material methamphetamine.” ques- meets the definition This raises the substance and therefore paraphernalia. para- the water ceases to be tion of whether *11 Luther)).6 The sponsor of Sen. further offenders without also imposing those explained designed that the Act was so penalties same on minor offenders. Sec- more crack or cocaine that an “[t]he ond, it appears legislature intended to sells, possess individual or the stiffer the relieve the State of the burden of having to penalties provisions under the of this bill.” prove subjective intent having and of Id. undergo significant testing scientific before being position prosecute serious
One of the commentators at the hear- offenders. legislature Kamin, ings on the relieved the bill was James Assis- significant State of scientific Hennepin County testing by tant Attorney, who ex- defining a plained mixture as a purpose behind the substance contain- weight- substance, system. based Kamin controlled “regardless said that the Act purity.” the penalties 9(a). “makes commensurate with is, the crime. That someone who pos- Treating bong water as a capa- mixture sessing grams of crack ought to face a sustaining ble of a first-degree felony con- significantly penalty stiffer than someone trolled-substance charge does not meet the possessing grams three or four or five aims, purposes, or objectives of legisla- crack.” (quoting Hearings Id. on S.F. 3- ture when it established weight-based H.F. Before the House Subcomm. on system. Bong water is not marketed or Justice, Criminal Leg., 76th Minn. Feb. dealers, sold large small, or nor is it 1989). purchased by consumers. It is not even explained Kamin also possession ordinarily consumed. Bong water is usu- punished along with distribution of- ally discarded when the smoker is finished fenses “it because relieves a burden on law with consumption of the smoke filtered enforcement prosecutors and of showing through A person water. is not was with the intent to sell” more dangerous, likely to wreak more because “three of crack is an havoc, based on the amount of bong water awful lot of havoc sitting there in some- that person possesses. water is pocket circumstances, one’s any under dangerous itself, no more than the bong ought punished appropriately.” Id. because both are used to facilitate con- at 85-86. The weight classes that were sumption being Thus, without consumed. established the act were intended to there is no reason to legislature believe the correspond to the amounts dealers would intended to treat water different- possess. For example, a third-degree ly bong, from the and there is even less equivalent crime was to the weight reason to believe that legislature in- possessed by dealers, amounts street tended to treat seriously so second-degree crime was correlated to re- presumptively mandate a more than 7- dealers, tail a first-degree crime was year prison possessing sentence for two intended to to wholesale dealers. tablespoons and one-half water. Id. earlier, As stated believe this result to be here, As it appears relates it legisla- absurd and a public threat to confidence ture intended problems to resolve several justice system. our criminal First, when it enacted the 1989 Act. appears If impose wanted to has reason to believe the significant penalties more on serious drug substance in a bong merely part is not tapes legislative There are no history history tive is limited to references in second- result, available before 1991. legisla- ary As a sources. *12 780 resort, in sub- part rather court of last the but is paraphernalia, drug
the itself, intends construc- consumption sequent Rice Coun- laws the same drug of the County Rice language. that fact. on ty prove placed must tion the same be evidence, circumstances, (2008). or to point could Minn.Stat. liquid in that the the testimony to show in majority’s interpretation results a of merely facilitator is more than unreasonable, possibly an and unconstitu- that and show it is not consumption, thus tional, statutory scheme. It is unreason- It is possible paraphernalia.7 simply should be able that the same conduct sub- liquid also the is not County prove could ject disparate treatment based on to such a more by testing purity; paraphernalia attorney. county the For discretion may the drug indicate level concentrated university if a student at a or example, other being purposes for liquid is used Ramsey County college Hennepin in or is Testing purity for bong water. than as marijuana caught a in a with moment legislature’s run not counter
would indiscretion, in youthful prosecutor of the in of mixture Minn.Stat. definition may these to treat counties choose 9a, says a which substance paraphernalia. water as That and its mix- a substance is a containing controlled charged petty with a student would be of because is regardless purity, purity ture misdemeanor, fine, a and pay small have necessary to what level of con- prove not If another no criminal record. student can be sustained. trolled-substance engage chose to a similar moment of Instead, simply purity would be anoth- College Olaf or indiscretion St. Carlton County distinguish to er means for Rice County, in Rice College, both result is liquid water —a is between conviction, felony drug presumptive a a liquid merely paraphernalia —and years prison, of more than 7 sentence constitutes mixture.8 criminal and serious record. In addition to the factors set out it is conclude that also unreasonable to we are also to punish- interpret legislature’s our laws as presumptions ascertaining legis- several and possession of two one-half presume lative intent. We are to that the (1) of water as a more tablespoons seri- not intend results that legislature: does grams ous crime than of absurd, execution, impossible or un- of heroin, (2) cocaine, reasonable; methamphetamine. or intends the entire statute (3) consumed, certain; Bong normally water is to be effective and does not likely disposed Peck would have had to violate intend the United States (4) Constitutions; police Alternatively, not seized it. Minnesota intends to fa- (5) grams public private, equal approximately interest over of heroin to vor doses, language once has been construed individual cocaine case, example, Washington along 7. For in a defendant said with State sustained a manu other evidence seized that indicated that the facturing charge produced when the State manufacturing methamphet defendant was cooking bong evidence that the defendant was Id. amine. evaporate to water on stove order produce powder water and form meth assertion, Contrary majority’s Casey, amphetamine. No. State v. 53358-4-1 present did not substantial evidence (Wash.Ct.App. Aug. WL *1 2004 2004). suggesting admissible at trial Casey, In the State introduced testi be seized from Peck's would residence mony police from the that officers had found Supra consumption. at 5 n. 1. reducing a liquid a dish on stove approximately 200 to over 2000 equal purposes Congress within intended in doses, 24 grams methamphetamine enacting weight-based approximately 24 to 240 doses. equal scheme. Highway Safety Traffic See National Ad- *13 Chapman rationale of may not sus- ministration, Drugs and Human Perform- arbitrary tain the difference sentences Sheets, http://www.nhtsa.dot. ance Fact that is by defining bong caused water as a gov/Peo ple/injury/re- mixture. The record contains no facts (last searcb/jobl85drugs/index.htm visited suggesting marketed, that water 2009). 24, Sept. caught Yet a defendant punishment thus the does not correlate to cocaine, heroin, with 24 of or meth- weight” a “street drug. In addi- only a amphetamine would face second- tion, the record suggests bong water is not degree charge, first-degree less than the commonly ingested. result, even As a the felony charge facing Peck here. It is “marketability” focus of Supreme the both unreasonable and absurd that Peck Chapman Court’s decision in does not ap- significant penalties face more would for ply here. at Looking Minnesota’s con- of water. statutory trolled-substance framework as a majority’s interpretation also raises whole, it appears the that be- possibility County’s the that Rice construc- lieved a nexus existed between the weight the statute tion of could be deemed uncon- the drugs danger posed by the the States, In v. Chapman stitutional. United §§ defendant. See Minn.Stat. 152.021- States Supreme the’ United Court consid- (graduating .027 punishment the based on similar provision ered a under federal law type the of drug; purpose the for which question and was faced with the of wheth- drug; defendant had the and the weight of er the carrier medium could be used to drugs possession). defendant’s That the weight determine of a mixture contain- applicable nexus is not to the facts of this 453, ing a controlled 500 substance. U.S. Thus, case. even under a rational basis 455-59, 1919, 114 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 524 review, argument there is an leg- (1991). review, Under a rational basis rationally punish islature could not determined that sentencing Court based disparately. so weight on carrier medium did not In addition to the construction process rights. violate defendant’s due canons, lenity the rule of also applies. Be- 465, 111 Id. at S.Ct. 1919. The Court cause the issue statutes at here are crimi- concluded the scheme sentencing was ra- nal, strictly statutes must be con- “assigns tional because it more pen- severe Loge, strued. 608 N.W.2d at (citing larger quanti- alties distribution of Zacher, 468, v. State 504 N.W.2d Further, drugs.” ties of Id. the Court (Minn.1993)). a statute ambigu- When by measuring quantity wrote “ ous, explained we have that “if criminal drugs ‘street weight’ drugs liability, particularly gross misdemeanor or they sold,” diluted form which are felony liability, imposed is to be for con- sentencing is appropriately increased fault, unaccompanied legisla- duct large quantities drugs on regard- based intent 466, tive to do so should be clear.” Id. purity. less Id. at S.Ct. 1919. Neisen, (citing paper Because blotter issue in (Minn.1987)). Chapman light was a In of all the fore- “tool of trade” for 329 LSD, who traffic in rationally language history, those going the rule of particularly risk assessment is proper the court should reaffirms that lenity punishing used to critical when it comes to non- sustain bong water permit charge presently drug controlled-substance violent offenders who first-degree beyond parapher- swelling prison populations our ca- it is better defined when Leg- I that the Minnesota pacity. believe nalia. attempted to make such risk islature County’s decision Finally, Rice chapter when it assessment enacted crime, with Peck weight distinguish which between uses decision, uphold majority’s decision more less serious and serious offenders. law nor the interests of neither the serves Judge, also the District Court believe *14 of Minnesota. Peck’s actions the citizens Neville, Thomas and the Minnesota Court rise to the in this case do not level to properly attempted of Appeals intended a first- culpability plain on its intent and com- law based crime to car- degree controlled-substance hand, mon On the other sense. only possessed Peck ry. though Even I taking this law in what County is believe tablespoons two and one-half about improper counterproductive to be an investing perpetuates direction incarcera- required prosecute resources to increased tion has crisis Senator Webb de- crime, felony-level not men- Peck for to today’s Unfortunately, scribed. decision required tion the resources that would be majority County’s affirms Rice error approximately incarcerate Peck for in the wrong takes us direction under years. policy. under good public law and In his article in Parade Therefore, magazine, express strong I my Sena- dissent to pointed locking out that “we are majority. tor Webb decision of the up many people belong too who do “not
jail” protecting while at same time PAGE, (dissenting). Justice increasing from danger our citizens join I in the dissent of Justice Paul H. in- perpetrate criminals who violence and Anderson. a way timidation as life.” Senator Jim Prisons, Why We Must Fix Our Webb,
Parade, Mar. at 5. All societies MEYER, (dissenting). Justice people include who commit evil violent join in the dissent of Justice Paul H. truly dangerous, acts and and these Anderson. people segregated kinds of need to be society. less from Even for violent offend-
ers, consequence punishment as a of mis- necessary for a civil society
conduct
maintain the law and rule of sustain its equilibrium.
moral
But, a society we as and those of us justice system
the criminal need to do a job of assessing
better risk when deter-
mining alleged wrong- how to an punishment what
doer and on a impose who
wrongdoer guilty. found This need