Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

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.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.