Yesterday, the Minnesota Supreme Court issued an important decision of statewide significance. In State v. Prigge, the court was asked whether a person may be found guilty of carrying a pistol under the influence when the person is driving a car with a handgun inside the car’s center console. According to the court, a person may be found guilty in such an instance.
Mr. Prigge was stopped and arrested on suspicion of committing a DWI offense. During a post-arrest inventory search of the vehicle, officers located a loaded handgun in the center console. Mr. Prigge was later charged with “carrying a pistol on or about [his] clothes or person” in violation of Minnesota law. On Mr. Prigge’s motion, the district court in Hennepin County dismissed the charge for lack of probable cause. Later, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Minnesota Supreme Court then granted review. The sole legal issue was whether an intoxicated driver of a vehicle is “carry[ing] a pistol on or about the person’s clothes or person” when the pistol is in the vehicle’s center console.
In answering this question, the court was required to tackle some language in the statute that, while seeming straight forward, could mean different things to different people. In arguing its case, the prosecution focused on the phrase “on or about,” arguing that the word “about” suggests that the proper question is whether the gun is “readily accessible.” The defense focused on the word “carry,” and argued that to “carry” requires a physical nexus, or connection, between the gun and the person or the person’s clothing.
In deciding the issue, the Minnesota Supreme Court looked both to the word “carry” and “on or about” as they are defined in The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Taken together, said the court, “the only reasonable interpretation of the phrase ‘carry a pistol on or about the person’s clothes or person’ is that a person carries a pistol on or about one’s person by either (1) physically moving the pistol, or (2) having the pistol in one’s personal vicinity while moving.” As a practical matter, said the court further, “for a pistol to be in one’s personal vicinity, it must be within arm’s reach.” With these analyses in mind, the court summarized its central holding as follows: “[A] pistol is carried ‘on or about’ one’s person or clothing if there is either a physical nexus between the person and the pistol or if the pistol is carried within arm’s reach of the person.”
Turning to the facts of Mr. Prigge’s case, the court held that under its interpretation of the statute, Mr. Prigge could be convicted because the pistol was found in the center console of the vehicle – a location within arm’s reach. Accordingly, the court reversed the lower courts and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. Following the Prigge decision, it is now clear that a person may not escape liability under the statute prohibiting one from carrying a handgun under the influence of alcohol merely because the gun is in their center console as opposed to on their hip or in their pocket. However, it will still be question for the jury in any given case whether a handgun is “within arm’s reach.”