## Facts

- City investigators conducted an undercover operation at Lindee’s Restaurant in Hopkins, Minnesota, accompanied by a 17-year-old woman.
- The group ordered alcoholic beverages; the waitress served the drinks without asking the minor’s age or requesting identification.
- The minor paid for all three drinks, and officers confirmed the beverages contained alcohol.
- The waitress was arrested for serving liquor to a minor in violation of Minnesota law.
- Restaurant owner George Joseph Guminga was charged under a statute imposing vicarious criminal liability on an employer when an employee serves intoxicating liquor to a minor, even absent employer knowledge or participation.
- The charge carried potential criminal penalties including up to one year of imprisonment and/or a fine up to $3,000.
- The state conceded it did not contend Guminga knew of, ratified, or participated in the unlawful service.

## Issues

1. Whether substantive due process permits imposing vicarious criminal liability punishable by imprisonment on an employer for an employee’s unlawful sale of alcohol to a minor when the employer did not commit the act, know of it, or consent to it.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court held the statute unconstitutional to the extent it authorized criminal conviction punishable by imprisonment against an employer without proof of personal fault.
- The court answered the certified question in the defendant’s favor, barring prosecution of Guminga under the vicarious-liability scheme as written.
- The court declined to rewrite the statute to convert it into a purely civil or regulatory penalty provision, leaving revisions to the legislature.

## Legal Principles

- Due process prohibits convicting a person of a crime punishable by imprisonment for conduct the person did not commit and did not know of or consent to.
- While strict-liability regulatory offenses may be permissible in limited settings, vicarious criminal liability coupled with potential incarceration and criminal stigma requires proof of personal culpability.
- In assessing substantive due process, courts weigh the state’s regulatory interests against the individual’s liberty and reputational interests affected by criminal conviction.
- Where effective, less restrictive alternatives exist (e.g., civil fines, license suspension, administrative sanctions), imposing criminal punishment on a faultless employer is constitutionally disproportionate.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated a vicarious-liability liquor statute insofar as it exposed an innocent employer to criminal conviction and possible jail for an employee’s unlawful service to a minor, holding that substantive due process requires personal fault when incarceration and criminal stigma are at stake.


State v. Guminga, 395 N.W.2d 344 (Minn. 1986)