## Facts

- Steven Mark Loge borrowed his father’s pickup truck and drove home alone on a public highway in Albert Lea, Minnesota.
- Police stopped Loge after observing what appeared to be speeding.
- An officer saw a beer bottle partially protruding from a brown paper bag under the passenger-side seat.
- The officer retrieved the bottle; it was open and had foam inside, and the officer also found one full unopened can of beer and one empty can.
- After the discovery, Loge told an officer he had consumed two beers while working; he passed field sobriety tests.
- Loge was cited for violating Minnesota’s open-bottle law, which prohibits a driver (when the owner is not present) from keeping or allowing an opened container of alcohol to be kept in a motor vehicle on a public highway.
- At trial, Loge testified the bottle was not his and that he did not know it was in the truck.

## Issues

1. Whether knowledge of the open container’s presence is an element of the offense under Minn. Stat. § 169.122, subd. 3 for a sole-occupant driver when the owner is not present.
2. Whether construing the statute to impose strict (absolute) liability violates due process under the United States or Minnesota Constitutions.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed Loge’s conviction.
- The court held that knowledge is not an element of Minn. Stat. § 169.122, subd. 3 in the sole-occupant, owner-not-present context.
- The court construed the statute to impose strict (absolute) liability on the driver for the presence of an open container in the vehicle.
- The court held that strict liability for this misdemeanor regulatory offense does not violate due process.

## Legal Principles

- Legislative intent regarding mens rea may be inferred from statutory structure, including the legislature’s express inclusion of mental-state terms in some provisions and omission in others.
- For traffic-safety and alcohol-control regulations, courts may more readily infer that the legislature intended to dispense with mens rea than for traditional common-law crimes.
- Strict liability is generally permissible for minor public welfare offenses with comparatively limited penalties and reduced stigma.
- In applying strict liability, courts may consider whether the regulated person is reasonably able to prevent or detect the prohibited condition; exclusive control of the vehicle by a sole-occupant driver supports allocating the risk of noncompliance to that driver.

## Conclusion

The court interpreted Minnesota’s open-bottle provision to make a sole-occupant driver criminally liable for an open container in a vehicle on a public highway when the owner is not present, without requiring proof of the driver’s knowledge, and upheld that strict-liability construction against due process challenges.


State v. Loge, 608 N.W.2d 152 (Minn. 2000)