County District Court File No. 27-CR-16-13286
Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Steven M.
Tallen, Maple Grove City Attorney, Tallen & Baertschi,
Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant)
J. Strouts, Scott J. Strouts LLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and
Larry Rapoport, Larry Rapoport, Ltd., Minnetonka, Minnesota
Considered and decided by Larkin, Presiding Judge; Johnson,
Judge; and Reilly, Judge.
phrase to "carry a pistol on or about the person's
clothes or person" in Minnesota Statutes section
624.7142, subdivision 1, subsection 4 (2016), prohibiting
such carrying in a public place while under the influence of
alcohol, requires a physical nexus between the person or the
person's clothes and the pistol.
state appeals the district court's pretrial dismissal of
a charge of carrying a pistol while under the influence of
alcohol in violation of Minnesota Statutes section 624.7142,
subdivision 1(4), arguing that carrying a pistol "on or
about the person's clothes or person" does not
require a physical nexus between the pistol and the person or
the person's clothes. Because the pretrial dismissal
order has a critical impact, appellate review is appropriate.
And because the plain language of the statute is limited in
application to situations in which there is a physical nexus
between the person or the person's clothes and the
pistol, and no such evidence is present here, we affirm the
order dismissing the charge.
April 2016, a Maple Grove police officer conducted a traffic
stop of a vehicle driven by respondent Christopher Michael
Prigge. Based upon his training and experience, the officer
concluded that Prigge was under the influence of alcohol and
arrested him for impaired driving. During an ensuing
inventory search of Prigge's vehicle, the police
discovered a loaded handgun in the bottom of the
vehicle's center console compartment. The state charged
appellant with several offenses, including carrying a pistol
while under the influence of alcohol in violation of
Minnesota Statutes section 624.7142, subdivision 1,
subsection 4. Prigge moved to dismiss the charge for lack of
probable cause. The district court granted the motion,
reasoning that the facts were insufficient to support
probable cause because Prigge was not carrying the pistol on
or about his clothes or his person, and the statute's
prohibited conduct did not extend to a pistol in the center
console compartment of a vehicle. The state appeals.
the district court's pretrial dismissal order appealable
under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 28.04, subdivision
1, subsection 1, and subdivision 2?
the district court err in concluding that the phrase to
"carry a pistol on or about the person's clothes or
person" in Minnesota Statutes section 624.7142,
subdivision 1, subsection 4, requires a physical nexus