State v. Prigge, A17-0403

Decision Date14 February 2018
Docket NumberA17-0403
Citation907 N.W.2d 635
Parties STATE of Minnesota, Appellant, v. Christopher Michael PRIGGE, Respondent.
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Saint Paul, Minnesota; and Steven M. Tallen, Tallen & Baertschi, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for appellant.

Scott J. Strouts, Scott J. Strouts, LLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Larry Rapoport, Larry Rapoport, Ltd., Minnetonka, Minnesota, for respondent.

Francis J. Rondoni, Jeffrey D. Bores, Gary K. Luloff, Jennifer J. Crancer, Chestnut Cambronne PA, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for amicus curiae Suburban Hennepin County Prosecutors Association.

OPINION

Lillehaug, Justice.

Respondent Christopher Michael Prigge was stopped and arrested on suspicion of driving while under the influence of alcohol. During an inventory search of Prigge’s vehicle, police discovered a loaded handgun in the center console. Prigge was charged with "carrying a pistol on or about [his] clothes or person" while under the influence of alcohol in violation of Minn. Stat. § 624.7142, subd. 1(4) (2016). On Prigge’s motion, the district court dismissed the charge for lack of probable cause. The court of appeals affirmed. We granted review to decide whether a person is "carry[ing] a pistol on or about the person’s clothes or person" when that person is driving a vehicle with a handgun in the center console. We reverse the decision of the court of appeals and remand to the district court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

FACTS

On April 27, 2016, respondent Christopher Michael Prigge was pulled over by a Maple Grove police officer who saw Prigge’s vehicle weaving within its traffic lane. After stopping Prigge’s vehicle, the officer observed that Prigge smelled "strongly" of alcohol and had "glassy and watery" eyes. Prigge admitted that he had consumed alcohol that evening, and he failed field sobriety tests. He was then arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. During an inventory search of his vehicle, which was impounded, police discovered a loaded handgun in the vehicle’s center console. After being read the Implied Consent Advisory, Prigge consented to a breath test that revealed an alcohol concentration of .10.

Prigge was charged with five counts, including one count of carrying a pistol while under the influence of alcohol ("Count III"). See Minn. Stat. § 624.7142, subd. 1(4). Prigge moved to dismiss Count III, arguing that the pistol in the center console of the vehicle was not being carried "on or about [his] clothes or person in a public place."1 Id. The district court granted Prigge’s motion and dismissed Count III, concluding that " ‘carrying on or about the person’s clothes or person’ does not extend to a pistol within the closed center console [2 ]—if never removed, and absent any evidence that it was ever handled or personally carried by the [d]efendant while he [was] under the influence of alcohol."

The State appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed. State v. Prigge , 900 N.W.2d 890, 895 (Minn. App. 2017). The court concluded that the statute was unambiguous, and that "[t]he phrase to ‘carry a pistol on or about the person’s clothes or person’ ... requires a physical nexus between the person or the person’s clothes and a pistol." Id. Because the nexus requirement was not met, the court of appeals affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Count III of the complaint.

We granted the State’s petition for review.

ANALYSIS
I.

The sole legal issue before us is whether the 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. This issue requires us to interpret Minn. Stat. § 624.7142, subd. 1. Statutory interpretation is a question of law that we review de novo. Rushton v. State , 889 N.W.2d 561, 563 (Minn. 2017).

The State focuses on the phrase "on or about," and argues that the use of the word "about" suggests that the proper inquiry is whether the pistol is "readily accessible." Prigge focuses on the word "carry," and argues that "carry" requires a physical nexus between (1) the pistol, and (2) the person or the person’s clothing.

Statutory interpretation begins by assessing "whether the statute’s language, on its face, is ambiguous." Larson v. State , 790 N.W.2d 700, 703 (Minn. 2010) (quoting Am. Tower, L.P. v. City of Grant , 636 N.W.2d 309, 312 (Minn. 2001) ). An ambiguity exists "only when the statutory language is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation." State v. Fleck , 810 N.W.2d 303, 307 (Minn. 2012). If a statute is unambiguous, we "apply the statute’s plain meaning." Larson , 790 N.W.2d at 703.

If a statute does not define a word or phrase, we give that word or phrase its "plain and ordinary meaning." State v. Hayes , 826 N.W.2d 799, 803–04 (Minn. 2013). To determine plain meaning, we "look to the dictionary definitions of th[e] words and apply them in the context of the statute." State v. Haywood , 886 N.W.2d 485, 488 (Minn. 2016). We "construe a statute as a whole and interpret its language to give effect to all of its provisions." State v. Riggs , 865 N.W.2d 679, 683 (Minn. 2015). The canon against surplusage, an intrinsic canon, "favors giving each word or phrase in a statute a distinct, not an identical, meaning." State v. Thonesavanh , 904 N.W.2d 432, 437 (Minn. 2017).

Minnesota Statutes § 624.7142 makes it a crime for a person to "carry a pistol on or about the person’s clothes or person" while under the influence of alcohol. Minn. Stat. § 624.7142, subd. 1(4). Applying ordinary rules of grammar, here the word "carry" is used as a transitive verb. See Thonesavanh , 904 N.W.2d at 436 n.2 ("A transitive verb is an action verb that requires one or more objects."). The "pistol" is the object, and "on or about" is a prepositional phrase describing the area in which the person may (or may not) carry that object. "On" and "about" are separated by the disjunctive "or." See State v. Bakken , 883 N.W.2d 264, 268 (Minn. 2016) (stating that the word "or" "requir[es] that only one of the possible factual situations linked by the ‘or’ be present"); see also The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 1238 (5th ed. 2011) (defining "or" as "[u]sed to indicate an alternative"). Applying the canon against surplusage, carrying a pistol "about" one’s person must mean something different than carrying a pistol "on" one’s person. See Thonesavanh , 904 N.W.2d at 437.

With this grammatical framework in mind, we first look to dictionary definitions to determine the ordinary meaning of the phrase "carry a pistol on or about the person’s clothes or person." We start with "carry." The American Heritage Dictionary provides 27 definitions of the word "carry" as a transitive verb. Many are plainly inapplicable in this context, but plausible definitions of "carry" are: (1) "[t]o hold or support while moving; bear,"(2) "[t]o move or take from one place to another; transport: a train carrying freight ," and (3) "[t]o keep or have on one’s person." The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 285 (5th ed. 2011); see also Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 343 (2002) (defining "carry" as "to move while supporting (as in a vehicle or in one’s hands or arms)").

Turning to the "on or about" portion of the phrase, the word "on" is "[u]sed to indicate contact with or extent over (a surface) regardless of position." The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 1230 (5th ed. 2011); see also Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1574 (2002) (defining "on" as "used as a functional word to indicate contiguity or dependence"). The applicable definitions of the word "about" include (1) "[a]pproximately; nearly" and (2) "[i]n the area or vicinity; near." The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 5 (5th ed. 2011); see also Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 5 (2002) (defining "about" as "in the vicinity" or "in the immediate neighborhood of").

Taken together, 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, for a pistol to be in one’s personal vicinity, it must be within arm’s reach. See State v. Saccomano , 218 Neb. 435, 355 N.W.2d 791, 792 (1984) ("A weapon is concealed on or about the person if it is concealed in such proximity to the driver of an automobile as to be convenient of access and within immediate physical reach.").

Prigge asks us to adopt the court of appeals’ interpretation of "carry" and require a physical nexus between the person (or the person’s clothes) and the pistol. It is true that one definition of "carry" is "[t]o keep or have on one’s person." The American Heritage Dictionary 285 (5th ed. 2011). But we must read "carry" in the context of the statute. See Haywood , 886 N.W.2d at 488. The physical-nexus interpretation might be reasonable if the statute only prohibited carrying a pistol "on " one’s person or clothing. But the statute prohibits carrying a pistol "about " one’s person or clothing as well. The physical-nexus interpretation would read the "or about" language out of the statute, and is therefore unreasonable. See Riggs , 865 N.W.2d at 683.

Prigge also urges us to do what the court of appeals did and read section 624.7142 in the context of section 624.714, the statute regulating permit-to-carry applications and the carrying of a pistol without a permit. See Minn. Stat. § 624.714 (2016). Under section 624.714, a person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor if that person "carries, holds, or possesses a pistol in a motor vehicle ... on or about the person’s clothes or the person, or otherwise in possession or control in a public place ... without first having obtained a permit to carry the pistol." Id. , subd. 1a. Because ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
47 cases
  • State ex rel. Young v. Schnell, A17-1741
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • March 24, 2021
    ...Id. Under the "whole-statute canon," the relevant context includes different sections of the same statute. See State v. Prigge , 907 N.W.2d 635, 640 (Minn. 2018).Here, the relevant context for section 244.05 subdivision 2, includes subdivision 6 of that same statute. Id. Minnesota Statutes ......
  • Daniel v. City of Minneapolis, A17-0141
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • February 27, 2019
    ...See Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2018). We read the text of a statute according to its plain and ordinary meaning. State v. Prigge , 907 N.W.2d 635, 638 (Minn. 2018). We must construe a statute "to give effect to all its provisions." Minn. Stat. § 645.16.There is no question that the City incurred......
  • State v. Warlick
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • March 19, 2021
    ...App. 2007) ; People v. Niemoth , 322 Ill. 51, 152 N.E. 537 (1926) ; Corbin v. State , 237 Md. 486, 206 A.2d 809 (1965) ; State v. Prigge , 907 N.W.2d 635 (Minn. 2018) ; State v. Williams , 636 P.2d 1092 (Utah 1981).97 See, e.g., State v. Hall , 268 Neb. 91, 679 N.W.2d 760 (2004) ; State v. ......
  • State v. Wood
    • United States
    • Minnesota Court of Appeals
    • January 7, 2019
    ...In doing so, we " ‘construe a statute as a whole and interpret its language to give effect to all of its provisions.’ " State v. Prigge , 907 N.W.2d 635, 638 (Minn. 2018) (quoting State v. Riggs , 865 N.W.2d 679, 683 (Minn. 2015) ). In addition, it is sometimes necessary to consider the str......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT