A "Hazardous Substance" Only Includes Substances Actually Identified in the Pertinent Minnesota Rules

State v. Carson, Minn.S.Ct., 10/11/2017.  The problem with refusing to interpret statutes is that sometimes the results are pretty ridiculous.  A section of the DWI statutes makes it a crime to operate a motor vehicle while knowingly under the influence of a hazardous substance.  Minn.Stat. 169A.20, subd. 1(3).  A "hazardous substance" is defined as "any chemical or chemical compound that is listed as a hazardous substance in rules adopted under chapter 182 (occupational safety and health).  Not listed in these rules is something called "DFE" which it turns out is a propellant in those cans of compressed air used to clean keyboards and the like.  

Ms. Carson said that because DFE isn't listed in the rules it's not a "hazardous substance," and so she can't be convicted of driving under its influence.  Justice Hudson agrees and throws out the conviction.  The state, along with Justice McKeig, said, wait, there's more.  Another section of the rules contains a "list" of the relevant characteristics of hazardous substances, and DFE meets those characteristics.  Justice Hudson doesn't really answer the question just why the rules would contain a "list" of characteristics that make something a "hazardous substance" as well as a "list" of actual substances unless it meant for the "list" of actual substances to be aspirational rather than exclusive.  It can't possibly be that the legislature intended this result, but, again, the court has been out of the business of interpreting statutes far too long to care.

Conduct Alleged To Be "Disorderly" Need Not Be Witnessed By Another Person

State v. Janecek, Minn.Ct.App., 10/9/2017.  The court of appeals takes on the quantum question, if a tree falls in the forest and there's no one around to hear, does it make a sound?  Ms. Janecek doesn't get along with her neighbor.  The neighbor made a video recording of Ms. Janecek over their trash bins; the city charged Ms. Janecek with disorderly conduct based on the video - neither the neighbors nor anyone else was actually present - and a jury convicted her of disorderly conduct.

Ms. Janecek said that the disorderly conduct statute requires that her conduct be witnessed by at least one person; sorry, video cameras don't count.  Here's what the statute says:

Whoever does any of the following in a public or private place, including on a school bus, knowing, or having reasonable grounds to know that it will, or will tend to, alarm, anger or disturb others or provoke an assault or breach of the peace, is guilty of disorderly conduct, which is a misdemeanor:

. . . .

(3) engage in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct or in offensive, obscene, or abusive language tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger or resentment in others.

Minn. Stat. § 609.72, subd. 1.

The court employs its literalist jurisprudence and cannot find any requirement in the statute that the disorderly conduct occur in another's presence.  The court does so notwithstanding this language from State v. Reynolds, 243 Minn. 196, 66 N.W.2d 886 (1954) which pretty plainly says just the opposite:

Conduct is “disorderly” in the ordinary sense when it is of such nature as to affect the peace and quiet of persons who may witness it and who may be disturbed or provoked to resentment thereby