Brickbat: A Public Concern

The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that a vehicle's interior counts as a "public place" when it's driven on a public road. In May 2022, a Ramsey County sheriff's deputy stopped Kyaw Be Bee on suspicion of theft of a catalytic converter. When the deputy searched the car, he found a BB gun under the front seat and arrested Bee for carrying a gun in public without a permit. A district judge tossed out the charges, saying it wasn't clear the interior of a vehicle was a public place. The Supreme Court ruling supports the charge and sends the case back to district court.

Comments

[Get To Da Chippah]

Ridiculous. Next up will be them declaring the inside of your wallet to also be a public place.

[Vernon Depner]

Or your uterus.

[KiwiDude]

Or your house. It is on a public street, right?

[Adans smith]

Well, he could have shot an eye out.

[Vernon Depner]

I expect the legislature in Minnesota to pass law or amendment to change this. It's out of step with SOP pretty much everywhere.

[Rossami]

They don't need a new law to fix this - they need an impeachment or six.

[Michael P]

Minnesota requires a permit for BB guns? What a state!

[SQRLSY]

Soon, we shall all, also, be required to register our sperm-guns ass well!

[MatthewSlyfield]

Some states consider at least some air guns to be firearms. AFIK, Minnesota isn't one of them.

I looked up the Minnesota law: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/624.7181

They don't restrict ownership, but they do require a permit for carrying a BB gun in public.

[GroundTruth]

C'mon overt to the Insane People's Republic of Massachusetts where a sling shot requires a permit (I kid you not).

[Fist of Etiquette]

And here I thought it was going to be the war on drug users that would finally do away with Fourth Amendment protections, but instead it's exhaust system components.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

It's too bad failed searches have no penalty. My system treats search warrants as sworn oaths -- "I believe there are stolen catalytic converters in this truck" -- and if they do not find what they were looking for, that's perjury, punished by the search rebounding on them -- their victim gets to replay a similar search on them any time in the next year and a half (because all laws etc expire in a year and a half) -- "I believe there are donuts in this car" -- or they can pay what their victim demands in lieu of the search, which is of course negotiable. While their employer might well pay any negotiated waiver fee, the rebound search itself would be on them.

There'd be a lot fewer bogus searches. "Sir, I your taillight is broken. Oh, it seems to be working now. My bad. Here's $50 to not rebound on me."

Cops would also be a lot more polite, in the hopes of the rebound being waived or at least cheaper. Year-end summaries of total rebound costs per cop would be interesting.

[Longtobefree]

There will be no cops.

[mad.casual]

Also, in Elizabeth Nolan Brown "We'll defend abortion to the last back alley, coat hanger, sepsis-inducing procedure!" fashion it goes around the bend on several more fundamental social and judicial principles; mens rea, presumption of innocence, etc.

It is possible to be innocently mistaken and the ping-ponging of culpability for incorrect "I believe..." statements doesn't reduce the burden of government or need for enforcement.

[Rossami]

Perjury is "you lied", not merely "you were wrong".

But your rebound proposal for being wrong is ... interesting. I think it would fail in practice but it's a fun thought experiment.

[mad.casual]

As you indicated perjury and perjury under color of law is already a crime, even if only nominally.

Maybe QI should be less abundant but, as 2020 showed us, the percentage or number of people who would (still) abuse it to destroy the police and bankrupt the taxpayers is significantly non-zero.

The media reporting "Man pulled over for suspicion, booked for driving with a revoked license, and had his car searched." as "Police illegally searched man's car for stolen catalytic converter." doesn't help.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

You use the broken legacy judicial definition. I don't. My current definition is "authoritative misrepresentation". If you speak authoritatively, and lie, that is perjury. It applies to used car peddlers and witnesses alike. If a politician claims tariffs are not taxes, he has committed perjury. If Michael Mann spouts climate lies in Congressional testimony, that is perjury.

ETA And no it doesn't include Reason writers or commenters. None of them are authoritative, although I presume some of the Reason staff are authoritative about Reason itself.

[Rossami]

It's not a "broken judicial definition" - it's inherent even to your own statement. "If you speak authoritatively, and lie..." depends on that authoritative speech being a lie. And every common english dictionary I can put my hands on says that a lie must be an intentional misstatement of fact. Being honest wrong is still wrong but not a lie.

Now, if you want to reinvent the english language itself, I suppose you can try. But I don't think you're going to win. Intent matters.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

As I said, my definition applies everywhere. Why should perjury only apply in courtrooms? It certainly doesn't apply to search warrants or other statements where in should.

And where do you get the idea that I equate wrong and lie?

Learn your own damn language. Get out of that lawyer mindset, stop pretending Latin jargon beats ordinary language.

[mad.casual]

Rossami: There is such a thing as an honest mistake. Everyone understands this.
Stupid: NO! RESPECT MY AUTHORITAY! MY DEFINITION APPLIES EVERYWHERE AND PERJURY IS IF YOU SPEAK WITH AUTHORITAY AND ARE INCORRECT! DUCK SEASON FIRE!

Fuckin' Stupid.

[Commenter_XY]

Another blue state 'mini me USSR' = MN

[Sometimes a Great Notion]

Are his car payments also the responsibility of the public?

[mad.casual]

You really, really suck at poker don't you?

[Crackers Boy]

I'm thinking, if I was in Minnesota, I'd find one of the Justice's car, if it's parked on a public street somewhere, and have a little sit down inside... maybe eat my lunch in there. After all, the interior is public space, if the car is in public.

CB

[Grumpy Badger]

Don't forget to use the public restroom in the back seat after lunch

[mad.casual]

Good thing whomever is in charge of Minnesota isn't anywhere near any levers of power over the rest of the country. Thank God for State borders (and fuck the abjectly shit-stupid authoritarian asshats at Reason "Kyle Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there." Magazine sideways with rusty garden tools).

[Mickey Rat]

I am pretty sure SCOTUS rulings have the interior of a car as under personal effects for purposes of search and seizure unless the contraband item is "in plain sight".

Unless they can justify under "in plain sight", the Minnedota courts have to follow established 4th Amendment jurisprudence.

[mad.casual]

He was stopped/arrested under suspicion of the catalytic converter theft. He was driving with a revoked license. I.e. - That car matches the description of the car that stole a catalytic converter. [Pulls car over] And the guy we arrested driving it doesn't have a license. So, we're going to search it for a catalytic converter [and we found a BB gun].

As usual, Reason is cravenly stupid and dishonest in their extraordinary rendition. I 100% agree it shouldn't be a crime to have a BB gun under your car's front seat (or even an actual gun, though it is similarly illegal in my state), but glossing over the fact that the guy was driving with a revoked license is an overt lie by omission.

[SRG2]

You'd find that Alito would tie himself in knots to justify the search. I don't think he ever met a search he didn't like.

[markm23]

Of course police should be able to search a car for a stolen catalytic converter if they have sufficient reason to stop the car and detain the driver, but could a catalytic converter be hidden under the seat? If there isn't enough height under the seat to stuff in a catalytic converter, they had no reason to search there.

[mad.casual]

Typical Brickbat fashion, it feels like there's a missing piece to the puzzle. That is, was a catalytic converter found? If they searched the car for it, found it and the BB gun, and it later turned out to be his catalytic converter or something, that's a different story than just a legal snipe hunt.

Sure enough: The deputy stopped the vehicle. The driver was identified as KYAW BE BEE (DOB ․), Defendant herein. Defendant had a revoked license.

Reason, you do yourself and your readership a disservice by being willfully ignorant or deceptive WRT the law. A revoked license quite reasonably constitutes probable cause.

[sarcasmic]

Can't determine if this is good or bad without knowing the immigration status and political affiliation of this Kyaw Be Bee fellow.

[TJJ2000]

Sarc speaks his own truth..

"I can't pass judgement unless I know if the subject is (D)ifferent affiliated or a *special* invader/trespassing subject?"

[AT]

No, this makes a weird kind of sense from a strictly legal perspective.

Essentially the Court is saying that because the legislature de facto articulated what's a "private" space in a vehicle, the rest not specifically excluded in that definition is therefore public space.

If he'd had the BB gun in his trunk, it would have been fine. But because he had it under the seat, where the legislature didn't explicitly protect them, that made it stand.

It's kind of the inverse of the "concealed carry" rules in a car. If you don't have a carry permit, then keeping your 100% legal never used in a crime handgun in your glovebox is considered "concealment." If you've got it on your hip, or plainly visible in the passenger seat, you're fine.

Anyway, this fits less cleanly in the brickbat column and better in the bad legislation column.