City of St. Paul v. Various Items of Drug Paraphernalia
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
DAVIES, Judge.
The trial court held that the drug paraphernalia statutes were constitutional as *415applied, there was sufficient evidence to support determinations that various items were drug paraphernalia, and allowing a police officer to testify as an expert was not error. Appellant challenges these determinations. Holding that a finding of intent as to use must be read into the definition of drug paraphernalia, we reverse and remand.
FACTS
In September 1983, undercover St. Paul police officers bought several items that have the physical characteristics of drug paraphernalia from…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- North Carolina v. AlfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Washington v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- State v. HelterbridleSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
- State v. GouletteSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- State v. DeShaySupreme Court of Minnesota · 2003
- MARTINEZ ESPINOZABoard of Immigration Appeals · 2009
- Idaho Department of Law Enforcement v. $34,000 United States CurrencyIdaho Court of Appeals · 1991
- State v. DeShaySupreme Court of Minnesota · 2003