{"id":2527266,"date":"2023-03-23T10:00:52","date_gmt":"2023-03-23T14:00:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/platoai.gbaglobal.org\/platowire\/minnesota-supreme-court-overturns-conviction-for-possession-of-vape-liquid\/"},"modified":"2023-03-23T10:00:52","modified_gmt":"2023-03-23T14:00:52","slug":"minnesota-supreme-court-overturns-conviction-for-possession-of-vape-liquid","status":"publish","type":"platowire","link":"https:\/\/platoai.gbaglobal.org\/platowire\/minnesota-supreme-court-overturns-conviction-for-possession-of-vape-liquid\/","title":{"rendered":"Minnesota Supreme Court Overturns Conviction for Possession of Vape Liquid"},"content":{"rendered":"

On June 3, 2021, the Minnesota Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a man who had been charged with possession of vape liquid. The decision was based on the fact that the state\u2019s definition of \u201cmarijuana\u201d did not include the specific substance found in the defendant\u2019s possession.<\/p>\n

The case began in 2018 when police officers in Minneapolis pulled over a car for a traffic violation. During the stop, they found a small amount of what they believed to be marijuana wax in the car. The driver and passenger were both arrested and charged with possession of a controlled substance.<\/p>\n

At trial, the substance was identified as THC vape liquid, which is made by extracting THC from marijuana and mixing it with other ingredients to create a liquid that can be used in a vape pen. The defendant argued that he did not possess marijuana, as defined by Minnesota law, and therefore could not be convicted of possession of a controlled substance.<\/p>\n

The state\u2019s definition of marijuana includes \u201call parts of the plant of the genus Cannabis,\u201d but does not specifically mention THC or any other specific compound found in the plant. The defendant argued that because THC vape liquid is not made from the plant itself, it should not be considered marijuana under the law.<\/p>\n

The trial court disagreed and convicted the defendant, who was sentenced to probation and community service. However, the Minnesota Court of Appeals later overturned the conviction, ruling that the state\u2019s definition of marijuana was too broad and did not specifically include THC vape liquid.<\/p>\n

The state appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court, which heard arguments in March 2021. In its decision, the court agreed with the lower court\u2019s ruling and held that \u201cthe plain language of the statute does not include substances that are derived from the plant but are not part of it.\u201d<\/p>\n

The decision has significant implications for Minnesota\u2019s drug laws and could lead to changes in how prosecutors charge drug offenses. It also highlights the challenges that arise when lawmakers attempt to define complex substances like marijuana and its derivatives.<\/p>\n

While the decision is a victory for the defendant in this case, it is important to note that possession of THC vape liquid is still illegal under federal law. Additionally, Minnesota law prohibits the sale of THC vape products, and possession of large amounts of THC can still result in felony charges.<\/p>\n

Overall, the Minnesota Supreme Court\u2019s decision underscores the importance of clear and precise language in criminal statutes, and highlights the need for lawmakers to stay up-to-date with advances in technology and drug manufacturing.<\/p>\n