Minnesota’s delivery-of-drug-paraphernalia-to-a-minor statute looks simple until it is read with the statute it incorporates. Section 152.094 says an adult who violates section 152.093 “by knowingly or intentionally delivering” drug paraphernalia to a qualifying minor commits a gross misdemeanor. But the Legislature amended section 152.093 in 2023 and removed delivery from its operative text. For alleged conduct on or after August 1, 2023, that cross-reference creates a serious statutory issue that should be litigated, not ignored.

The evidence still matters. The prosecution must identify a legally defined item of drug paraphernalia, an actual delivery, the required mental state, the age of each person, the three-year age difference, and the correct version of the law. A retail product, household object, syringe, or fentanyl test strip does not become prohibited paraphernalia merely because an officer uses the label.

This guide explains the current text, the 2023 amendment, the historical offense, common proof issues, and practical defense work. It does not assume that the current cross-reference has already been resolved by Minnesota’s appellate courts.

The current statutes must be read together
What changed on August 1, 2023
Elements alleged in a section 152.094 charge
What counts as drug paraphernalia
Proof of delivery and mental state
The adult, minor, and three-year requirements
Messages, stores, witnesses, and digital evidence
Searches, warrants, and statements
Gross-misdemeanor sentencing and consequences
Defense motions and negotiation strategy
Frequently asked questions

The current text of sections 152.093 and 152.094 must be read together

Minnesota Statutes section 152.094 provides that a person age 18 or older who violates section 152.093 by knowingly or intentionally delivering drug paraphernalia to a person under 18 who is at least three years younger is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

The incorporated statute is now narrower. Section 152.093 currently says: “It is unlawful for any person to intentionally manufacture drug paraphernalia for delivery.” It does not presently prohibit delivery as a stand-alone act.

That matters because section 152.094 does not simply say that delivery to a minor is prohibited. It begins with a person “who violates section 152.093” and then describes the violation as delivery. A complaint should identify how the alleged facts satisfy both the cross-reference and the remaining words of section 152.094.

A prosecutor may argue that section 152.094 independently preserves the minor-delivery offense or that the provisions should be harmonized to effect a continuing legislative purpose. The defense has a substantial textual response: the Legislature expressly removed delivery from section 152.093, yet section 152.094 still requires a violation of that section. A court cannot treat the cross-reference as decorative.

In State v. Struzyk, 869 N.W.2d 280, 285–87 (Minn. 2015), the Minnesota Supreme Court read linked sentences according to their grammar and structure. The court emphasized that it “cannot rewrite a statute under the guise of statutory interpretation.” It also reaffirmed that the state must prove every element of the charged offense.

State v. Pakhnyuk, 926 N.W.2d 914, 920–24 (Minn. 2019), explains that statutory interpretation begins with the text and reads disputed language with the statute as a whole. When more than one reasonable interpretation remains, courts use accepted construction principles to determine meaning.

Those cases do not decide section 152.094. They supply the method. Any motion should present the current sections, former text, effective date, session law, grammar, due-process concerns, and requested remedy rather than merely asserting that the statute is “confusing.”

What changed on August 1, 2023

Before August 1, 2023, section 152.093 prohibited a person from knowingly or intentionally delivering drug paraphernalia or knowingly or intentionally possessing or manufacturing it for delivery. Section 152.094’s cross-reference therefore connected directly to a delivery offense.

Article 15, section 14 of the official 2023 Minnesota Session Laws, chapter 52, struck the delivery and possession-for-delivery language. The surviving text prohibits intentionally manufacturing drug paraphernalia for delivery. The amendment applies to crimes committed on or after August 1, 2023. The same legislation repealed the statewide drug-paraphernalia possession statute and changed the definition.

The Legislature did not amend section 152.094 in that act. Its language continues to refer to violating section 152.093 by delivery. That produces two distinct legal periods:

Conduct before August 1, 2023: the historical text of section 152.093 expressly prohibited knowing or intentional delivery, so the cross-reference operated directly.
Conduct on or after August 1, 2023: the current text of section 152.093 prohibits only intentional manufacture for delivery, while section 152.094 still describes a violation by delivery.

The offense date is therefore indispensable. A present-day complaint can involve older alleged conduct, and a current charging date does not select the current substantive law. Conversely, the former delivery clause should not be applied to post-amendment conduct merely because the headnote still says “manufacture or delivery.” A headnote does not restore words that the enacted text removed.

The 2023 session law also helps avoid an editing illusion. In printed strike-and-underline form, the deleted phrases show exactly what the Legislature removed. Counsel should attach or cite that official law when asking the court to address the cross-reference.

The statutory headnote does not decide the offense

Section 152.093 is still captioned “Manufacture or Delivery of Drug Paraphernalia Prohibited.” That caption can make a quick database search look as though delivery remains in the section. The operative sentence controls. It now prohibits only intentional manufacture for delivery. A charge should be tested against enacted elements, not a leftover title.

The same caution applies to charging codes and law-enforcement databases. An administrative system may continue to list section 152.094 as active and supply a standard offense description. That proves the code exists in the database; it does not answer how its incorporation of amended section 152.093 works. Courts interpret statutes, and the prosecution must allege facts satisfying the law.

The distinction is particularly important at the probable-cause stage. A complaint might describe an adult handing a pipe to a 16-year-old and then conclude that section 152.094 was violated. The factual narrative may support a transfer, but the legal question remains: what current section 152.093 violation did the transfer constitute? A motion should isolate that question so a vivid allegation does not substitute for the missing statutory link.

If a court finds ambiguity, the defense should address ordinary construction tools before invoking lenity. The former law, contemporaneous amendment, whole-statute structure, grammatical relationship, consequences, and fair notice all matter. Lenity then favors the accused if grievous uncertainty remains after those tools are exhausted.

The facts alleged in a section 152.094 charge

For a historically viable delivery-to-a-minor prosecution, the state would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that:

the accused person was at least 18 years old on the delivery date;
the recipient was under 18 on that date;
the recipient was at least three years younger than the accused person;
the object was “drug paraphernalia” under the statutory definition in effect at the time;
the accused person delivered the object to the recipient;
the delivery was knowing or intentional;
the conduct violated the incorporated section 152.093; and
the offense occurred in the charged county.

For alleged post–August 1, 2023 conduct, the incorporated-statute element becomes the threshold legal question. If the complaint merely recites section 152.094 without explaining a present violation of section 152.093, the defense should consider a probable-cause or dismissal motion. The state’s evidence cannot cure conduct that the governing text does not criminalize.

The state must prove the charged act, not a morally similar one. Giving a controlled substance to a minor may violate other statutes, but it is not automatically proof of delivering paraphernalia. Advertising an item is addressed elsewhere. Manufacturing an item for delivery is different from handing over an item manufactured by someone else.

Venue and timing can matter in digital or shipped-item cases. An online seller may be in one county, the recipient in another, and the package transferred through several places. The complaint should identify the alleged delivery, date, and legal basis for venue rather than relying on the location of the later investigation.

What counts as drug paraphernalia under Minnesota law

Section 152.01, subdivision 18, defines drug paraphernalia as equipment, products, and materials—other than items used with permitted controlled-substance activity—that are knowingly or intentionally used primarily to:

manufacture a controlled substance;
inject, ingest, inhale, or otherwise introduce a controlled substance into the human body; or
enhance the effect of a controlled substance.

The definition concerns primary use plus a knowing or intentional use. Many objects are neutral. A scale can weigh food or jewelry. Small bags can organize hardware. A glass tube can be industrial or decorative. A grinder can process lawful herbs. The state should prove why this particular object met the statutory definition at the relevant time.

Evidence may include design, residue, modification, accompanying objects, instructions, advertising, price, display, expert testimony, the parties’ words, and the surrounding transaction. No single fact should automatically control. A novelty label does not necessarily establish actual primary use, and an officer’s conclusion is not a substitute for the definition.

Syringes and fentanyl-testing products are expressly excluded

The current definition says drug paraphernalia does not include hypodermic syringes, needles, or instruments adaptable for subcutaneous injections. It also excludes products that detect fentanyl or a fentanyl analogue in a controlled substance. A fentanyl test strip should not be relabeled as prohibited paraphernalia merely because it is associated with drug use.

Those exclusions were part of the 2023 harm-reduction changes. Offense-date law still matters for older conduct, but current investigations must use the current definition. The actual object should be preserved, photographed from all sides, and compared with the statutory exclusion.

Lawful cannabis and tobacco products require careful classification

An object sold for cannabis or tobacco use may overlap visually with items police associate with controlled substances. The analysis should identify the product, marketed use, actual alleged use, cannabis law, licensing context, and evidence of intent. A store’s location or reputation does not convert its entire inventory into criminal contraband.

What does the state rely on to prove delivery and intent?

Delivery ordinarily involves a transfer from one person to another. The state may allege a gift, sale, handoff, shipment, or transfer through an intermediary. Ownership and payment can be relevant, but a free transfer can still be alleged as delivery under historical law.

The defense should identify the specific act: who possessed the object before, who received it, when control changed, whether the item reached the alleged recipient, and whether the accused person directed the transfer. Merely standing near a transaction, owning a store, or sharing an online account does not prove personal delivery.

Knowledge and intent should be tied to evidence. Relevant questions include:

Did the accused person know what the item was?
Did the accused person know or intend its primary use?
Was the package sealed or handled by someone else?
Did an employee complete a transaction without the owner’s knowledge?
Were the messages complete, authenticated, and connected to the accused person?
Did the recipient or another witness receive an incentive for cooperation?
Was the object loaned for a lawful purpose?
Did an undercover officer shape the language or supply the alleged purpose?

A confession or text fragment can be ambiguous. “Give him the piece” may refer to many objects. Emojis, slang, deleted context, and forwarded messages require interpretation. The state must prove the criminal meaning rather than invite the jury to guess.

The accused person’s age, the recipient’s age, and the three-year difference

Section 152.094 contains three separate age facts. The accused person must be at least 18. The recipient must be under 18. The recipient also must be at least three years younger. Each is measured on the alleged delivery date.

Exact birth dates matter near the boundary. Comparing birth years alone can be wrong because one birthday may have occurred and the other may not. A timeline should state both dates of birth, the alleged transaction date, each person’s age in years and days, and the precise difference.

Reliable proof may include certified birth records, driver’s-license records, school records lawfully obtained, testimony, or an admission. Social-media profiles and database summaries may be inaccurate. The state should not treat appearance as proof of age.

Section 152.094 does not state that the accused person must know the recipient’s age. Whether a mental-state term applies to age facts can present a statutory question. The complaint, requested instructions, and governing cases should be reviewed rather than assuming either strict liability or a mistake-of-age defense.

A person under 18 does not fit the statute’s accused-person requirement. Other laws or juvenile allegations may be considered, but section 152.094 itself begins with a person age 18 or older.

Age proof and knowledge of age should not be blended together

There are at least two different questions. The first is objective: were the ages and three-year difference satisfied on the delivery date? The second is subjective or legal: what, if anything, did the accused person know about the recipient’s age, and does the statute require that knowledge?

Evidence relevant to knowledge may include identification requested or presented, age-gate records, account-registration data, school references, messages, appearance, prior acquaintance, and statements. A fake identification card or false account age may be important even if mistake of age is not ultimately treated as a complete defense, because it can affect intent, credibility, charging discretion, and sentencing.

The jury instructions should not collapse these issues. If the parties dispute whether “knowingly or intentionally” modifies the delivery only or also an age circumstance, the court should decide the statutory question before closing arguments. The verdict form should require findings consistent with that ruling and the elements actually charged.

The three-year difference also should not be rounded. For example, two people born in different calendar years may still be less than three years apart on the alleged date. Counsel should calculate the interval with full birth dates and identify any uncertainty about the transaction date.

Retail sales, online transactions, witnesses, and digital evidence

Store and retail cases

Preserve point-of-sale records, receipts, employee schedules, surveillance, product inventory, packaging, training material, age-verification policies, and the exact item. Identify which employee spoke with the buyer and which person completed payment. A business owner is not automatically criminally liable for every employee transaction.

An undercover or cooperating-buyer case requires the full recording, not a paraphrase. The recording may show who first mentioned drugs, what the employee said about use, whether identification was requested, and whether officers selected or characterized the product.

Online sales and shipping

Digital evidence can include listings, direct messages, account-login records, IP data, payment records, shipping labels, tracking, device extractions, and platform preservation returns. Attribution is often the first dispute: who controlled the account or device, who wrote the messages, and who mailed the package?

The listing as it appeared on the transaction date should be preserved. Online content changes. Screenshots should include URLs, dates, account identifiers, surrounding text, and collection method. A cropped image can omit lawful-use language or show a product page edited after the alleged sale.

Witness credibility

The minor recipient may be a witness, informant, family member, employee, or person facing another allegation. Counsel should review prior statements, promises, charging consideration, payment, parental influence, substance use, ability to perceive, and corroboration. A credibility challenge should be evidence-based and respectful; the recipient’s age does not make the account automatically true or false.

Search warrants, seizures, phones, and statements

Paraphernalia cases can arise from a store inspection, traffic stop, school report, package interception, home warrant, controlled purchase, or phone search. The defense should trace each item from the first tip through seizure and courtroom use.

A warrant application must establish probable cause and a nexus to the place searched. Informant reliability, corroboration, staleness, material omissions or misstatements, particularity, execution, and inventory should be examined. A warrant for a particular transaction does not necessarily authorize an unlimited search of years of messages.

Consent must be voluntary and remain within its scope. Store employees may have authority over public areas but not every office, device, or owner’s private container. A parent’s ability to consent to a search involving an adult child depends on access and authority, not family status alone.

Statements require analysis of custody, Miranda warnings, invocation, voluntariness, language, impairment, threats, promises, and recording completeness. An officer may ask a compound question—“You knew what it was and knew he was underage, right?”—that produces an unclear answer. The actual exchange matters.

Digital searches should be compared with warrant limits. Search terms, extraction method, time range, account ownership, deleted-data recovery, timezone conversion, and missing attachments can affect meaning. A forensic report is not self-explanatory; counsel may need the underlying extraction and audit information.

Preserve the physical object and test the government’s terminology

The item itself can be more important than an officer’s photograph. Measurements, openings, residue, manufacturer markings, packaging, warnings, instructions, and ordinary retail use may be visible only on inspection. If the item is altered, broken, or consumed during testing, counsel should obtain the pretesting photographs and a complete account of what changed.

Reports often use shorthand such as “bong,” “meth pipe,” or “dab rig.” Those are conclusions with persuasive force. The defense can ask the witness to describe the object before applying a label: material, size, chambers, screens, residue, modification, where it was sold, and what made one use primary. A neutral description helps the court and jury apply the statutory definition instead of inheriting the officer’s assumption.

If residue is tested, the result may support a use inference, but attribution and timing remain open. Who owned the item? When was it last used? Was it new merchandise, a customer return, an employee’s property, or an object seized elsewhere and grouped into the case? Chain of custody must connect the tested item to the charged delivery.

Gross-misdemeanor sentencing and collateral consequences

Section 152.094 classifies the offense as a gross misdemeanor. The general maximum for a Minnesota gross misdemeanor is 364 days in jail, a $3,000 fine, or both. The statutory maximum is not a sentence prediction.

Possible outcomes may include dismissal, acquittal, a stay of adjudication when legally available and agreed, a stay of imposition, a stayed jail sentence, probation, local confinement, community work, education, chemical assessment or treatment when supported, fines, and other lawful conditions. The facts, criminal history, plea agreement, local practice, and judge all matter.

Before a plea, counsel should identify:

the exact conviction statute and offense date;
whether the 2023 cross-reference issue is preserved or waived;
the maximum and any agreed jail cap;
whether adjudication is entered immediately;
probation length and conditions;
treatment, testing, search, and business restrictions;
forfeiture or return of property;
immigration consequences;
licensing and employment effects; and
what happens after successful completion or a violation.

A gross-misdemeanor conviction can affect background checks, professional or retail licensing, immigration, employment, education, housing, and later criminal-history calculations. A business may also face inventory loss, regulatory scrutiny, lease issues, or reputational harm even when the criminal count is defensible.

Local ordinances remain a separate issue

Section 152.205 states that the chapter’s paraphernalia provisions do not preempt municipal or county regulation of manufacture, delivery, possession, or advertising. A state-law defect does not answer whether a valid local ordinance was charged. The citation must identify the actual ordinance, elements, effective date, penalty, and local authority.

Conversely, a local government cannot obtain a state gross-misdemeanor conviction by treating ordinance language as if it were section 152.094. Each count stands on its own text.

Defense motions, negotiation, and trial preparation

Start with the offense date and statutory versions

Place the alleged date next to the August 1, 2023 effective date. Download the official historical and current statutes plus the session law. The legal theory differs sharply across that line.

Move on the cross-reference before litigating peripheral facts

For post-amendment conduct, counsel should consider a motion addressing whether the complaint alleges a violation of current section 152.093. The motion can present the plain text, deleted language, incorporated-reference structure, construction cases, fair-notice principles, and rule of lenity if ambiguity remains after ordinary interpretation.

Demand proof of the object and age facts

Inspect the actual item, photographs, packaging, residue testing, advertising, instructions, and statutory exclusions. Obtain reliable date-of-birth evidence and calculate the age difference precisely. Do not concede an element because a complaint uses a conclusion.

Separate personal conduct from business or account ownership

Identify the person who selected the item, spoke with the recipient, accepted payment, packed it, and transferred it. In a business or shared-account setting, responsibility must be proved through admissible evidence rather than title alone.

Write any plea with legal precision

A plea should state the offense date, statute, object, delivery conduct, mental state, age facts, and agreed sentence. When a live statutory challenge exists, the record should disclose whether it is preserved for appeal, resolved as part of the agreement, or knowingly waived. Vague language invites later disputes.

Frequently asked questions about delivery of drug paraphernalia to a minor

1. Is delivery of drug paraphernalia to a minor a felony in Minnesota?

Section 152.094 classifies the offense as a gross misdemeanor, not a felony. The general maximum is 364 days and a $3,000 fine.

2. Why does the 2023 amendment matter?

Section 152.094 requires a violation of section 152.093 by delivery. Since August 1, 2023, section 152.093 has prohibited only intentional manufacture of paraphernalia for delivery, creating a substantial cross-reference issue.

3. Does section 152.094 automatically remain enforceable exactly as before?

That should not be assumed for post-amendment conduct. A court must interpret the current linked statutes. The defense should raise the text and session law promptly.

4. What law applies to conduct before August 1, 2023?

The historical version in effect on the offense date. Before the amendment, section 152.093 expressly prohibited knowing or intentional delivery and possession or manufacture for delivery.

5. How old must the accused person be?

At least 18 on the alleged delivery date. A person under 18 does not satisfy section 152.094’s accused-person requirement.

6. How young must the recipient be?

The recipient must be under 18 and at least three years younger than the accused person. Exact birth dates and the transaction date matter.

7. Are syringes drug paraphernalia under the current definition?

No. The current definition expressly excludes hypodermic syringes, needles, and adaptable subcutaneous-injection instruments.

8. Are fentanyl test strips prohibited paraphernalia?

No. Products that detect fentanyl or a fentanyl analogue are expressly excluded from the current definition.

9. Is every pipe or scale drug paraphernalia?

No. The state must prove the object met the statutory primary-use and mental-state definition. Design, actual use, context, messages, marketing, and lawful explanations may matter.

10. Does a free gift count as delivery?

A prosecutor may allege a transfer without payment as delivery under the historical statute. The defense should still test whether a completed transfer and every other element were proved.

11. Can a store owner be charged for an employee’s sale?

Ownership alone should not establish personal criminal conduct or intent. The evidence must connect the accused person to the charged act under a valid liability theory.

12. Can police search a store or phone without a warrant?

Some public areas, exceptions, or valid consent may permit limited searches, but private rooms, containers, and digital devices raise separate authority and scope questions.

13. Can a city or county have its own paraphernalia ordinance?

Yes. Section 152.205 preserves local regulatory authority. The ordinance’s text, effective date, elements, and penalty must be reviewed separately.

14. What evidence should a retailer preserve?

Preserve the item, packaging, receipt, surveillance, employee schedule, product listing, age-check policy, messages, inventory record, and complete recording of any controlled purchase. Do not alter data.

15. What should I do first after being charged?

Identify the exact offense date, preserve the complaint and original evidence, avoid a detailed interview without counsel, and obtain prompt review of the 2023 amendment, object definition, transfer proof, age facts, and search legality.

The words the Legislature removed matter

A careful lawyer should not summarize section 152.094 as though nothing changed in 2023. The current offense still appears in Minnesota Statutes, but it expressly depends on a violation of a neighboring section that no longer prohibits delivery. That is a legal issue with real consequences for post-amendment charges.

The defense should also test the facts: the item, statutory exclusions, actual transfer, intent, attribution, ages, search, and statements. A gross-misdemeanor label does not relieve the state of proving a legally valid offense and every required element beyond a reasonable doubt.

Contents