Minnesota / Charge and defense guide

Manufacture or Delivery of Drug Paraphernalia Prohibited in Minnesota

Minnesota’s current drug-paraphernalia manufacturing statute is much narrower than its title suggests.

The lawCharge levelsEvidenceNext steps

Minnesota’s current drug-paraphernalia manufacturing statute is much narrower than its title suggests. Since August 1, 2023, section 152.093 has prohibited one act: intentionally manufacturing drug paraphernalia for delivery. The operative text no longer prohibits delivery by itself, possession for delivery, ordinary possession, or use. It is a misdemeanor, not a felony.

A valid prosecution therefore needs more than a pipe, scale, bag, website listing, or store inventory. The state must prove that the accused person manufactured an item, that the item met Minnesota’s current definition of drug paraphernalia, and that the person intended both the manufacturing conduct and delivery. Objects with lawful uses, products made by someone else, syringes, fentanyl test strips, and conduct predating the 2023 amendment require separate analysis.

This guide addresses the current offense and the historical law. It also explains product classification, design and fabrication evidence, digital attribution, searches, misdemeanor sentencing, and the state-versus-local-law distinction.

Contents

What section 152.093 currently prohibits

The operative sentence of Minnesota Statutes section 152.093 is short: “It is unlawful for any person to intentionally manufacture drug paraphernalia for delivery.” The next sentence classifies a violation as a misdemeanor.

That text creates four essential propositions:

  1. the accused person performed manufacturing conduct;
  2. the object was drug paraphernalia under Minnesota’s current definition;
  3. the manufacturing was intentional; and
  4. the object was manufactured for delivery.

The statute does not say that every person who sells, gives away, possesses, displays, advertises, or uses an object commits section 152.093. Some of that conduct may implicate another statute, a valid local ordinance, or a different historical version. But a current state prosecution under section 152.093 must fit the words the Legislature retained.

The section’s headnote remains “Manufacture or Delivery of Drug Paraphernalia Prohibited.” The headnote can mislead a reader who stops there. The enacted sentence no longer contains the stand-alone delivery offense. A charging code or police-report label cannot add deleted elements back into the law.

In State v. Struzyk, 869 N.W.2d 280, 285–90 (Minn. 2015), the Minnesota Supreme Court read a criminal statute according to its grammar and structure, holding that courts “cannot rewrite a statute under the guise of statutory interpretation.” Struzyk also reaffirmed the state’s duty to prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Pakhnyuk, 926 N.W.2d 914, 920–24 (Minn. 2019), explains that statutory analysis begins with the text, read in context with the statute as a whole. If more than one reasonable interpretation remains, accepted construction tools are then used to determine meaning.

The August 1, 2023 amendment changed the offense

Before August 1, 2023, section 152.093 prohibited knowingly or intentionally delivering drug paraphernalia and knowingly or intentionally possessing or manufacturing it for delivery. The present law is not simply a modernized wording of the same acts.

The official 2023 Minnesota Session Laws, chapter 52, article 15, section 14, struck:

  • the stand-alone prohibition on knowing or intentional delivery;
  • the prohibition on knowing or intentional possession for delivery; and
  • the broader alternative mental-state phrasing for manufacture.

The remaining offense is intentional manufacture for delivery. The amendment applies to crimes committed on or after August 1, 2023. The same act repealed the statewide possession-of-drug-paraphernalia statute and revised the definition to support harm-reduction policy.

Offense date, not charge date, selects the substantive law. A complaint filed today about 2022 conduct uses the historical version. A complaint about 2026 conduct must use the current text. If the alleged activity spans the effective date, the state should identify which act occurred when and which version supports each count.

Ex post facto and fair-notice principles prevent the state from using a later law to increase liability for earlier conduct. The reverse is also important: conduct removed from the current statute should not be prosecuted under old words solely because the section number and headnote survived.

The state must prove manufacture, paraphernalia, intent, and purpose of delivery

A careful complaint should allege a particular object and manufacturing act. It should not merely say that officers found drug paraphernalia in a home or business. Ordinary possession is no longer a statewide section 152.093 crime.

Manufacture

The statute does not separately define “manufacture” for the paraphernalia section. Chapter 152 contains a controlled-substance manufacturing definition, but applying it to paraphernalia requires attention to context. The state should specify whether it alleges fabrication, production, assembly, machining, molding, glassblowing, printing, repackaging, modification, or another act.

Drug paraphernalia

The finished or manufactured object must satisfy section 152.01, subdivision 18. A neutral household or commercial item is not automatically paraphernalia. The statutory focus is knowing or intentional primary use.

Intentional conduct

Accidental creation, innocent repair, automated production without relevant knowledge, or work performed without understanding the object can present intent issues. The state may prove intent circumstantially, but the circumstances must support the charged intent rather than mere suspicion.

For delivery

Personal manufacture for personal use is not textually the same as manufacture for delivery. The state should prove a purpose to transfer the item to another person. Quantity, orders, customer communications, packaging, shipping material, prices, sales records, or admissions may be relevant. A single unfinished prototype with no recipient or distribution evidence presents a different record.

The state must prove all four propositions together. Proof that an object was paraphernalia does not prove who manufactured it. Proof that a person made an object does not prove the statutory primary use. Proof of a website listing does not prove the listed item was actually manufactured by the account holder.

What counts as drug paraphernalia under current Minnesota law

Section 152.01, subdivision 18, defines drug paraphernalia as equipment, products, or materials—except items used with permitted controlled-substance conduct—that are knowingly or intentionally used primarily in:

  • manufacturing a controlled substance;
  • injecting, ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing a controlled substance into the body; or
  • enhancing the effect of a controlled substance.

The words “used primarily” matter. Scales, bags, grinders, tubes, screens, spoons, mirrors, containers, torches, presses, and laboratory glassware have lawful uses. The state should prove why the particular object, design, context, and intended market make the prohibited use primary.

Relevant evidence can include design features, modifications, instructions, marketing, product name, residue, accompanying items, customer communications, expert testimony, quantity, display, price, and statements. A catchy name may be probative but is not the definition. An officer’s conclusion should be supported by observable facts.

Current exclusions

The definition expressly excludes hypodermic syringes, needles, and instruments adaptable for subcutaneous injection. It also excludes products that detect fentanyl or a fentanyl analogue in a controlled substance. Manufacturing sterile syringes or fentanyl test strips does not become section 152.093 conduct merely because customers may use them in harm-reduction settings.

The exclusion covers possession, manufacture, delivery, or sale of the listed items. It should be addressed early, before a charging label hardens into an assumed fact.

Federal case law offers a comparison, not a Minnesota holding

In Posters ‘N’ Things, Ltd. v. United States, 511 U.S. 513, 518–26 (1994), the Supreme Court interpreted a federal paraphernalia statute using objective product features and the seller’s awareness of likely customer use. The decision does not interpret Minnesota section 152.093, whose current language and definition control. It is useful only as an illustration of why product design, marketing, legitimate uses, and customer context matter.

That distinction should remain explicit. Federal statutes and other states may define paraphernalia or mental state differently. A prosecutor cannot replace Minnesota’s “intentionally manufacture” and “used primarily” language with a looser federal standard.

Fabrication, assembly, modification, repair, and 3D printing

Modern manufacturing can occur in a factory, glass studio, machine shop, home workshop, print-on-demand service, or small online business. The defense should identify every step from design through finished object.

Original fabrication

Raw materials, molds, kilns, lathes, glassblowing tools, machining records, computer-aided design files, supplier invoices, and production schedules may show who fabricated the object. They may also reveal a lawful industrial, artistic, culinary, laboratory, cannabis, or tobacco purpose.

Assembly

Combining lawfully purchased components can constitute manufacturing under some theories, but the state must identify the completed object and intended primary use. Packaging unrelated parts together is not necessarily fabrication of paraphernalia.

Modification

Drilling a hole, adding a screen, cutting a tube, attaching a bowl, or altering a container may support a manufacturing allegation when the alteration creates the claimed object. The evidence should show who made the change and when. A person who later possesses an altered product is not automatically its manufacturer.

Repair

Repair presents a boundary question. Replacing a broken neutral part or cleaning an item may not be manufacturing. Rebuilding or substantially altering an object for prohibited primary use may be argued differently. Work order, customer request, before-and-after photographs, and the nature of the change matter.

3D printing and digital files

A digital design file is not necessarily a finished physical item. The state should distinguish designing a file, printing a prototype, operating the printer, supplying materials, selling a design, and delivering a printed object. Printer logs, slicer files, metadata, filament use, cloud accounts, and physical comparison can support or undermine attribution.

Automated or outsourced production complicates personal responsibility. A marketplace seller may upload a design while a third party prints and ships it. A fabrication shop may print a customer file without understanding the object. Each person’s conduct and intent must be proved under a valid liability theory.

Designing an object is not always manufacturing the object

Blueprints, sketches, CAD files, and prototypes can be powerful evidence of intent, but the charge still uses the verb “manufacture.” Counsel should identify whether the state alleges that creating the design itself is manufacture, that the accused person caused a third party to fabricate a physical product, or that the design is circumstantial proof of later hands-on production.

The distinction affects proof and venue. A designer may work in Minnesota while an independent fabricator produces items elsewhere. A customer may download a file and print an altered version without further involvement from the designer. Ownership of intellectual property does not establish who made a particular seized object.

Version history can be decisive. The file recovered from a laptop may be a draft that lacks the physical features police rely on. The printed item may reflect edits by another user. Hash values, creation and modification dates, cloud revision history, slicer settings, printer identifiers, and measurement comparison can connect—or fail to connect—the digital design with the physical exhibit.

Prototypes and rejected pieces also deserve their own analysis. An artist or engineer may test shapes that never become saleable products. Scrap bins, failed prints, and experimental glass should not automatically be counted as finished inventory manufactured for delivery.

What proves that the object was manufactured “for delivery”

“For delivery” describes the purpose of manufacturing. The state does not necessarily need a completed transfer if it can prove the object was made for one, but it needs evidence of that purpose.

Common evidence includes:

  • customer orders or custom requests;
  • product listings and inventory quantities;
  • receipts, invoices, payment records, and tax records;
  • shipping labels, boxes, postage, and tracking;
  • price lists, catalogs, and wholesale communications;
  • messages discussing customers or transfer;
  • consignment, retail, or distribution agreements;
  • completed controlled purchases; and
  • statements about production and intended recipients.

Evidence of scale can be persuasive but is not conclusive. An artist may make several pieces for an exhibition. A laboratory may order identical components. A cannabis or tobacco retailer may stock lawful products. The government should connect the item’s primary use and the manufacturer’s delivery purpose to the charged offense.

Unfinished objects deserve careful treatment. Raw glass tubes, unassembled parts, rejected prints, and prototypes may not yet have the features that allegedly make a finished product paraphernalia. The complaint should identify what was manufactured and why its current state satisfies the definition.

Business owners, employees, marketplaces, and account attribution

Business ownership does not automatically establish personal manufacturing. The state should identify who designed, ordered, fabricated, assembled, altered, packaged, listed, and intended to deliver the item.

Relevant business records include employee schedules, access logs, production tickets, vendor invoices, emails, quality-control notes, security video, payroll roles, and training material. An employee following a neutral fabrication order may not share the intent of a customer or owner. An owner may not know that an employee altered a product.

Marketplace accounts can be shared, compromised, delegated, or managed by outside vendors. Account registration is evidence, not conclusive authorship. Login records, IP addresses, devices, two-factor authentication, payment routing, message style, and shipping origin may identify the actual user.

Preserve the product page as it existed on the alleged date. Current pages can differ from archived listings. Full captures should include URL, date, account identity, images, description, warnings, lawful-use language, price, reviews, and linked instructions. Cropped screenshots can distort context.

Corporate and accomplice theories require legal analysis. A prosecutor must prove the statutory basis for attributing another person’s act or intent. Job title, family relationship, or presence in a shop is not a substitute for evidence.

Physical inspection, laboratory work, experts, and digital evidence

The actual object should be preserved. Inspection may reveal dimensions, openings, screens, residue, manufacturer marks, common commercial uses, unfinished surfaces, defects, or modifications made after production. Photographs should show all sides with scale.

If residue is tested, obtain the full laboratory file: collection, chain of custody, seals, photographs, extraction, instrument data, controls, reference materials, review, and report. A positive residue result may inform use, but it does not prove who manufactured the object, when it was contaminated, or the manufacturer’s delivery purpose.

Expert testimony should disclose methodology and limits. A witness may compare design features with common drug-use practices, but the opinion should address lawful uses and the statutory “primarily” requirement. Conclusions based only on police experience or the store’s reputation can be challenged.

Digital evidence may include design files, drafts, cloud storage, printer logs, machine-code files, photographs, messages, payment records, listings, browsing history, and shipping data. Counsel should obtain the underlying extraction, not just a selected report. Metadata, timezone, account ownership, deleted context, and file provenance matter.

A complete timeline connects design, material purchase, fabrication, listing, payment, packaging, and alleged delivery. Gaps can show that different people handled different stages or that the finished item was not the item the accused person made.

Experts should explain facts, not supply missing intent

A law-enforcement or industry expert may describe common uses, design features, manufacturing methods, or terminology. The opinion’s foundation should be disclosed: training, experience, reference material, product testing, comparison set, methodology, and error limits. The defense should ask whether the expert considered lawful uses and what evidence supports “primarily” rather than merely “possibly.”

Intent remains a fact question for the jury. An expert should not convert a product feature into an opinion that the accused person intended delivery unless the governing evidence rules permit that opinion and a reliable foundation supports it. Customer messages, production records, and the accused person’s conduct may be more probative than generalized testimony about head shops.

Terminology can bias the analysis. Before calling an item a “meth pipe,” “bong,” or “dab rig,” a witness should describe its material, dimensions, openings, chambers, screens, residue, packaging, and marketed use. The jury can then decide whether the statutory definition is met.

A defense expert may be useful when the object has common scientific, culinary, artistic, industrial, cannabis, or tobacco uses; when fabrication attribution is disputed; or when digital design and printer evidence requires technical interpretation. Expert involvement should begin before destructive testing or alteration of the item.

Cases may begin with a controlled buy, package interception, informant, store inspection, online investigation, traffic stop, workshop fire, or another drug case. The defense should trace the government’s authority at each step.

A warrant requires probable cause and a nexus to the place and items. Review informant reliability, corroboration, staleness, omissions or false statements, particularity, execution, inventory, and whether officers seized property outside the authorized categories.

Business premises can contain public sales areas, employee-only areas, offices, workshops, and digital systems. Regulatory access to one area does not automatically authorize a criminal search of every container or device. Consent must be voluntary and given by someone with actual or apparent authority, and officers must stay within its scope.

Digital warrants should specify accounts, devices, dates, and relevant data. A warrant to investigate a particular product line does not necessarily authorize unrestricted review of years of customer, medical, financial, and personal information.

Statements require review of custody, Miranda warnings, invocation, voluntariness, language, impairment, threats, promises, and recording. An owner may say “we make these” colloquially while referring to a brand or contracted product, not personal fabrication. The question and full answer matter.

Controlled purchases and informants require the complete record

An undercover officer or informant may request a custom feature, describe an illegal use, or ask the target to fabricate an object. The defense should obtain instructions, recordings, funds records, surveillance, pre- and post-buy searches, item handling, reports, and every communication before the transaction.

Editing matters. A short clip can omit the target’s lawful explanation, refusal, uncertainty, or the informant’s repeated pressure. Original audio and video should be preserved with metadata. If no recording exists, officer and informant accounts should be compared with messages, timestamps, location data, and inventory.

Entrapment is a distinct legal defense with specific requirements; aggressive solicitation alone does not automatically establish it. Still, government creation of the design, proposed use, and delivery purpose can affect predisposition, intent, credibility, and charging discretion. Counsel should investigate the relationship and contacts before the controlled purchase, not only the final handoff.

Informants may receive payment, release, charging consideration, immigration assistance, or sentencing benefit. Their prior statements, criminal exposure, instructions, compliance with procedures, and corroboration belong in discovery and trial preparation.

Misdemeanor sentencing and collateral consequences

Section 152.093 classifies the current offense as a misdemeanor. Under section 609.03, the general misdemeanor maximum is 90 days in jail, a $1,000 fine, or both. The maximum is not a likely-sentence promise.

Possible outcomes include dismissal, acquittal, a stayed jail sentence, probation, a fine, community work, forfeiture disputes, and negotiated conditions. The court may consider the facts, history, business role, scale, lawful-use evidence, and any related charges.

Collateral effects can matter more than jail in a business case. They may include licensing action, lease problems, inventory seizure, payment-processor closure, marketplace suspension, immigration consequences, professional discipline, reputational harm, and later criminal-history treatment.

A plea should identify the manufactured object, intentional act, purpose of delivery, offense date, sentence, property disposition, and effect on related counts. Avoid a vague admission that “the business sold drug items,” which may concede conduct the current statute does not prohibit and create unnecessary licensing or civil consequences.

Local ordinances remain separate

Section 152.205 preserves municipal and county authority to regulate paraphernalia manufacture, delivery, possession, or advertising. A local ordinance may be broader than current section 152.093. The citation must identify the ordinance, effective date, elements, penalty, and local authority.

A state charge cannot borrow elements from a local ordinance, and a local charge cannot receive the state statute’s identity without satisfying its own text. Counsel should examine every count separately.

A defense plan for a Minnesota paraphernalia-manufacturing charge

1. Fix the offense date and statutory version

Place each alleged manufacturing act before or after August 1, 2023. Obtain the official historical text and session law.

2. Demand a specific manufacturing theory

Identify the object, act, person, date, location, and alleged purpose of delivery. A conclusion that the accused “manufactured paraphernalia” is not enough.

3. Inspect the object and document lawful uses

Preserve the item, design files, packaging, instructions, customer request, photographs, and expert information. Address syringes and fentanyl-test exclusions immediately.

4. Separate the people and production stages

Chart who designed, purchased material, fabricated, assembled, altered, listed, accepted payment, packaged, and shipped. Tie each step to original evidence.

5. Challenge the search and attribution

Review the warrant, consent, inspection authority, controlled purchase, account records, device extraction, statements, and chain of custody. Test whether the evidence identifies the accused person rather than only a business or account.

6. Resolve property and business consequences

Calendar forfeiture, return-of-property, licensing, lease, and marketplace deadlines. A criminal dismissal does not automatically restore seized inventory or a suspended account.

Frequently asked questions about manufacture of drug paraphernalia

1. Is manufacturing drug paraphernalia a felony in Minnesota?

No. Current section 152.093 classifies the offense as a misdemeanor.

2. What is the maximum penalty?

The general misdemeanor maximum is 90 days in jail and a $1,000 fine. The facts and resolution determine the actual sentence.

3. Does current section 152.093 prohibit delivery by itself?

No. Since August 1, 2023, its operative text prohibits intentionally manufacturing drug paraphernalia for delivery. Local ordinances or other statutes must be analyzed separately.

4. Is possession of drug paraphernalia a statewide crime?

The statewide possession statute was repealed in 2023. Local ordinances may still regulate possession, and residue can create a separate controlled-substance issue depending on current law and facts.

5. What does “for delivery” mean?

It concerns the purpose of manufacture: an intended transfer to another person. Orders, listings, packaging, quantities, messages, payments, or shipping evidence may be relevant.

6. Is every glass pipe drug paraphernalia?

No. The state must satisfy Minnesota’s primary-use and mental-state definition using the particular design, context, evidence, and lawful uses.

7. Are syringes covered?

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

8. Are fentanyl test strips covered?

No. Products that detect fentanyl or a fentanyl analogue are expressly excluded.

9. Can repairing an item count as manufacturing?

It depends on what work was performed and the statutory interpretation. A neutral repair is different from substantially creating or altering an object for prohibited primary use and delivery.

10. Can 3D printing create a charge?

Potentially, if the state proves intentional physical manufacture of defined paraphernalia for delivery. Designing a file, operating a printer, and shipping a product are distinct acts requiring attribution.

11. Is a business owner liable for an employee’s product?

Not automatically. The state must prove personal conduct or a valid legal theory for attributing another person’s act and intent.

12. Can police seize an entire store inventory?

Seizure authority depends on the warrant, probable cause, particularity, exceptions, and item-by-item facts. Property-return and forfeiture deadlines should be addressed promptly.

13. Can a city prohibit conduct state law no longer prohibits?

Section 152.205 preserves local regulation of manufacture, delivery, possession, and advertising. The particular ordinance still must be valid and proved.

14. What records should a business preserve?

Preserve design files, production records, invoices, product pages, orders, customer messages, employee schedules, video, shipping data, lawful-use materials, and the physical items. Do not alter accounts.

15. What should I do after receiving a citation or warrant?

Preserve the citation, warrant, inventory, products, records, and videos; avoid a detailed interview without counsel; identify the offense date; and obtain prompt review of the current statute, search, object definition, manufacturing act, and delivery intent.

The current offense is manufacture for delivery—not every paraphernalia-related act

The 2023 amendment changed section 152.093 in a material way. A defensible prosecution must identify intentional manufacturing, a product that meets Minnesota’s current definition, and a purpose of delivery. A headnote, store reputation, or later possession cannot replace those elements.

The defense should preserve the object and production record, document lawful uses, identify the people involved at each stage, test the search and digital attribution, and distinguish current state law from historical text and local ordinances.

That element-by-element approach is especially important when a lawful creative or commercial business is being judged through a police label rather than the full production record.

Before any resolution, counsel should compare the complaint, search materials, photographs, native digital evidence, witness accounts, and current statutory text. Small factual differences can change whether an object and the defendant’s conduct satisfy the charged provision.

Call now612-688-5418 ScheduleChoose a time