Cars can be ‘dangerous weapons,’ Minnesota high court rules

ST. PAUL, Minn. (CN) — The Minnesota Supreme Court determined Wednesday that cars driven recklessly can be considered dangerous weapons under the state’s criminal code.

Justice Anne McKeig penned the court’s opinion affirming the Minnesota Court of Appeals’ restoration of second-degree riot charges against Ayyoob Dawood Abdus-Salam, who promoted two intersection “takeover” events in spring of 2022.

At the events, drivers and a crowd would block off an intersection in Minneapolis, then spun donuts in their cars to show off the cars and the drivers’ skill. Both takeovers were filmed, and in one, a driver can be seen striking an observer with his car and sending him flying through the air to land head- or back-first on the pavement.

For McKeig and the court, that man’s injury — which was never confirmed — was one of a few factors in determining whether the drivers’ use of the cars was “likely to cause death or great bodily harm,” and therefore made the cars dangerous weapons and sufficient to support second-degree riot charges, which require that a defendant either be armed with a dangerous weapon during a riot or knows that another participant is so armed.

The high court jettisoned more stringent criteria proposed by Abdus-Salam’s attorney, Drake Metzger.

At oral arguments in October, Metzger argued that the “likely” prong should be construed to mean “highly probable” or “very probable.” Since the cars were not intentionally driven toward onlookers, and passengers hanging from the sides of the vehicles were not at risk of flying out of them, their drivers lacked the required intent for their cars to be dangerous weapons.

McKeig gave little credence to that idea.

“When determining there was no probable cause that the vehicles were dangerous weapons, the [district] court found the vehicles ‘were not used in a manner calculated to cause great bodily harm’ because no evidence suggested they were intentionally driven toward anyone,” she wrote.

“But the district court’s findings ignore half of the manner-of-use definition of ‘dangerous weapon’—that it is ‘calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm.’”

As such, she found, the lower court’s dismissal of charges against Abdus-Salam for lack of probable cause was premature.

“Only one correlating factual situation is required to transform an ordinary object into a dangerous weapon—whether the object was used in a manner 1) calculated to produce death or great bodily harm; or 2) likely to produce death or great bodily harm,” McKeig continued. “It is clear from the discussion that the court did not analyze the ‘likely’ prong.” (Emphasis in original.)

Metzger told Courthouse News that he was disappointed with the high court's decision, but that the state was still far from a conviction. "In my opinion, the state is trying to shoehorn this into a different category than it should be. It's a disappointing opinion, but this is kind of an early stage," he said.

"There's still a lot left before the case is over," Metzger added. "We still have a trial, and you know, I'm confident that we can still win at trial."

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Email *

Submit