In a case that challenged the constitutionality of a Minnesota law regulating minnow transport, a Freeborn County judge ruled that the state’s regulations on minnows are not an improper restriction on interstate commerce, but are wildlife protection measures that were properly enforced when a shipment of South Dakota minnows was seized and the driver arrested in September of 2000.

Defendant Gary Kolla, a driver for Akron Wholesale Live Bait in Ohio, was on his way to Ohio on Interstate 90 when he was arrested by a Department of Natural Resources (DNR) officer in Freeborn County. He was transporting minnows purchased at South Dakota aquatic farms and a minnow dealer in Hayward without a proper license. His truck was impounded, and the Ohio employer had to pay $28,800 to bail out the driver and truck.

In his defense, Kolla argued that the Minnesota laws violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, discriminating against non-Minnesotan minnow dealers.

State laws require a permit valid for 12 hours, free of charge, for the transport of minnows through Minnesota. They also require an out-of-state dealer to have an export permit that costs $675 and is allowed for only one truck, while a Minnesota dealer pays $350 with no limit on the number of trucks.

Defense attorney William Peterson said in a post-trial brief, &uot;’Interstate Highway’ means little if a state can ignore the Commerce Clause and control the flow of interstate commerce on it.&uot; He pointed out the state laws are unconstitutional, being enacted for protecting local minnow dealers from their rivals outside the state.

Assistant County Attorney Karyn McBride defended the laws, arguing, &uot;The state has chosen the least-restrictive means available to achieve their legitimate goal and concern, which is to protect the waters and wildlife.&uot;

The regulations, the state says, derive from concerns that disease pathogens and exotic species could be hiding in a shoal of minnows, which may devastate fisheries.

The verdict by Judge James Broberg, attached with a 47-page memorandum, upheld the McBride position, interpreting the general purpose of the law as the wildlife preservation, not economic protectionism.

&uot;While distinct from importation, the state has a similar &045; and similarly legitimate &045; interest in being aware of significant amounts of minnows from waters not regulated by Minnesota standards when said minnows are purported to be ‘passing through’ the state,&uot; Judge Broberg said. &uot;As the facts of this case illustrate, sometimes such minnows end up spending far more than 12 hours in Minnesota, logically increasing the chances of them winding up in Minnesota waters.&uot;

In regard to the exports, Judge Broberg recognized the state law has been modified enough to abide by the U.S. Constitution, and said, &uot;The mere fact that the aquaculture industry would prefer less regulation by the state does not make the regulations enacted by any particular state, be it Minnesota or any other, unconstitutional.&uot;

According to the DNR, the minnow industry in the state involves 1,800 businesses, generating $42 million a year, and expenditures on sport fishing account for $1.9 billion annually.

Kolla also contended that the minnows in this case were raised in aquatic farms and should be outside of regulations as a law defines. But, the court determined the way they cultivate the minnows in South Dakota is very likely not to be classified as an aquatic farm as defined in Minnesota law.