Broad Terroristic Threat Laws Problematic For Minnesotans

Terrorist attacks around the world and mass shootings at home created an atmosphere where even the hint of violence cannot be ignored. Since 9/11, Minnesota enacted a series of stricter and stricter laws regarding “terroristic threats”; however, the vague and broadly defined term has become problematic for Minnesotans. What was once considered just an angry word can now be prosecuted as a felony offense that will stay with the convicted person for the rest of his or her life.

Definition

Ask a criminal defense attorney in Minnesota to define “terroristic threat”, and you’ll likely get a different answer each time. Generally speaking, a terroristic threat is any threat of violence against a person or property; or a disruption of public services. Minnesota uses a three tiered system to categorize the degree of the threat, but all three tiers are felonies.

Problems For Minnesotans

At issue for a criminal defense attorney in Minnesota is the vague nature of the law. Four areas are specifically troublesome.

  • How the threat is conveyed: In Minnesota, a threat can be anything from a verbal tirade to a written statement, but new rules allow prosecution for innuendo and body language. In those cases, the intent of the accused is less important to the courts than the perception of the person who found the action threatening.
  • Specifics of the threat: A person accused of making a terroristic threat can be convicted even when there were no specifics about the time or method of attack. So long as the threat includes mention of death, injury or damage, a threat exists.
  • Probability: The threat must be considered reasonable and viable by the person hearing it for the threat to be a crime. A 12 year old threatening to destroy the school with a tank is not going to be convicted of terroristic threats. On the other hand, an adult who makes the same claim could be held responsible, even if the possibility of that person driving a tank is remote.
  • Degree of terror: If the person hearing the threat feels terrified, the State can prosecute, even if there was no intent behind the threat.

A criminal defense attorney in Minnesota will be necessary to protect the rights and freedoms of anyone accused of making terroristic threats. The laws as so broad, and the punishments so severe, that Minnesotans shouldn’t take a risk.

Max Keller has won countless jury trial cases involving misdemeanors and felonies, sex crimes, and DWI’s. He is a member of the Minnesota Society for Criminal Justice, which only allows the top 50 criminal defense attorneys in the state as members. Max is a frequent speaker at CLE’s and is often asked for advice by other defense attorneys across Minnesota.

Years of Experience: Approx. 20 years
Minnesota Registration Status: Active
Bar & Court Admissions: State of Minnesota Minnesota State Court Minnesota Federal Court 8th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals State of Maryland

What to Do If You Have Been Charged with a Criminal Offense

The Surprising Cost of a Guilty Criminal Plea in Minnesota

Defendants in Minnesota may plead guilty or accept deals without understanding the hidden cost of a guilty criminal plea. A guilty criminal plea, regardless of how appealing it appears, can leave you dealing with substantial lifelong consequences. You may skip lengthy trial proceedings and likely get a lenient sentence, but end up with a criminal record. The record can lead to various financial and collateral consequences, including difficulty in securing employment, loss of housing rights, license revocation, and immigration issues.

What You Can Expect at a Pre-Trial Motions Hearing in Minnesota

The pre-trial motions hearing is a court session you attend after your first arraignment. At the hearing, the prosecution and defense appear before a judge to clear several details about the case before trial. These details include pre-trial motions, evidentiary queries, and constitutional matters.

Refusing Arrest vs. Resisting Arrest in Minnesota: What’s the Difference?

Highly publicized incidents of police using excessive force over the past few years have led to people wondering, “What’s the difference between refusing arrest vs. resisting arrest?” Resisting arrest in Minnesota occurs when you use force to prevent a police officer from making a lawful arrest. Refusing an arrest, on the other hand, involves statements or actions that show reluctance to cooperate with an officer’s instructions without using force.