Former police lieutenant convicted of theft and forgery charges

A former Minneapolis police lieutenant was convicted in December on one charge of theft by swindle and four charges of forgery stemming from an incident that happened three years ago. She will be sentenced Feb. 5.

The Hennepin County attorney reportedly said in a release that, although the amount of money was not large, “no one is above the law.”

It is clear that Hennepin County is committed to holding law enforcement officers accountable for their actions, just as everyone else should be held accountable. But is this officer being held to the same standards as everyone else, or being treated more harshly because of her position in law enforcement?

The amount of money in question is $1,500, which the officer returned a short time after a coworker said she had withdrawn the money from the 2010 International Association of Women’s Police Conference’s checking account — an account which she had control over. When she came back from vacation, her supervisor asked her about the suspected withdrawal and the officer redeposited the money.

Charges against the officer originally were filed in 2010, but a judge dismissed the case against her, reportedly because, under employment law, the conversations the officer’s supervisor had with her violated her rights. The county attorney’s office successfully appealed that decision, and charges were refiled.

The county attorney admitted the amount in question is small, and it was returned.

If the charges were against a citizen, someone not connected with law enforcement, would the attorney have taken the same steps to appeal and refile charges against a regular citizen, all for $1,500?

Source: Star Tribune, “Former Mpls. police officer convicted of theft and forgery,” Nicole Norfleet, Dec. 18, 2012

Learn more about theft crimes in Minneapolis by visiting our website.

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

How a DWI Affects CDL Holders in Minnesota

Commercial motor vehicle drivers arrested or charged with driving while impaired (DWI) may need to know how a DWI affects CDL holders in Minnesota. You will lose your Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) for at least a year if you are convicted of DWI for the first time, and forever after a second conviction. The consequences go beyond the immediate legal implications of a DWI conviction. A CDL suspension or revocation will lead to job loss, difficulty finding employment, and serious financial challenges.

How a DWI Affects Rideshare Drivers in Minnesota

Knowing how a DWI affects rideshare drivers in Minnesota allows you to take the right steps to protect your license and livelihood. A DWI conviction will lead to suspension or cancellation of your driver’s license. Once you lose your license, you will be ineligible for a work permit required to work for rideshare companies as a driver. You may also face jail time, fines, or ignition interlock device (IID) installation, depending on the seriousness and number of related offenses on your record.

Can Police Search Your Phone Without a Warrant in Minnesota?

People under criminal investigation or whose phones have been seized by law enforcement officers may ask, “Can police search your phone without a warrant in Minnesota?” It’s illegal for police to search your phone without a warrant. However, there are exceptions to the warrant requirement. These exceptions include when you consent to the search, someone’s life is in danger, or there is an immediate risk of evidence destruction.