Man faces felony charges for Roseville theft, pleads guilty

On New Year’s Eve, a 25-year-old man apparently walked into a Quiznos sandwich shop and robbed the store of $310 dollars. For that, he was charged with federal crimes, including possession of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence and interference with commerce by robbery. For the firearm charge alone he could be sentenced to life in prison; for the robbery charge he will face a minimum of ten years and a maximum of 20 years. What really is at question, however, is why the man was charged under federal law.

Federal prosecutors used a law from 1946 to charge the 25-year-old. The Hobbs Act allowed for federal criminal charges for individuals suspected of armed robbery in businesses with a connection to interstate commerce. Though this answers how federal prosecutors were able to charge him under federal law, but it doesn’t explain why a federal prosecution was chosen over state criminal charges.

It seems that federal convictions do not include parole, meaning that anyone who is convicted of a federal crime will have to spend nearly his or her entire sentence in prison, even if it is clear that he or she will be of no threat to society. Federal criminal charges also come with stricter penalties that leave people locked up longer.

It may make sense to select criminal charges that will leave a violent or extremely dangerous suspect in prison for the rest of his life, but this 25-year-old doesn’t quite fit the profile. Yes, he had a sawed-off shotgun when he entered the store, but he never injured anyone. At most, he stole $464, hardly a substantial sum of money. Finally, there wasn’t even a long manhunt that exhausted considerable resources to find the man. He was arrested later that evening.

Unfortunately, this man will be spending a disproportionate amount of time behind bars what actually happened.

Source: Roseville Patch, “Man Pleads Guilty to Roseville Quiznos Robbery,” Scott Carlson, July 26, 2012

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.