Minneapolis Criminal Defense Law Blog

Many people in Minneapolis and St. Paul may be wondering what changes a new medical marijuana bill could have on the criminal justice system if it becomes law next year, including how drug offenses will be prosecuted. With many states passing medical marijuana laws of their own, there may be concerns about being wrongfully charged with or convicted of drug crimes.

What would happen, for example, if the law was not explicitly clear about who could grow and manufacture medical marijuana? What if there was room for interpretation on who was able to sell marijuana to individuals with a prescription? What if it was unclear what, if anything, someone with a prescription for medical marijuana needed to have on his or her person when using their medicine?

Earlier today, the former financial director of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis pled guilty to embezzling $670,000. The 51-year-old was in Ramsey County court to admit to three counts of felony theft-by-swindle.

We first brought you this story about the former financial director in March 2012. At that point in time he had been fired and was under suspicion of embezzlement, but he had not been formally charged. In fact, he was merely being investigated by the Archdiocese, not by police, although the Archdiocese did turn over all of its findings to police, leading to the charges of theft-by-swindle.

While our blog has talked extensively about how important it is for Minneapolis and St. Paul residents charged with a crime to seek out the help of an experienced criminal defense lawyer, the following story shows just what can go wrong if you do not ask for a lawyer immediately after being arrested. Though the story does not happen in Minnesota, it is important reminder that it is essential to understand your rights and the legal ramifications of talking to police.

In 1996, a man was arrested on a charge of attempted murder after his wife sustained serious injuries in a violent assault. The man was quickly convicted of attempted murder and sent to prison, and it wasn't until 2005 that he was released based on another's confession. In 2003, another man admitted that it was he who found himself in the family's apartment and clubbed the woman with a hammer.

It's difficult to argue against the fact that heroin is an extremely destructive drug. It's highly addictive, comes cheaper than most abused prescription drugs and has destroyed countless lives. It's also deadly; in the Twin Cities alone, 120 people died in 2011 from heroin overdoses.

But the choice to use heroin or any other illegal drug is a personal one. We hear of very few accounts where people have been forced against their will to use heroin. Even in cases where one person encourages another, the user ultimately makes the choice to try it for the first or subsequent times.

Today the United States Supreme Court decided the DWI case of McNeely v. Missouri. We have previously blogged on this case several times. In summary, the high Court said that police cannot take a DWI blood sample from a driver without his consent where they also did not have a warrant. This means that Warrantless DWI Tests are unconstitutional, illegal, and should not be allowed. Thus any DUI/DWI test evidence gathered without a warrant should be tossed out by a Judge.

  Because the police in the Missouri case did NOT have a warrant, and didn't even try to get one, AND because the driver refused to consent to testing, the Supreme Court ruled that the driver's Fourth Amendment rights were violated. Therefore the results of the DUI/DWI blood test, and the criminal charge based on it, were tossed out, or suppressed and dismissed, by the U.S. Supreme Court.

  This case means that, since Warrantless DWI testing has now been declared illegal by the highest court in the land, overruling prior Minnesota cases, the theoretical underpinnings of all of Minnesota DWI criminal laws and implied consent laws are ALL gone.  This includes the bizarre "crime" of DWI test refusal, which only exists in Minnesota and a few other states. 

   Minnesota DWI Attorney Max A. Keller, and other leading criminal defense attorneys, are still digesting & sifting through his far-reaching case which has obliterated Minnesota's criminal DWI and implied consent pre-conviction driver's licsense case law. So, for a more in-depth analysis, check back here later.  In the meantime, you may want to read this analysis by a leading national commentator on the SCOTUS website. 

Last week we talked about the damage that comes with someone being forced to register as a sex offender while still a child. There are numerous issues that arise when someone finds out about a former offender's status, both for children and adults, making it very important that only the most dangerous people be added to the Minnesota Sex Offender Registry. Unfortunately, there are a variety of people who are added each year, many of whom pose no threat to the communities in which they live.

Fortunately for Minnesotans, however, there are no extreme sex offender registration laws in the state. There are a few locations across the country that are really sparking the debate on how much notification is too much.

Many people in St. Paul would be shocked to read a story about a brother touching his sister's genetalia. The idea of such behavior is hard for many people to process, but imagine if it was an 11 year old touching his sister. While this is still questionable behavior, many people may wish to use the incident as a teachable moment about appropriate boundaries. Unfortunately for the then-11 year old, he was charged with and convicted of sexual misconduct.

Beyond the criminal charges and the punishment, what has been the most devasting aspect of this ordeal has been his spot on the sex offender registry. Now 26 years old, the young man has never been able to escape from that one mistake. He was forced into foster care because he could no longer live in a home with children. When he turned 18 his status on the registry was made public. When he tried to go to college, he was the constant focus of police attention. 

Recently, a decision issued by the U.S. Supreme Court delved into the question of when mandatory deportation should be required for legal residents who are convicted of a drug crime.

The individual at the center of the case had lived in the United States since he was just three years old. He came to this country in 1984 with his parents. Throughout the time he lived in the U.S., he was a legal resident. Then, in 2007, the man was stopped by a law enforcement officer in Georgia. The officer conducted a search of his vehicle, which uncovered a small quantity of marijuana. The amount of marijuana found could have made just two to three cigarettes.