You’re Accused of Violating Minnesota Statute § 609.47. A Minnesota Criminal Defense Lawyer Explains What That Means for You.
Introduction
You didn’t expect this. One moment, you were trying to deal with a confusing and stressful situation involving property that was seized or held by law enforcement. The next, you’re the one in handcuffs, facing a criminal charge for Interference with Property in Official Custody. The situation likely escalated quickly, perhaps based on a misunderstanding or a moment of frustration. Now you’re staring at a charging document, and the words on the page—Minnesota Statute § 609.47—feel like a foreign language. You’re worried about what comes next: the court dates, the potential penalties, and the lasting impact of a criminal record. You feel isolated, and you’re probably thinking that the charge is deeply unfair.
These feelings are normal. This is a serious accusation that can turn your life upside down. You might have simply been trying to retrieve your own belongings from an impounded vehicle in Minneapolis, or maybe you believed you had the right to access property that was held as evidence in a case in St. Paul. The law surrounding property “in official custody” is complex and often feels unjust to the person being charged. You need someone who understands not just the law, but what you are going through.
You do not have to face this challenge alone. As a criminal defense attorney who has defended clients across the state of Minnesota—from the metro hubs of Hennepin and Ramsey Counties to the communities of Rochester, Duluth, and St. Cloud—I have seen these cases from every angle. I know how prosecutors build their arguments and, more importantly, I know how to dismantle them. Your story matters, and your rights need a vigorous defense. This isn’t just a case file to me; it’s your future. We will get through this together, starting with understanding exactly what you are up against.
What “Interference with Property in Official Custody” Actually Means in Minnesota
When you are charged with Interference with Property in Official Custody, the prosecutor is accusing you of meddling with property that the legal system has taken control over. It’s not a simple theft or vandalism charge; the core of this offense is that you allegedly interfered with property that was under the authority of law enforcement or the courts. Think of it as challenging the government’s temporary ownership or control over an item. This could be anything from a car impounded after a DWI arrest in Bloomington to a computer seized with a warrant from a home in Maple Grove.
The charge hinges on your intent. To be guilty of this crime, you must have intentionally taken, damaged, or destroyed the property. An accident is not enough. The law targets purposeful actions. Common scenarios that lead to these Minnesota interference charges include trying to remove personal items from a car that has been towed to an impound lot as part of a criminal investigation, or a family member damaging a piece of evidence they believe is incriminating. Facing a Minnesota interference accusation can be daunting because it implies you’ve disrupted the legal process itself, which is a claim that courts take very seriously.
Minnesota Law on Interference with Property — Straight from the Statute
The legal foundation for the charge you are facing is found in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 609, which covers a wide range of criminal conduct. Understanding the precise language of the law is the first step in building your defense. The statute is short, but every word has a specific legal meaning that can be challenged.
The charge comes directly from Minnesota Statute § 609.47. Here is the exact text:
609.47 INTERFERENCE WITH PROPERTY IN OFFICIAL CUSTODY.
Whoever intentionally takes, damages, or destroys any personal property held in custody by an officer or other person under process of law may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 364 days or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both.
Breaking Down the Legal Elements of Interference in Minnesota
For the state to convict you of this crime, a prosecutor must prove every single one of the following legal elements beyond a reasonable doubt. If even one element is weak or unprovable, their entire case can fall apart. This is often where I focus my energy—finding the weak link and using it to your advantage.
- IntentYour actions must have been on purpose. The prosecutor needs to show that you made a conscious decision to take, damage, or get rid of the property in question. It cannot have been an accident or a negligent act. For example, if you unknowingly bumped into a table holding evidence at a police station, causing an item to fall and break, you did not act with the required criminal intent. Your state of mind is a critical component, and proving what you were thinking is one of the highest hurdles for the prosecution.
- The ActYou must have committed one of the specific acts listed in the statute: taking, damaging, or destroying the property. “Taking” could mean physically removing it from the impound lot or evidence locker. “Damaging” could mean breaking a part of it, deleting files from a seized electronic device, or even defacing it. “Destroying” means rendering the item useless. The state must provide clear evidence that your specific conduct falls into one of these three categories. Ambiguity about what happened can be a powerful defensive tool.
- Property StatusThis is the most technical and often most contestable element. The property must have been “held in custody by an officer or other person under process of law.” This means law enforcement or another official agent must have lawfully seized it. If the seizure was illegal—for instance, if the police took your property without a valid warrant or probable cause—then it was never legally “in custody.” A procedural error by the police in Plymouth or an improperly executed warrant in Eagan could render this entire element invalid and defeat the charge against you.
Penalties for an Interference with Property Conviction in Minnesota Can Be Severe
Do not let the fact that this crime isn’t labeled as a felony fool you into complacency. A conviction under Minnesota Statute § 609.47 carries significant penalties that can disrupt your life for years to come. The state classifies this offense as a gross misdemeanor, placing it a step above a standard misdemeanor and carrying punishments that reflect its serious nature. Understanding the potential penalties for Interference with Property in Minnesota is crucial as you decide how to approach your defense.
Gross Misdemeanor Conviction
As a gross misdemeanor, a conviction for Interference with Property in Official Custody exposes you to a maximum sentence of 364 days in jail and a fine of up to $3,000. While a judge has discretion, the possibility of spending nearly a year behind bars is very real. In addition to jail time and fines, a judge can order you to serve a period of probation, during which you must comply with strict conditions. These could include regular check-ins with a probation officer, random testing, and being barred from certain locations or people. Any violation of these terms could land you in jail to serve out the remainder of your sentence.
What Interference with Property Looks Like in Real Life — Common Scenarios in Minnesota
This charge can arise from various situations where a person’s frustration or misunderstanding of the law collides with police procedure. It rarely happens in a vacuum; it’s almost always the result of another stressful legal event, like an arrest or investigation. These are not just abstract legal theories—they are real-life events that happen to people across Minnesota.
You might see yourself in one of these common scenarios. Recognizing the context of your charge is the first step toward building a defense that tells your side of the story.
The Impound Lot Confrontation
Imagine your car was towed after a traffic stop in downtown Minneapolis and is now sitting in an impound lot. The police have placed an “evidence hold” on it. You desperately need your work tools, laptop, or your child’s car seat from the back. You go to the lot, and the attendant refuses to let you access the vehicle. In a moment of desperation, you use a spare key to open the trunk and retrieve your belongings. You have now potentially committed this offense because the car was under a legal hold, and you intentionally took property from it.
A Dispute Over Seized Evidence
Following a police search of your home in Rochester, officers seize several items under a warrant, including your son’s computer. You believe the computer contains evidence that will wrongly implicate him. Fearing the police will misinterpret the data, you go to the police station and demand the computer back. When they refuse, an argument ensues, and in the heat of the moment, you grab the laptop from the counter and attempt to leave. This act of taking property held under the authority of a search warrant fits the description of the crime.
The Repossession That Goes Wrong
A sheriff’s deputy arrives at your small business in St. Cloud to oversee the lawful repossession of a piece of leased equipment. You believe the repossession is unjust and based on a contractual misunderstanding. As the repossession agent begins to move the equipment, you stand in the way and then disable a part of the machine, rendering it immobile. Because the deputy was there “under process of law” to facilitate the seizure, your act of intentionally damaging the property to prevent its removal could lead to an interference charge.
Aftermath of a Duluth Protest
You were part of a protest in Duluth where tensions ran high. After the crowd disperses, police cordon off an area to collect evidence, including signs, damaged objects, and other items left behind. You see an officer place a friend’s backpack, which was left behind, into a collection bin. Believing the contents could be used against your friend, you slip past the police line, grab the backpack, and run. Even if your motive was to protect a friend, you intentionally took property that was in the process of being secured by law enforcement.
Legal Defenses That Might Work Against Your Interference Charge
An accusation is not a conviction. The prosecution carries the full burden of proving its case, and my job is to show the judge or jury that they cannot meet that burden. When you are facing an Interference with Property charge in Minnesota, there are powerful defense strategies that can be used to protect your freedom and your future. We will not simply accept the police report at face value. We will conduct our own investigation, scrutinize every piece of evidence, and identify the weaknesses in the state’s case.
Your defense must be tailored to the unique facts of your situation. Whether your case involves an impound lot in Brooklyn Park or an evidence room in Plymouth, the core principles of a strong defense remain the same: challenging the state’s evidence and presenting your side of the story in a clear and compelling way. It is about demonstrating that your actions were not criminal, whether because you lacked intent, the police overstepped their authority, or you were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Challenging Your Intent
The cornerstone of this offense is that you acted intentionally. If we can introduce reasonable doubt about your state of mind, the charge cannot stand.
- Accidental Damage or Taking: Perhaps you were speaking with an officer about the seized property and gesturing with your hands, accidentally knocking the item to the floor and damaging it. Or maybe you took the wrong coat from an evidence area, believing it was yours. We would gather evidence and witness testimony to show your actions were a mistake, not a deliberate criminal act.
- Lack of Knowledge: You may not have known the property was under a legal hold. If there were no signs, no official notice, or no verbal warning from an officer, we can argue you had no reason to believe you couldn’t touch or take the item. A reasonable person cannot be expected to know property is “in custody” if there is no clear indication.
Arguing the Property Was Not in “Official Custody”
This defense attacks the technical foundation of the charge. If the property wasn’t legally in police custody, there can be no crime of interfering with it.
- Illegal Seizure: We will scrutinize the “process of law” used by the police. Was the search warrant that allowed them to take your property valid? Was it properly signed by a judge? Did the police exceed the scope of the warrant? If the initial seizure was unconstitutional, any subsequent charge related to that seizure is fruit of the poisonous tree and should be dismissed.
- Custody Was Released: Sometimes, miscommunication occurs. We may be able to show that you had a good-faith reason to believe the hold on the property was lifted. For example, if a clerk at the impound lot mistakenly told you that you were cleared to take your belongings, your actions were based on that information, not on an intent to break the law.
Mistake of Fact
This defense asserts that you were operating under a reasonable but incorrect belief about the facts of the situation.
- Belief of Ownership and Right: You genuinely believed the property was yours to take and that the legal process was complete. For example, if a court ordered property to be returned to you, but there was a delay in processing the paperwork, you may have acted on the belief that your right to the property was already restored. Your honest mistake negates the criminal mindset required for a conviction.
Misidentification or False Accusation
In chaotic situations, witnesses and even police can make mistakes about who did what.
- You Weren’t the One: We can argue that you have been misidentified as the person who interfered with the property. This is common in group settings like protests or multi-person arrests. We would search for surveillance footage, social media videos, and other witnesses to prove you were elsewhere or that someone else was the true culprit.
- Ulterior Motives: In some cases, an accuser may have a reason to lie. A disgruntled ex-spouse, a business partner in a dispute, or another individual could falsely claim you damaged property held in custody to gain an advantage in another legal proceeding. We would work to expose these motives to undermine the credibility of the accusation.
Minnesota Interference with Property FAQs — What You Need to Know Now
Is Interference with Property in Official Custody a felony in Minnesota?
No. Under Minnesota Statute § 609.47, this crime is classified as a gross misdemeanor. While it is a serious charge, it is less severe than a felony.
Will I definitely go to jail if convicted of this crime in Minnesota?
Not necessarily. The maximum penalty is 364 days in jail, but a judge has wide discretion. Factors like your criminal history, the specifics of the incident, and the quality of your legal defense can influence the outcome. An effective attorney can argue for alternatives like probation, community service, or a fine instead of jail time.
Can a charge for Interference with Property be dismissed?
Yes. A dismissal is one of the best possible outcomes. This can happen if your attorney successfully argues that the initial seizure of the property was illegal, that there is insufficient evidence to prove you acted intentionally, or negotiates a dismissal with the prosecutor, sometimes in exchange for completing certain conditions.
What does “under process of law” actually mean?
This legal phrase means the property was seized or is being held through a formal legal procedure. This includes items taken with a search warrant, property seized at the time of an arrest, a vehicle impounded as evidence, or assets being repossessed by a sheriff under a court order.
Do I really need a lawyer for a gross misdemeanor charge in Minneapolis or St. Paul?
Absolutely. A gross misdemeanor carries the potential for significant jail time, a substantial fine, and a permanent criminal record that can affect your job and housing prospects. The legal systems in Hennepin and Ramsey counties are complex. An experienced lawyer knows the local prosecutors and judges and can navigate the system to protect your rights and achieve a much better result than you could on your own.
How does this charge differ from Theft or Vandalism?
The key difference is the status of the property. Theft or vandalism applies to anyone’s property. Interference with Property in Official Custody specifically involves property that is under the legal control of the government. This makes it an offense against the justice system itself, which is why it’s treated so seriously.
What if I was just trying to get my own belongings back?
This is a common scenario, but unfortunately, it is not a legal defense on its own. Once property is lawfully in police custody, even if you are the rightful owner, you lose the right to access it until you are legally permitted to do so. However, your motive can be a powerful mitigating factor that a skilled attorney can use in negotiations.
Can this charge ever be removed from my record in Minnesota?
Yes, it’s possible. Minnesota law allows for the expungement of many criminal records, including gross misdemeanors. If your case is dismissed, or if you are convicted and complete your sentence, you may be eligible to petition the court for an expungement after a certain waiting period. This process legally seals the record from public view.
How long will a case like this take to resolve in Minnesota?
The timeline can vary greatly depending on the county, the complexity of the case, and the court’s schedule. A straightforward case might resolve in a few months, while a more complex case that proceeds to trial could take a year or longer.
Will a conviction for this affect my ability to own a gun?
This is a critical question. While this offense is a gross misdemeanor, it is not currently defined as a “crime of violence” under Minnesota law. Therefore, a conviction should not, by itself, result in a lifetime ban on possessing firearms as a felony would. However, a judge could make “no firearm possession” a condition of your probation.
What happens at my first court appearance, or arraignment?
At your arraignment, the judge will formally read the charge against you, and you will be asked to enter a plea (usually “not guilty” at this stage). The judge will also set conditions of your release, which could include posting bail or agreeing to certain rules while the case is pending. Having an attorney with you is crucial to argue for the least restrictive release conditions possible.
What should I do if police want to question me about the incident?
You should politely decline to answer any questions and state clearly, “I am going to remain silent, and I would like to speak with a lawyer.” This is your constitutional right. Anything you say can and will be used against you, even if you believe you are explaining your innocence.
Can I be charged if I didn’t even touch the property?
It’s possible, though much harder for the state to prove. If you instructed, encouraged, or hired someone else to intentionally take or damage the property, you could be charged as an accomplice under Minnesota law.
Does this charge apply to property being seized for back taxes?
Yes. If a government agent, such as from the Minnesota Department of Revenue, is lawfully seizing property “under process of law” to satisfy a tax debt, interfering with that seizure could lead to this charge.
How can an attorney start helping me right away?
An attorney can immediately contact the prosecutor to get their side of the story, demand all evidence (police reports, videos, witness statements), and begin building your defense. Early intervention can sometimes prevent charges from being filed or lead to a quick and favorable resolution.
What an Interference with Property Conviction Could Mean for the Rest of Your Life
A conviction for a gross misdemeanor is a permanent mark on your public record, and the consequences extend far beyond the courtroom. It can create barriers in nearly every aspect of your life, closing doors that were once open and making it harder to move forward. Understanding these life-altering consequences is essential.
A Permanent Criminal Record
First and foremost, a conviction creates a criminal record that is visible to anyone who runs a background check. In today’s digital world, this means potential employers, landlords, and loan officers will see it. Many companies have policies against hiring individuals with convictions, especially for offenses that suggest a disregard for rules and authority. You could be automatically disqualified from jobs in finance, education, healthcare, or government, regardless of your qualifications.
Impact on Housing and Education
Landlords frequently run background checks on prospective tenants. A gross misdemeanor conviction can be a red flag, leading to your rental application being denied. Securing safe and affordable housing for yourself and your family can become a significant struggle. Similarly, if you plan to pursue higher education, some colleges and universities ask about criminal history on their applications, and a conviction could impact your admission or your ability to receive certain types of financial aid.
Professional Licensing Issues
If you hold a professional license (e.g., nurse, teacher, real estate agent) or are in a profession that requires a “good moral character” finding (like law), a conviction for Interference with Property can be devastating. You may be required to report the conviction to your licensing board, which could trigger a disciplinary investigation, suspension, or even revocation of the license you worked so hard to earn.
Future Legal Consequences
A conviction on your record can make any future encounter with the law far more severe. Prosecutors and judges will see your prior offense and will be less likely to show leniency. A gross misdemeanor can be used to “enhance” the penalties for certain future offenses, meaning you could face harsher sentences down the road for unrelated matters. The conviction follows you, creating a cycle that is difficult to break.
Why You Need a Tough, Experienced Minnesota Interference with Property Attorney
When the state of Minnesota brings its resources to bear against you, you cannot afford to stand alone. A public defender may be juggling hundreds of cases, but a dedicated private attorney works for you and you alone. Your future is my priority. Fighting a charge like Interference with Property in Official Custody requires a proactive, aggressive, and strategic approach from the very beginning.
I Understand the Local Minnesota Courts
Success in criminal defense isn’t just about knowing the law; it’s about knowing the landscape. I have represented clients in courtrooms across Minnesota, from the Hennepin County Government Center in Minneapolis to the Ramsey County Courthouse in St. Paul, and in jurisdictions like Olmsted (Rochester), St. Louis (Duluth), and Stearns (St. Cloud). I understand the tendencies of local prosecutors and the expectations of the judges. This insider’s perspective allows me to tailor a defense strategy that is most likely to succeed in the specific court where your case will be heard, an advantage you cannot get from someone unfamiliar with the local players.
Every Second Counts: The Power of Immediate Action
The most critical window in a criminal case is often the first 48 hours. By taking swift action, I can get ahead of the prosecution. This means immediately preserving crucial evidence like surveillance video from an impound lot before it’s erased, identifying and interviewing favorable witnesses while their memories are fresh, and opening a line of communication with the prosecutor before they become entrenched in their position. In some cases, this rapid intervention can convince a prosecutor to file a lesser charge or even decline to file charges altogether. You cannot wait and hope for the best; we must act now.
Building a Defense Designed to Win
My approach is not to simply manage the damage; it is to dismantle the state’s case piece by piece. I will start by filing a demand for all the evidence the state has against you—the police reports, body camera footage, search warrants, and witness statements. Then, I will meticulously review every detail, looking for police mistakes, constitutional violations, and factual inconsistencies. Was the seizure of the property lawful? Can the prosecutor truly prove your intent beyond a reasonable doubt? By challenging the very foundation of their case, we create the leverage needed to negotiate a dismissal, secure a favorable plea agreement, or win an acquittal at trial.
Focused on Achieving the Best Possible Result for You
You are not a case number. You are a person whose life and liberty are on the line. My single-minded focus is on achieving the best possible outcome for you. For one client, that might mean getting the charges completely dismissed. for another, it might mean negotiating a resolution that avoids jail time and keeps the conviction off their permanent record through a diversion program or a stay of adjudication. For another still, it means taking the fight to a jury and demanding a verdict of “not guilty.” Whatever the path, I will provide you with clear, honest counsel and fight tirelessly to protect your rights, your reputation, and your future.