Charged Under Minnesota’s New Doxing Law, Minn. Stat. § 609.476? A Lawyer Explains the Stakes.
You were angry. You felt wronged by the legal system, by a judge’s decision, or by a court process that seemed profoundly unfair. In a moment of frustration, you went online and posted something about the judicial official involved—maybe you shared their address, which you found online, or posted their personal phone number. You wanted to vent, to be heard, to hold someone accountable. You never imagined that a social media post or a comment on a blog could lead to criminal charges. But now, you’ve received a summons or a visit from law enforcement, and you are being charged under a new, aggressive Minnesota law aimed at what is commonly known as “doxing.”
You didn’t set out to commit a crime, but the state is now accusing you of threatening or harassing a member of the judiciary. This is not a simple disorderly conduct ticket; it’s a charge that strikes at the heart of the state’s interest in protecting its judges and court officials. Prosecutors will portray you as a malicious actor who crossed a sacred line, and they will use the full force of this new statute to make an example out of you. You might feel like your right to free speech has been trampled, or that your words have been twisted into something they were never meant to be. This is a terrifying position to be in, but you do not have to become a test case for this untested law alone. I am a Minnesota criminal defense attorney who defends clients against cutting-edge, complex charges just like this across the entire state—from Minneapolis and St. Paul to Rochester, Duluth, and their surrounding communities. I am prepared to defend your rights and challenge the state’s case at every turn.
Understanding Minnesota’s New Judicial Doxing Law
In 2024, the Minnesota Legislature enacted a new law specifically designed to combat the online harassment of judges and other court officials. This crime, formally known as Publishing Personal Information of a Judicial Official, is Minnesota’s direct response to “doxing”—the act of broadcasting private or identifying information about an individual on the internet, typically with malicious intent. The state’s position is that when this conduct is aimed at a judge, it’s not just harassment; it’s an attack on the integrity and safety of the justice system itself. A facing a § 609.476 accusation means the government believes you crossed that line.
What makes this charge so serious is that it hinges entirely on the prosecutor’s ability to prove your state of mind. They must convince a jury that when you knowingly published a judge’s private information, you did so with the specific intent to threaten, intimidate, harass, or physically injure them. This is a far cry from simply criticizing a public official or expressing outrage over a court case. The Minnesota doxing law targets the moment where online speech is alleged to have become a direct tool for menacing a judicial official. As a brand-new statute, its boundaries are still being defined, which makes a knowledgeable and aggressive defense absolutely critical.
Minnesota Law on Publishing Judicial Information — Straight from the Statute
Your case is governed by a very new and specific state law. To begin building your defense, you must first understand the precise language the prosecutor will use against you. The definitions of who is protected and what information is restricted are found in a related statute, adding a layer of complexity to the case.
The controlling law is Minnesota Statutes § 609.476. It states:
Subdivision 1. Definitions. For the purposes of this section, the terms “personal information” and “judicial official” have the meanings given in section 480.40, subdivision 1.
Subd. 2. Misdemeanor. It is unlawful to knowingly publish the personal information of any judicial official in any publicly available publication, website, or media with the intent to threaten, intimidate, harass, or physically injure. A person convicted of violating this subdivision is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Subd. 3. Felony. If a person’s violation of subdivision 2 also causes bodily harm as defined in section 609.02, subdivision 7, the person is guilty of a felony.
Breaking Down the Legal Elements of This Crime in Minnesota
To convict you, the prosecutor has the heavy burden of proving every single component of this statute beyond a reasonable doubt. My role is to deconstruct their case, identify the weaknesses, and raise the doubt that the law requires for an acquittal. If even one of these elements is not proven, the state’s case fails.
- Knowingly PublishingThis element focuses on your awareness. The prosecutor must prove that you were aware that you were making the information public. You cannot be convicted for an accidental post, for a technical glitch that made private information public, or for sharing a file or link without knowing it contained a judicial official’s restricted data. It requires a conscious act of publication—hitting “post,” “send,” or “share.”
- Personal Information of a Judicial OfficialThis is defined by another law, Minn. Stat. § 480.40. A “judicial official” is not just a judge; it includes judges at all levels (district, appeals, supreme court, federal), judicial referees, magistrates, and even employees of the judicial branch. “Personal information” is specifically defined as a judicial official’s residential address, their personal phone number or email, their children’s names, or the name and location of their children’s school or daycare—information that is not otherwise publicly available.
- Specific IntentThis is the most critical element and the heart of your defense. The prosecutor cannot convict you simply for posting the information. They must prove that your purpose in doing so was malicious. You must have published the information with the intent to threaten, intimidate, harass, or physically injure. Expressing anger, venting frustration, or engaging in heated political debate is not the same thing. The state must provide evidence that shows your specific goal was to menace the official.
- Resulting in Bodily Harm (for Felony Charge)To elevate the crime to a felony, the state must clear an even higher bar. They must prove that your act of publishing the information directly caused someone to suffer “bodily harm,” which is defined as physical pain, injury, illness, or any impairment of physical condition. There must be a direct, unbroken causal link between your online post and a physical injury, which is an extremely difficult standard for the prosecution to meet.
Severe Penalties for a Conviction Under Minn. Stat. § 609.476
Because this law is designed to protect the judiciary, the potential penalties are severe, even for a first-time offense. The consequences are divided into two levels based on the outcome of your alleged actions, creating a serious risk to your freedom and future.
Felony
If the state can prove that your act of publishing the information caused bodily harm to someone, you will be charged with a felony. While the statute itself does not specify a maximum sentence, a felony conviction in Minnesota is defined as any crime punishable by a year or more in prison. A conviction would expose you to a significant prison sentence determined by Minnesota’s sentencing guidelines, substantial fines, and the lifelong consequences of being a convicted felon.
Misdemeanor
For the act of publishing the information with malicious intent, even if no one is physically harmed, you will face a misdemeanor charge. A conviction for this offense carries a maximum penalty of:
- Up to 90 days in jail
- A fine of up to $1,000, or both.
While a misdemeanor is less severe than a felony, it still creates a permanent criminal record that can impact your life for years to come.
What This Charge Looks Like in Real Life — Minnesota Scenarios
This new law is untested, but it’s not hard to imagine how an aggressive prosecutor might apply it to real-world situations. You may see your own circumstances in these hypothetical examples of how doxing charges could arise in Minnesota.
The Angry Parent in a Hennepin County Custody Battle
After receiving a devastating ruling in your child custody case in a Minneapolis courtroom, you are overwhelmed with anger and a sense of injustice. You find what you believe to be the judge’s home address on a data broker website and post it to your Facebook page with the caption, “Here’s where Judge Smith lives. Maybe someone should tell her what it’s like to have her family threatened.” The state charges you with a misdemeanor, arguing your words prove an intent to intimidate.
The Rochester Political Activist
You are part of a group protesting a controversial local ordinance in Rochester. The judge who upheld the ordinance becomes a target of your group’s anger. You find a picture of the judge’s house online, repost it on X (formerly Twitter), and write, “Protestors should make their voices heard. Here’s where they can find the judge who silenced them.” A prosecutor could argue this constitutes harassment under the new statute.
The St. Paul Blogger and Leaked Data
You run a small, independent blog in St. Paul dedicated to exposing what you see as corruption in the justice system. You come across a batch of leaked public employee data that includes the personal cell phone number of a prominent judicial referee. You publish the number in an article, writing, “If you’re as outraged as I am by their latest decision, let them know.” You are charged with doxing, with the state claiming your post was an open invitation for harassment.
The Duluth Online Argument
You get into a heated argument in a Duluth community Facebook group about a local criminal case. The other person defends the magistrate’s actions. To “win” the argument, you find and post a link to a website containing the magistrate’s personal details, commenting, “You think they’re so great? Here’s all their info, go see for yourself.” Even though you didn’t create the website, by knowingly publishing the link with hostile commentary, you could be charged.
Powerful Legal Defenses Against Your Judicial Doxing Charge
Because § 609.476 is a new law, it is ripe for challenge. The government is treading on sensitive ground that bumps directly into fundamental constitutional rights. A defense against this charge isn’t just about arguing the facts—it’s about challenging the very application of the law itself and defending your right to speak freely. My approach is to attack the charge from every angle, from the factual evidence to the constitutional principles at stake.
The heart of the First Amendment is the protection of speech, especially unpopular and critical speech aimed at the government. While there are limits, such as “true threats,” the government cannot criminalize speech simply because it is offensive, angry, or makes public officials uncomfortable. I will build a defense that not only tells your side of the story but also forces the court to confront these critical constitutional questions. An aggressive defense can expose the weaknesses in the state’s case and protect you from becoming a casualty of a new and untested law.
Lack of Specific Intent
This is the central pillar of your defense. The state cannot win by simply showing you posted something. They have to prove your malicious state of mind.
- Venting or Expression of Opinion: We will argue that your post, while perhaps angry or ill-advised, was an expression of your opinion or frustration with the legal system. It was not a call to action or a deliberate attempt to place anyone in fear.
- No Evidence of Malice: The prosecution’s case on intent is often circumstantial. We will challenge them to produce actual evidence—not just assumptions—that your goal was to threaten or harass. The absence of threatening language is powerful evidence in your favor.
First Amendment and Protected Speech
This is a high-level constitutional defense that challenges the very foundation of the state’s charge.
- Not a “True Threat”: The U.S. Supreme Court has set a high bar for what constitutes a “true threat” that falls outside First Amendment protection. We will argue your speech does not meet this standard and is therefore constitutionally protected, even if it is harsh or offensive.
- Political Hyperbole: Speech about public officials and public controversies is given the highest level of protection. We can argue your post was political hyperbole—an exaggerated or emotional statement about a matter of public concern—not a literal instruction to harass.
Information Was Not “Personal” or Was Already Public
The statute’s power is limited to specific types of non-public information.
- Information Is Publicly Available: We can argue that the information you posted was already widely available through other means or was contained in public records. While the law is intended to cover this, showing that the information was not truly private can weaken the state’s claim that your intent was malicious.
- Information Not Covered by Statute: We will scrutinize the exact information you posted. If it does not fall within the narrow statutory definition of “personal information” (e.g., it was a work phone number or P.O. box), the charge is invalid.
No Causal Link to Harm (Felony Defense)
If you are facing a felony charge, the state’s burden is immense. We will aggressively attack the link between your post and any alleged injury.
- Intervening Cause: If someone was harmed, we can argue that it was due to an independent, intervening act of a third party over whom you had no control. That person is responsible for their actions, not you.
- Lack of Foreseeability: We can argue that it was not a foreseeable consequence of your online post that a person would suffer physical harm. This breaks the chain of causation required for a felony conviction.
Minnesota Judicial Doxing Law FAQs — What You Need to Know
What is “doxing” in Minnesota?
While “doxing” is a common term, the specific crime in Minnesota is “Publishing Personal Information of a Judicial Official.” It means knowingly making a judicial official’s private, personal information public with the specific intent to threaten, harass, intimidate, or injure them.
Will I go to jail for posting about a judge?
It is a serious risk. The misdemeanor charge carries up to 90 days in jail, and the felony version could result in a prison sentence. A strong legal defense is your best tool for avoiding incarceration by fighting for a dismissal, an acquittal, or a resolution that does not include jail time.
Is posting a judge’s information always a felony?
No. It is only a felony if the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your act of publishing the information directly caused someone to suffer “bodily harm”—meaning physical pain, injury, or illness. Without that proven result, the charge is a misdemeanor.
What counts as “personal information” under this law?
The law is very specific. It includes a judicial official’s home address, personal phone number, personal email address, a child’s name, or information about a child’s school or daycare. It does not include information like their work address or work phone number.
Who is considered a “judicial official”?
The definition is broad. It covers Minnesota judges at all levels (district, appeals, supreme court), retired judges, federal judges living in Minnesota, judicial referees, magistrates, and even employees of the Minnesota judicial branch.
What if I just shared a link that someone else posted?
You can still be charged. The law criminalizes the act of “knowingly publishing.” If you knew that the link you were sharing contained a judicial official’s personal information and you shared it with the intent to harass or threaten, you could be found guilty.
Is my speech protected by the First Amendment?
This is the central legal question in these cases. While the First Amendment is not absolute, it provides powerful protection for speech, especially speech critical of the government. A key part of your defense will be arguing that your speech did not rise to the level of a “true threat” and is therefore constitutionally protected.
This law is brand new. Can they really charge me under it?
Yes. The law became effective in 2024. Law enforcement and prosecutors are often eager to use new tools the legislature gives them. Being one of the first people charged under a new statute means you need a lawyer who is not afraid to challenge untested legal territory.
Do I need a lawyer for this charge in St. Cloud?
Absolutely. A charge under § 609.476 is a serious criminal matter with constitutional implications, no matter where you are in Minnesota, including St. Cloud or Stearns County. You are facing jail time and a permanent criminal record. You need an experienced defense attorney to protect your rights.
How can a prosecutor prove what my “intent” was?
They will use circumstantial evidence. This includes the specific words you used in your post, the context of the conversation, any previous statements you’ve made, and the nature of the information you shared. They will build a story to convince a jury of your malicious intent. My job is to build a more compelling story that points to your innocence.
What’s the difference between harassment and just being angry online?
The legal difference is specific intent. Being angry online involves expressing your own feelings of frustration or outrage. Legal harassment, in this context, involves acting with the purpose of causing another person to feel threatened, intimidated, or tormented. It’s the difference between “I’m so angry at this judge” and “Here is this judge’s address, someone should go scare them.”
What if the information I posted was true?
Truth is not a defense to this charge. The law does not punish you for posting false information; it punishes you for posting certain types of true private information (like a home address) with a malicious intent.
Can a judicial official sue me for money in addition to the criminal case?
Yes. The official could file a separate civil lawsuit against you for damages, such as invasion of privacy or intentional infliction of emotional distress. The criminal case and a potential civil suit are two separate legal battles you could face.
Can I be charged for criticizing a judge’s decision?
No. Criticizing a judge’s legal reasoning, their courtroom demeanor, or the outcome of a case is classic protected speech. This law does not criminalize criticism. It only criminalizes the act of publishing specific private information when it is paired with the intent to threaten, harass, or intimidate.
What is the very first thing I should do if I’m charged?
Exercise your right to remain silent and contact a criminal defense attorney immediately. Do not speak to investigators, do not try to explain your post, and do not delete anything. Anything you say or do can be used against you. Let your lawyer handle all communications.
A Conviction’s Lifelong Impact: More Than Just a Fine
The consequences of a conviction under this new law extend far beyond the sentence a judge imposes. This is a crime of intent and intimidation, and a conviction will brand you in a way that can permanently alter the course of your life.
The Mark of a “Threat” Crime on Your Record
A conviction for publishing a judicial official’s information is not like a traffic ticket or a minor property crime. It is a crime of threatening and harassing behavior. This label will show up on every background check, making it incredibly difficult to find employment in any field that requires trust, security clearance, or interaction with the public. It can create a significant barrier to careers in education, healthcare, finance, and government.
The Chilling Effect on Your Freedom of Speech
Beyond the formal penalties, a conviction can have a profound “chilling effect” on your willingness to exercise your First Amendment rights in the future. You may become fearful of speaking out on controversial issues or criticizing public officials, effectively silencing your own voice in the public square. This is a personal loss that undermines the very principles of a free and open society.
The Possibility of Crippling Civil Lawsuits
Your legal troubles may not end with the criminal case. The judicial official involved would have a strong basis to file a civil lawsuit against you seeking significant financial damages for invasion of privacy, emotional distress, and more. You could find yourself fighting a two-front war—one for your freedom in criminal court, and another for your financial survival in civil court.
The Permanent Damage to Your Digital Footprint and Reputation
In today’s world, your online reputation is everything. A criminal conviction for an internet-based crime like doxing creates a permanent, searchable record of your actions. News articles, court records, and blog posts about your case can become the first thing people see when they search your name, defining you for years to come and causing irreparable harm to your personal and professional relationships.
Why You Need a Fearless Minnesota Defense Attorney for This Charge
When you are charged under a new, constitutionally questionable statute, you cannot afford a lawyer who will simply plead you out. You need a fighter who is willing to challenge the law itself and defend your fundamental rights.
A Staunch Defender of Your First Amendment Rights
This case is about more than just a criminal statute; it’s about the line between free speech and unlawful conduct. I am passionate about defending the First Amendment rights of my clients against government overreach. I will build a defense that not only challenges the facts of your case but also raises powerful constitutional arguments, forcing the state to justify its intrusion into the realm of protected speech.
Experience Challenging New and Untested Laws
Many attorneys are hesitant to take on cases involving new or untested laws. I see it as an opportunity. A new statute has no established case law, which means we have the chance to shape its interpretation and set a precedent that protects not only you, but others in the future. I am not afraid to make novel legal arguments and challenge the prosecution to prove their case on uncharted legal ground.
Deep Understanding of Online Evidence and Intent
Proving intent in an online context is incredibly difficult. It requires a deep understanding of social media, digital forensics, and how online communication is often stripped of context. I know how to analyze digital evidence, deconstruct an online conversation, and present a compelling narrative to a jury about what your post really meant. I will use the nature of online communication to your advantage, highlighting the ambiguity and hyperbole that prosecutors often ignore.
A Modern Defense for a Modern Crime Anywhere in Minnesota
This is a 21st-century crime, and it requires a 21st-century defense. Whether you were charged in the tech-savvy suburbs of Maple Grove and Eagan or in a smaller community, the principles are the same. I provide aggressive, sophisticated legal defense to clients across the entire state of Minnesota. I am prepared to travel to any county to stand up for your rights and fight back against a charge that threatens your freedom and your future.