MN False Imprisonment Attorney | 609.255 Defense Lawyer

Charged With False Imprisonment? A Minnesota Attorney Breaks Down What You’re Facing Under Statute 609.255

You’re in a tough spot. A charge of False Imprisonment in Minnesota isn’t something anyone plans for, and right now, you’re likely overwhelmed, confused, and worried about your future. You might feel like the situation has been blown out of proportion, that there’s been a misunderstanding, or that you’ve been unfairly accused. These are serious accusations, carrying the weight of potential jail time, significant fines, and a criminal record that can follow you for years, impacting your job, your housing, and even your relationships. You might be scrolling through pages online, searching for answers, trying to understand what this means for you in places like Minneapolis, St. Paul, Rochester, or even smaller communities across Minnesota.

The legal system can be intimidating, and the language used by prosecutors and in statutes can feel like a foreign language. You’re probably wondering what this means, practically speaking. What does the state need to prove? What are your rights? What are your options? It’s natural to feel isolated, but it’s crucial to remember that you don’t have to face this storm alone. As a dedicated Minnesota criminal defense attorney, I’ve guided many individuals through the complexities of false imprisonment charges, from the initial arrest or summons to the final resolution. I understand the nuances of Minnesota law and how these cases are prosecuted in Hennepin County, Ramsey County, Olmsted County, St. Louis County, and throughout the state. My focus is on protecting your rights, fighting for your freedom, and ensuring your side of the story is heard. We’ll navigate this together, step by step.

Unpacking the Accusation: What False Imprisonment Actually Means in Minnesota

When you’re facing a “False Imprisonment” charge in Minnesota, it’s crucial to understand what the prosecution is alleging. It’s not just about locking someone in a room, though that can certainly be a form of it. At its core, false imprisonment involves unlawfully restricting a person’s freedom of movement against their will. For adults, this means confining or restraining them without their consent and without legal authority. You might be looking at “Minnesota False Imprisonment charges” because of a domestic dispute that escalated, a misunderstanding during an argument where someone felt unable to leave, or even an accusation arising from a complex situation involving the care of a child.

The law also has a specific section addressing the “unreasonable restraint of children.” This applies to parents, legal guardians, or caretakers and involves subjecting a child under 18 to unreasonable physical confinement or restraint. Think of situations that go far beyond normal parental discipline – actions like tying, caging, or locking up a child for a prolonged period in a cruel manner. Facing a “False Imprisonment accusation” can stem from a wide array of scenarios, each with its unique set of circumstances and intentions, or lack thereof. Understanding these distinctions is the first step in building your defense across cities like Duluth, Bloomington, or St. Cloud.

Minnesota Law on False Imprisonment — Straight from the Statute

The offense of False Imprisonment is specifically defined under Minnesota law. The primary statute you’ll be dealing with is Minnesota Statute § 609.255. This law outlines what constitutes the crime, including different ways it can be committed and the varying degrees of severity.

Here is the exact language of Minnesota Statute § 609.255 FALSE IMPRISONMENT:

Subdivision 1.Definition. As used in this section, the following term has the meaning given it unless specific content indicates otherwise.

“Caretaker” means an individual who has responsibility for the care of a child as a result of a family relationship, or who has assumed responsibility for all or a portion of the care of a child.

Subd. 2.Intentional restraint. Whoever, knowingly lacking lawful authority to do so, intentionally confines or restrains someone else’s child under the age of 18 years without consent of the child’s parent or legal custodian, or any other person without the person’s consent, is guilty of false imprisonment and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than three years or to payment of a fine of not more than $5,000, or both.

Subd. 3.Unreasonable restraint of children. (a) A parent, legal guardian, or caretaker who intentionally subjects a child under the age of 18 years to unreasonable physical confinement or restraint by means including but not limited to, tying, locking, caging, or chaining for a prolonged period of time and in a cruel manner which is excessive under the circumstances, is guilty of unreasonable restraint of a child and, except as provided in paragraph (b) or (c), 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.

(b) If the confinement or restraint results in demonstrable bodily harm, the person may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than two years or to payment of a fine of not more than $4,000, or both.

(c) If the confinement or restraint results in substantial bodily harm, the person may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.

Understanding this statute is the first step in understanding the charges against you in places like Brooklyn Park, Plymouth, or Maple Grove.

Breaking Down the Legal Elements of False Imprisonment in Minnesota

For the prosecution to secure a conviction for False Imprisonment in Minnesota, they must prove specific elements beyond a reasonable doubt. These elements differ slightly depending on whether you’re charged under Subdivision 2 (Intentional Restraint) or Subdivision 3 (Unreasonable Restraint of Children). Understanding these components is critical because if even one element isn’t proven, the case against you can falter. We will scrutinize every piece of evidence the state presents to see if it truly meets these exacting legal standards.

Here’s a breakdown:

Act of Confinement or Restraint: The prosecution must demonstrate that you actually confined or restrained the alleged victim. This doesn’t necessarily mean physical force; it can include threats, intimidation, or creating a barrier that prevents someone from leaving. For example, blocking a doorway during a heated argument in your Eagan home or taking someone’s keys to prevent them from driving away could be considered acts of restraint. The restraint must be against the person’s will, meaning they did not consent to it.
Intent (Mens Rea): For “Intentional Restraint” (Subd. 2), the state must prove you intentionally confined or restrained the person. This means it was your conscious objective to do so. For “Unreasonable Restraint of Children” (Subd. 3), it also requires intentional subjection to unreasonable physical confinement. Accidental or unintentional confinement, while potentially problematic in other ways, wouldn’t typically meet the criminal threshold for this element of false imprisonment. Proving your state of mind at the time is often a key battleground in these cases.
Knowledge of Lacking Lawful Authority (for Subd. 2): Under Subdivision 2, a crucial element is that you acted “knowingly lacking lawful authority.” This means you knew, or should have reasonably known, that you had no legal right to confine or restrain the person. For example, a shopkeeper detaining a suspected shoplifter might have lawful authority under certain specific conditions (merchant’s privilege), but exceeding those conditions could negate this authority. This element is vital because it separates criminal acts from legitimate actions by, for example, law enforcement.
Victim’s Status (Child or Other Person): Subdivision 2 applies to restraining “someone else’s child under the age of 18 years without consent of the child’s parent or legal custodian, or any other person without the person’s consent.” This means the victim can be an adult who doesn’t consent, or a child where parental/custodial consent is absent. The identity and age of the alleged victim, and the presence or absence of appropriate consent, are therefore critical factual elements.
Identity of Accused (Parent, Guardian, Caretaker for Subd. 3): Subdivision 3 specifically applies to a “parent, legal guardian, or caretaker.” The statute defines a “caretaker” as someone with responsibility for a child’s care due to family relationship or who has assumed such responsibility. If you do not fall into one of these categories, a charge under Subdivision 3 would be inappropriate, though other charges might still apply. This is a key distinguishing factor for charges involving the restraint of children.
Nature of Restraint (Unreasonable – for Subd. 3): For Unreasonable Restraint of Children (Subd. 3), the confinement must be “unreasonable” and by means such as “tying, locking, caging, or chaining for a prolonged period of time and in a cruel manner which is excessive under the circumstances.” This sets a high bar, distinguishing lawful, reasonable parental discipline from criminal conduct. What is “unreasonable,” “prolonged,” or “cruel” can be subjective and heavily fact-dependent, often requiring strong argument.

Penalties for a False Imprisonment Conviction in Minnesota Can Be Severe

A conviction for False Imprisonment in Minnesota is not a minor issue; it carries significant penalties that can drastically alter your life. The specific consequences depend on the subdivision you’re charged under and whether aggravating factors, like harm to a child, are present. These “penalties for false imprisonment in Minnesota” are serious, and understanding the potential “Minnesota sentencing for false imprisonment” is crucial as you prepare your defense, whether your case is in Hennepin County, Ramsey County, or anywhere else in the state.

Intentional Restraint (Minnesota Statute § 609.255, Subd. 2)

If you are convicted of intentionally confining or restraining another person (or someone else’s child without parental consent) without lawful authority, this is generally charged as a felony.

Maximum Imprisonment: Up to 3 years in prison.
Maximum Fine: Up to $5,000.
Other Consequences: A felony conviction also means the loss of civil rights, such as the right to vote or possess firearms, and a criminal record that impacts employment and housing.

Unreasonable Restraint of Children (Minnesota Statute § 609.255, Subd. 3(a))

If you are a parent, legal guardian, or caretaker convicted of unreasonably confining or restraining a child in a cruel manner that is excessive under the circumstances, but without demonstrable bodily harm:

Maximum Imprisonment: Up to 364 days in jail (this is typically a gross misdemeanor level offense).
Maximum Fine: Up to $3,000.
Other Consequences: Probation, court-ordered parenting classes, or involvement with child protective services.

Unreasonable Restraint of Children with Demonstrable Bodily Harm (Minnesota Statute § 609.255, Subd. 3(b))

If the unreasonable restraint of a child results in “demonstrable bodily harm” (meaning harm that can be observed or perceived):

Maximum Imprisonment: Up to 2 years in prison (felony).
Maximum Fine: Up to $4,000.
Other Consequences: Similar to other felony convictions, including a lasting criminal record and potential loss of civil rights.

Unreasonable Restraint of Children with Substantial Bodily Harm (Minnesota Statute § 609.255, Subd. 3(c))

If the unreasonable restraint of a child results in “substantial bodily harm” (meaning bodily injury which creates a high probability of death, or which causes serious permanent disfigurement, or which causes a permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ or other serious bodily harm):

Maximum Imprisonment: Up to 5 years in prison (felony).
Maximum Fine: Up to $10,000.
Other Consequences: This is the most severe charge under this statute, carrying significant prison time and devastating long-term consequences.

Beyond these statutory penalties, a conviction can also lead to mandatory counseling, anger management, no-contact orders, and a significant impact on child custody arrangements.

What False Imprisonment Looks Like in Real Life — Common Scenarios in Minnesota

False Imprisonment charges can arise from a wide variety of situations, often ones that escalate unexpectedly or are born from misunderstandings. It’s not always the dramatic movie scene of someone being locked in a basement. The reality of “Minnesota False Imprisonment” cases can be much more nuanced and occur in everyday settings across the state.

Here are some common scenarios that could lead to False Imprisonment charges in Minnesota:

The Heated Domestic Argument in Minneapolis

Imagine a couple in a Minneapolis apartment having a loud argument. One partner tries to leave the room or the apartment to cool down, but the other partner stands in the doorway, physically blocking their exit, perhaps grabbing their arm to prevent them from leaving. Even if it’s for a relatively short period, and even if no physical harm was intended beyond preventing departure, this act of intentionally preventing someone from leaving an area where they wish to go could be construed as false imprisonment under Subdivision 2. The key is the intentional confinement against the other person’s will without lawful authority.

Misguided Discipline in a St. Paul Suburb

A parent or caretaker in a St. Paul suburb, frustrated with a child’s behavior, might resort to an extreme form of discipline. For instance, locking a young child in a closet for several hours or confining a teenager to their room by boarding up the door. While parents have a right to discipline their children, if the confinement is deemed “unreasonable,” “cruel,” “excessive under the circumstances,” or for a “prolonged period,” it could lead to charges under Subdivision 3 for Unreasonable Restraint of a Child. If the child suffers any harm, such as dehydration or extreme emotional distress that constitutes demonstrable bodily harm, the penalties could increase.

An Escalation at a Duluth Bar

Consider a scenario at a bar in Duluth where an argument breaks out. One individual tries to walk away, but another, perhaps fueled by alcohol, grabs them and physically prevents them from moving or exiting the establishment for a period. They might hold them by the arm or body, effectively restraining their freedom of movement. Even if the intent was perceived as “just trying to talk” or “calm them down,” if it amounts to intentional restraint without consent or lawful authority, it can meet the criteria for false imprisonment. The public setting doesn’t negate the charge if the elements are present.

A Dispute Over Property in Rochester

Someone in Rochester might be involved in a dispute over property – say, a borrowed tool or a shared apartment’s belongings after a breakup. If one person tries to leave with an item the other believes is theirs, and the second person physically blocks their car in the driveway or takes their keys to prevent them from driving away until the property is returned, this could be seen as false imprisonment. The motivation (retrieving property) doesn’t automatically provide “lawful authority” to confine someone against their will.

These examples illustrate how varied the circumstances leading to false imprisonment charges can be. Your specific situation in Bloomington, Maple Grove, or any Minnesota locale will have its own unique facts that need careful examination.

Legal Defenses That Might Work Against Your False Imprisonment Charge

If you’re facing a false imprisonment charge in Minnesota, it’s easy to feel like the odds are stacked against you. However, an accusation is not a conviction. There are often strong legal defenses that can be raised to challenge the prosecution’s case. The key is a thorough investigation of the facts and a deep understanding of Minnesota law. I will meticulously examine every detail of your case, from the initial accusation to the evidence presented, to identify the most effective “defenses to false imprisonment in Minnesota” for your specific situation. The goal is to find the weaknesses in the state’s argument and build a compelling case for your side, whether it’s to get the “false imprisonment charges dismissed” or to achieve a favorable outcome at trial.

Successfully fighting these charges requires a proactive approach. We won’t just wait to see what the prosecution does; we will actively investigate, gather evidence, and challenge the state’s narrative. This could involve interviewing witnesses who were present in your Plymouth home, scrutinizing police reports for inconsistencies related to an incident in Eagan, or finding evidence that supports your claim of consent or lawful authority. Every piece of information matters, and I am committed to uncovering the full story. Remember, the burden of proof is entirely on the prosecution; they must prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Our job is to show that they cannot meet that burden.

Here are some potential defense strategies we might explore:

Lack of Intent

The prosecution must prove you intentionally confined or restrained the alleged victim. If the confinement was accidental or a result of negligence rather than a conscious decision to restrict someone’s freedom, this could be a powerful defense.

Accidental Confinement: Perhaps a door accidentally locked, or a misunderstanding led to someone feeling confined without you actively and purposefully intending to do so. For example, you might have closed a door without realizing someone was on the other side and felt they couldn’t leave.
No Purpose to Restrain: You may have taken an action that inadvertently resulted in someone feeling confined, but your purpose was entirely different and not aimed at restricting their movement. Proving your actual state of mind and lack of specific intent to confine is crucial.

Consent from the Alleged Victim

False imprisonment requires that the confinement or restraint be without the consent of the alleged victim (or, in the case of a child under Subd. 2, without the consent of their parent or legal custodian). If the person willingly stayed or agreed to the conditions, then a charge of false imprisonment may not hold.

Voluntary Presence: The alleged victim may have had the freedom to leave but chose not to for their own reasons. We would explore evidence showing they were not actually held against their will. Perhaps they had access to a phone, an unlocked exit, or opportunities to signal for help that they didn’t use.
Implied Consent: In some situations, consent might be implied by the circumstances or a prior agreement. For example, participation in certain activities might involve an understanding of some level of restricted movement, although this is a nuanced area.

Lawful Authority

Subdivision 2 specifically requires that the defendant acted “knowingly lacking lawful authority.” If you had a legal justification for your actions, this can be a complete defense.

Merchant’s Privilege (Shopkeeper’s Defense): Minnesota law allows store owners or employees to detain a person for a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner if they have probable cause to believe the person has stolen or is attempting to steal store property.
Parental Discipline (Reasonable): While Subdivision 3 addresses unreasonable restraint of children, parents do have a right to impose reasonable discipline, which might include temporary restrictions on a child’s movement (e.g., a “time-out” in their room). The key is whether the restraint was reasonable under the circumstances and not cruel or excessive.
Citizen’s Arrest (Limited Circumstances): In very specific and limited situations, a private citizen may have the authority to detain someone who has committed a felony or a public offense in their presence. However, this is a complex area of law with strict requirements.
Self-Defense or Defense of Others/Property: If the restraint was a necessary action to protect yourself, another person, or your property from imminent harm or unlawful interference, this could be a defense. The force or restraint used must be reasonable in relation to the perceived threat.

Factual Dispute or Misunderstanding

Often, false imprisonment charges arise from situations where the facts are unclear, misinterpreted, or outright fabricated.

Misinterpretation of Events: What one person perceived as confinement, you may have seen as a simple disagreement, a safety measure, or a misunderstanding. We would present your side of the story and highlight ambiguities in the accuser’s account.
False Accusation: Unfortunately, false accusations can happen, sometimes motivated by anger, jealousy, or a desire for leverage in another legal matter (like a custody dispute). We would rigorously investigate the accuser’s motives and credibility.
Identity: It’s possible you’ve been misidentified as the person who committed the alleged act. Eyewitness testimony can be unreliable, and we would explore any issues with the identification process.

Each case is unique, and the best defense strategy will depend on the specific facts and evidence involved in your Minnesota false imprisonment charge.

Minnesota False Imprisonment FAQs — What You Need to Know Now

When you’re facing a charge like false imprisonment, your mind is likely racing with questions. Here are answers to some common concerns I hear from clients across Minnesota.

Will I go to jail for false imprisonment in Minnesota?

It’s a serious possibility. False imprisonment under Subd. 2 is a felony punishable by up to 3 years. Unreasonable restraint of a child (Subd. 3) can range from a gross misdemeanor (up to 364 days in jail) to a felony with up to 5 years if substantial bodily harm occurs. However, the outcome depends on the specifics of your case, prior record, and the quality of your defense. An effective attorney can argue for alternatives like probation or a reduced charge.

Can false imprisonment charges be dismissed in Minnesota?

Yes, dismissal is a potential outcome. Charges can be dismissed if there’s insufficient evidence, if your constitutional rights were violated (e.g., illegal search), or if a strong defense demonstrates the prosecution cannot prove its case. Pre-trial negotiations with the prosecutor, highlighting weaknesses in their case, can also lead to dismissal or a significantly reduced charge. This is often a primary goal in places like St. Cloud or Rochester.

Do I need a lawyer for a false imprisonment charge in Minneapolis or St. Paul?

Absolutely. False imprisonment is a serious offense with complex legal elements and severe potential penalties. Attempting to navigate the legal system in major metropolitan areas like Minneapolis or St. Paul, or anywhere in Minnesota, without experienced legal representation is incredibly risky. A knowledgeable attorney understands the local courts, prosecutors, and effective defense strategies.

How long does a false imprisonment charge stay on my record in Minnesota?

A conviction for false imprisonment, especially a felony, will stay on your criminal record permanently unless it is expunged. Even gross misdemeanor convictions have a lasting impact. An expungement seals the record from public view, but the process is complex and not guaranteed. Avoiding the conviction in the first place is always the best strategy.

What’s the difference between false imprisonment and kidnapping in Minnesota?

While both involve restricting someone’s liberty, kidnapping (Minnesota Statute § 609.25) is generally more severe and involves confining or removing someone without consent for certain purposes, such as holding them for ransom, using them as a shield, or facilitating another felony. False imprisonment is a broader charge focusing on the unlawful restraint itself, without necessarily requiring those additional specific intents or actions.

What if the alleged victim didn’t try to leave?

This can be a crucial point for your defense. If the alleged victim had clear opportunities to leave and didn’t, it could suggest they consented to being there or weren’t actually being confined against their will. We would investigate the circumstances thoroughly to see if this argument applies to your case in, for instance, Duluth.

What if I was just trying to prevent someone from driving drunk?

Your intentions matter, but the law is specific. While preventing a drunk driving incident is commendable, physically restraining someone could technically still meet the elements of false imprisonment if not done with lawful authority. However, the circumstances and your intent to prevent harm could be powerful mitigating factors or even form the basis of a “necessity” or “defense of others” argument, which a skilled attorney can develop.

Can words alone be considered false imprisonment?

Generally, yes, if those words constitute threats of immediate physical harm that would make a reasonable person feel they cannot leave. For example, if you credibly threaten to hurt someone if they try to walk out of a room, that could be restraint, even without physical touch. The context and credibility of the threat are key.

What if I am a parent and was disciplining my child?

Parents have a right to discipline their children, but this right is not unlimited. Minnesota Statute § 609.255, Subd. 3 specifically addresses “unreasonable restraint of children.” If the discipline involves cruel, excessive, or prolonged confinement (like tying, caging, or locking a child up inappropriately), it can cross the line into criminal conduct. The key is whether the restraint was “reasonable under the circumstances.”

What if the alleged victim has a history of making false accusations?

Evidence of an alleged victim’s past untruthfulness or history of making similar false claims can sometimes be admissible and is certainly relevant to the defense investigation. If the accuser in your Bloomington case has a known motive to lie or a pattern of such behavior, that’s something we would explore thoroughly.

Does it matter how long the alleged confinement lasted?

The duration of confinement can be a factor, particularly in determining reasonableness or whether a “prolonged period” occurred under Subd. 3. However, even a very short period of intentional unlawful restraint can technically constitute false imprisonment under Subd. 2. The length of time might influence the severity of the charge or sentencing, but it’s not always a barrier to prosecution.

What if I didn’t physically touch the person?

Physical force is not a necessary element of false imprisonment. Confinement can occur through threats, intimidation, or the creation of a barrier that prevents escape. If your actions or words led someone to reasonably believe they would be harmed if they tried to leave your Plymouth residence, that could be sufficient.

Can a false imprisonment charge affect my immigration status?

Yes, a conviction for false imprisonment, especially a felony, can have severe immigration consequences, including deportation, denial of re-entry, or inability to obtain or renew a visa or green card. It’s critical to consult with an attorney who understands these potential collateral consequences.

What is “demonstrable bodily harm” in the context of child restraint?

Demonstrable bodily harm means harm that is apparent or observable. This could include bruises, cuts, marks from ligatures, or even severe dehydration or emotional distress that has a physical manifestation. The presence of such harm elevates the potential penalty for unreasonable restraint of a child in Minnesota.

What should I do if I’m being investigated for false imprisonment but haven’t been charged yet?

Contact an attorney immediately. Anything you say to law enforcement can be used against you. An attorney can advise you on your rights, communicate with investigators on your behalf, and potentially prevent charges from being filed or negotiate a more favorable outcome if they are. This is true whether you are in Eagan, Maple Grove, or any other Minnesota community.

What a False Imprisonment Conviction Could Mean for the Rest of Your Life

A conviction for false imprisonment in Minnesota, particularly a felony conviction under Subdivision 2 or Subdivisions 3(b) or 3(c), casts a very long shadow over your future. The “life after a false imprisonment conviction in Minnesota” can be filled with obstacles and lost opportunities long after any jail sentence is served or fines are paid. Understanding these “criminal record consequences for false imprisonment” is vital as you decide how to approach your defense.

Your Right to Possess Firearms Gone

In Minnesota, a felony conviction results in an automatic lifetime ban on possessing firearms, including rifles and shotguns used for hunting. This isn’t just about handguns; it’s a complete prohibition. For many Minnesotans who value hunting or sport shooting, or simply wish to have a firearm for self-defense, this is a significant and permanent loss of a civil right. Even some gross misdemeanor convictions related to domestic violence (which can sometimes be linked to false imprisonment scenarios) can trigger firearm restrictions.

A Lasting Criminal Record and Its Impact on Employment

One of the most damaging collateral consequences is the creation of a permanent criminal record. When you apply for jobs, especially those requiring background checks, a false imprisonment conviction will likely appear. Employers, particularly for positions involving trust, care for others (children or vulnerable adults), or security, may be hesitant or unwilling to hire someone with this type of offense on their record. This can severely limit your career options and earning potential for years to come, whether you’re looking for work in St. Paul, Duluth, or smaller towns.

Challenges in Securing Housing and Education

Landlords routinely run background checks on prospective tenants. A conviction for false imprisonment, seen as a crime involving potential violence or untrustworthiness, can make it incredibly difficult to find safe and affordable housing. Similarly, some educational institutions may deny admission or scholarships to individuals with certain criminal convictions. This can close doors to advancing your education or improving your skills, creating a cycle of disadvantage that is hard to break.

Severe Immigration Consequences

For non-U.S. citizens, a conviction for false imprisonment can be devastating. It can be considered a “crime involving moral turpitude” or an “aggravated felony” under immigration law, depending on the specifics. This could lead to deportation, denial of applications for green cards or citizenship, and inadmissibility if you try to re-enter the United States after leaving. The stakes are incredibly high, and the immigration system offers little leniency for such convictions. Protecting your ability to remain in the U.S. with your family becomes a paramount concern.

These are just some of the far-reaching impacts. A conviction can also affect professional licenses, personal relationships, and your overall standing in the community.

Why You Need a Tough, Experienced Minnesota False Imprisonment Attorney

When you’re facing accusations as serious as false imprisonment in Minnesota, the choice of your legal representation is one of the most critical decisions you’ll make. The prosecutor has the resources of the state behind them; you need a dedicated advocate who will fight tirelessly for you. As a solo practitioner, I provide direct, personal attention to every case. You won’t be passed off to a junior associate; you will work directly with me from our initial consultation through the resolution of your case. My focus is singular: protecting your rights and achieving the best possible outcome for you.

The Undeniable Advantage of a Dedicated Private Lawyer

Public defenders are often overworked and carry enormous caseloads, making it difficult for them to devote the focused time and resources your specific false imprisonment case deserves. When you hire me, you are investing in a defense strategy tailored specifically to the nuances of your situation. I have the independence to conduct thorough investigations, hire expert witnesses if necessary, and dedicate the time needed to scrutinize every piece of evidence. This personalized approach means we can explore every avenue, from challenging the initial stop or arrest in Minneapolis to dissecting witness testimony in a Rochester courtroom. Your future is too important to leave to chance or an overburdened system.

How Swift Action Can Fundamentally Change Your Outcome

Time is of the essence when you’re accused of a crime like false imprisonment. The sooner you involve an attorney, the more opportunities we have to influence the case positively. Early intervention can sometimes prevent charges from being formally filed. I can contact the investigators or prosecutors, present exculpatory evidence you may not even realize you have, and begin to negotiate from a position of strength. Waiting until your first court appearance can mean lost opportunities to gather crucial evidence, interview witnesses while their memories are fresh, or protect you from making statements that could inadvertently harm your defense, whether you’re in Duluth or Eagan.

Deep Understanding of Local Court Systems Across Minnesota

Navigating the criminal justice system requires more than just knowing the law; it demands an understanding of how things work in practice within specific jurisdictions. From the procedures in Hennepin County District Court to the dynamics of courtrooms in St. Louis County or Olmsted County, local knowledge matters. I have experience representing clients across Minnesota, which means I understand the tendencies of local prosecutors, the expectations of judges, and the strategies that are most effective in different courthouses. This familiarity can be a significant advantage when building your defense and negotiating on your behalf.

Building a Case Designed to Achieve Real Results

My approach to defending false imprisonment charges is proactive and aggressive. The goal is always to achieve the best possible result, whether that’s a full dismissal of charges, a favorable plea agreement to a lesser offense, an acquittal at trial, or minimizing penalties. This involves meticulous preparation: examining police reports for errors or constitutional violations, interviewing all potential witnesses, challenging the admissibility of evidence, and preparing compelling legal arguments. I will explore every potential defense, such as lack of intent, consent, or lawful authority, and tailor our strategy to the specific facts of your Brooklyn Park, Plymouth, or statewide Minnesota case. Your fight is my fight.