A Minnesota Defense Attorney Explains How Statute § 609.325 Affects Your Case and Which Defenses Can Still Win
You’ve been arrested and charged with a prostitution-related offense, likely patronizing under § 609.324. The world feels like it’s collapsing. You’re terrified of what this means for your job, your family, and your reputation in your community, whether it’s Minneapolis, St. Paul, or a quiet town in greater Minnesota. To make matters worse, the prosecutor or even a quick search online might point you to Minnesota Statute § 609.325, a law that seems to strip away all possible defenses. You read that consent isn’t a defense, that a mistake about age is no excuse, and that the involvement of an undercover cop doesn’t matter. It’s a gut punch designed to make you feel hopeless, to make you believe that resistance is futile and you have no choice but to plead guilty.
Let me be clear: that is not the whole story. While § 609.325 does create significant roadblocks, it does not eliminate your right to a powerful defense. This statute is a tool the prosecution uses to scare defendants into submission, but it is a tool that can be overcome with skill, experience, and the right strategy. The law may block simplistic excuses, but it cannot and does not block sophisticated legal defenses like entrapment, lack of criminal intent, or violations of your constitutional rights. As a criminal defense attorney who has fought for clients across Minnesota—from Rochester and Duluth to Bloomington and Brooklyn Park—I understand how to navigate the challenges posed by this statute. You are not defenseless. Now is the time to fight back.
What § 609.325 Actually Does in Minnesota
It is crucial to understand that Minnesota Statute § 609.325 is not a crime. You cannot be “charged” with violating this law. Instead, it’s a set of rules that limits the types of arguments you can make in your own defense when you’re facing a charge for an underlying offense like patronizing a prostitute (§ 609.324) or promoting prostitution (§ 609.322). The law essentially tells judges what they cannot consider as a valid excuse. For someone accused of being a patron, the most damaging parts of this statute are the provisions that block defenses based on consent, mistake of age, and the simple fact that you were interacting with an undercover officer.
The prosecution will use this statute as a shield. They will argue that your intentions don’t matter because the other person consented, or that your belief about someone’s age is irrelevant. They will tell you that crying “it was a setup!” is pointless because the law explicitly allows for the use of undercover operatives. A “Minnesota [crime] accusation” for patronizing is intimidating enough, but this statute is designed to make you feel like the deck is completely stacked against you. It narrows the path to victory, but it does not close it. It simply means we must be smarter, more strategic, and more aggressive in our approach.
Minnesota Law on Defenses — Straight from the Statute
To understand the challenge ahead, you need to see the exact language the prosecutor will be relying on. Minnesota Statute § 609.325 is the legal roadblock they will try to put in your way. Reading it helps you understand the specific arguments it prevents, which in turn helps us pivot to the arguments that are still powerful and effective.
609.325 DEFENSES.
Subdivision 1. No defense; solicited; not engaged. It shall be no defense to a prosecution under section 609.322 that an individual solicited or induced to practice prostitution or whose prostitution was promoted, did not actually engage in prostitution.
Subd. 2. Consent no defense. Consent or mistake as to age shall be no defense to prosecutions under section 609.322 or 609.324.
Subd. 3. No defense; prior prostitution. It shall be no defense to actions under section 609.322 that the individual solicited or induced to practice prostitution, or whose prostitution was promoted, had engaged in prostitution prior to that solicitation, inducement, or promotion.
Subd. 3a. No defense; undercover operative. The fact that an undercover operative or law enforcement officer was involved in the detection or investigation of an offense shall not be a defense to a prosecution under section 609.324.
Subd. 4. Affirmative defense. It is an affirmative defense to a charge under section 609.324, subdivision 6 or 7, if the defendant proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is a labor trafficking victim or a sex trafficking victim and that the defendant committed the acts underlying the charge as a result of being a labor trafficking or sex trafficking victim.
Deconstructing the State’s Roadblocks to Your Defense
This statute appears designed to make a prosecutor’s job easier by preemptively striking down common-sense defenses. However, a closer look reveals that it only blocks the most basic arguments, leaving the door open for more sophisticated and effective legal strategies. Our job is to pivot from the defenses the law forbids to the ones it cannot touch.
- Roadblock: Consent and Mistake of Age (Subd. 2)The law says you cannot defend yourself by claiming the other person consented or that you honestly believed they were an adult. This prevents a simple “she said yes” or “I thought she was 25” defense. How We Fight Back: We don’t argue about consent; we argue about your intent. The state must prove you intended to pay for a sexual act. If you intended to pay for companionship, conversation, or to help someone you thought was in distress, then no crime was committed, regardless of age or consent. We shift the focus from their state of mind to yours.
- Roadblock: Undercover Officer Involvement (Subd. 3a)The statute explicitly states that it’s no defense that a cop was involved. This prevents you from simply saying, “I can’t be guilty because the other person was a police officer.” How We Fight Back: We don’t argue that the officer’s involvement itself is a defense. We argue that the officer’s conduct constituted entrapment. If the officer pressured, coerced, or improperly induced you into committing a crime you weren’t already prepared to commit, that is a powerful, constitutionally-recognized defense that this statute does not and cannot block. This is often the key to winning sting operation cases.
Penalties for the Underlying Charge Can Be Severe
While § 609.325 isn’t a crime, it applies to crimes with very real and severe penalties. If you are charged with patronizing an adult prostitute under § 609.324, you are facing serious consequences that underscore why you must fight the charge, despite the roadblocks. Understanding the “penalties for [crime] in Minnesota” is critical.
Gross Misdemeanor Patronizing
For a first-time offense of patronizing an adult, you will be charged with a gross misdemeanor. A conviction carries a sentence of up to 364 days in jail and a fine of up to $3,000. On top of that, Minnesota law mandates a minimum fine of at least $1,500 for this offense.
Felony Patronizing
The situation becomes much more dire if you have a prior prostitution-related conviction within the past ten years. In that case, the charge is elevated to a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine. The “Minnesota sentencing for [crime]” at the felony level is life-altering, leading to the loss of your right to own a firearm and other civil liberties.
Felony from a School or Park Zone Enhancement
As if the standard penalties weren’t enough, if the alleged offense occurred in a school or park zone, a gross misdemeanor patronizing charge automatically becomes a felony under § 609.3242. This is a common trap that turns a bad situation into a catastrophe, all because of your location.
What This Looks Like in Real Life — Common Scenarios in Minnesota
These legal rules play out in real-world situations every day. You may find yourself in one of these scenarios, thinking you have a clear defense, only to be told by the prosecutor that § 609.325 blocks it. This is where you need an attorney to show you the real path forward.
The Minneapolis Undercover Sting
You were arrested after messaging with someone online and showing up at a hotel in downtown Minneapolis. Your first thought is, “This is unfair, it was a setup! The person was a cop.” But under § 609.325, simply stating it was a cop is no defense. The real defense is to scrutinize the officer’s actions. Did they use excessive persuasion? Did they contact you first and repeatedly? Did they prey on your emotions or a moment of weakness? If so, we can build a powerful entrapment case.
The St. Paul Massage Parlor
You went into a massage parlor in St. Paul and were arrested during a raid. The person who offered the services appeared to be well over 18, and you believe they consented to everything. The prosecutor will tell you that under the law, consent and your belief about their age are irrelevant. Our defense strategy, therefore, won’t focus on that. Instead, we’ll focus on what was actually said. Was there a clear, unambiguous offer and acceptance for a sexual act in exchange for money? If the language was vague, there may be no crime.
The Rochester Online Chat
You engaged in a fantasy-based chat with someone online who you thought lived in the Rochester area. The conversation got explicit, but you had no real intention of ever meeting them or paying money. Law enforcement may try to use these chats to charge you. You might think, “It wasn’t real, it was just talk.” The state will argue your words constituted an “offer.” Our defense is to prove your lack of criminal intent and to argue that your words, in context, did not amount to a serious, actionable agreement to commit a crime.
The Duluth Bar Encounter
You met someone at a bar in Duluth and offered them money for a ride home and to continue the conversation, but the undercover officer arrested you for solicitation. You believe it was a complete misunderstanding of your intent. The state will ignore your explanation and focus only on the offer of money. Our defense is to present your side of the story compellingly, highlighting the ambiguity of the situation and creating reasonable doubt about your actual intentions.
Legal Defenses That Still Work, Despite § 609.325
An arrest is not a conviction. The state of Minnesota carries the heavy burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Statute § 609.325 is the prosecution’s attempt to lower that burden, but it is far from insurmountable. A smart, aggressive defense focuses on the avenues that remain open—and these are often the most powerful defenses available. My entire approach is to expose the weaknesses the state hopes you’ll overlook.
Fighting these charges requires a deep understanding of what the law forbids versus what it allows. While the statute closes the door on easy excuses, it leaves open the door for strong, fact-based legal arguments that can lead to a dismissal, a favorable negotiation, or a not-guilty verdict at trial. These are the “defenses to [crime] in Minnesota” that can save your future.
Entrapment: When Police Cross the Line
This is the single most important defense in undercover sting operations. While § 609.325 says the involvement of a cop is not a defense, the separate, constitutionally-grounded defense of entrapment is very much alive. Entrapment occurs when police go beyond creating an opportunity and actually induce or persuade a person to commit a crime they were not otherwise predisposed to commit.
- Improper Inducement We will analyze every communication between you and the undercover officer. If the officer used high-pressure tactics, repeated pleas, appeals to sympathy, or promises of an unusually rewarding experience to overcome your hesitation, we can argue that this was improper inducement. Your reluctance is key evidence.
- Lack of Predisposition The central question in an entrapment defense is whether you were ready and willing to commit the crime on your own. Your clean criminal record, respected status in the community, and any evidence that you initially rejected the officer’s advances can all be used to show that the criminal idea was planted by the police, not by you.
Attacking the Element of Intent
The state must prove you had the specific, criminal intent to hire someone for a sexual act. This is a high bar, and it’s a defense that § 609.325 does not touch. Your state of mind is the central issue.
- Innocent or Ambiguous Purpose Perhaps you offered someone money for a non-sexual reason—food, rent, or simple companionship. Perhaps your words were misunderstood or taken out of context. We can present an alternative, innocent explanation for your actions that creates reasonable doubt about your alleged criminal intent.
- Intoxication While voluntary intoxication is not a complete defense, it can be used to argue that you were incapable of forming the specific intent required to commit the crime. If you were so intoxicated that you didn’t know what you were doing or what you were agreeing to, the state may be unable to prove this critical element of its case.
No Actual Agreement Was Reached
The crime of patronizing requires an offer or an agreement. If the conversation was vague, preliminary, or you backed out before a clear deal was struck, there is no crime.
- Vague and Unclear Terms We will scrutinize the alleged “agreement.” Was a specific price discussed? Was a specific sexual act defined? Was a time and place for the exchange finalized? If these essential terms of a “deal” were never reached, we can argue that the conversation was just talk, not a criminal agreement.
- You Withdrew from the Conversation Did you stop replying to the messages? Did you say you changed your mind? Evidence that you voluntarily abandoned the plan before it was finalized is powerful proof that you did not commit the crime. The law requires a completed offer or agreement, not just a negotiation that went nowhere.
Violation of Your Constitutional Rights
This is a defense that no statute can take away. If law enforcement violated your fundamental rights during the investigation or arrest, any evidence they found as a result can be thrown out of court.
- Illegal Search and Seizure Did the police search your phone or car without a valid warrant or probable cause? If so, the text messages or other evidence they found may be suppressed, meaning the prosecutor cannot use it against you. This can gut the state’s entire case.
- Miranda Rights Violations If you were interrogated while in custody without being read your Miranda rights (the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney), any confession or incriminating statements you made are inadmissible. Many cases are built on statements made after an arrest, and a Miranda violation can erase that evidence.
Minnesota Prostitution Defense FAQs — What You Need to Know Now
When you’re facing charges, you have a million questions. Here are direct answers to some of the most pressing concerns, especially as they relate to § 609.325.
Is it a defense that the other person was an undercover cop?
No. Statute § 609.325(3a) explicitly says this is not a defense on its own. However, the actions of the cop can form the basis of a much stronger entrapment defense, which is a valid and powerful strategy.
Can I argue that I thought the person was over 18?
No. Statute § 609.325(2) states that mistake as to age is not a defense to a patronizing charge. The state does not have to prove you knew the person’s age. This makes fighting the charge on other grounds, like intent, absolutely critical.
What’s the difference between saying “it was a cop” and claiming “entrapment”?
Saying “it was a cop” is a statement of fact that the law says is not a defense. Claiming “entrapment” is a legal defense arguing that the cop’s behavior was so improper and persuasive that it caused you to commit a crime you otherwise would not have. Entrapment is a high bar, but it is a valid defense.
Will I go to jail for patronizing in Minnesota?
It is a real possibility. A gross misdemeanor carries up to a year in jail, and a felony carries a potential prison sentence. An effective defense is aimed at achieving an outcome—like a dismissal or a reduction to a lesser offense—that avoids incarceration entirely.
Can a patronizing charge be dismissed?
Yes. A dismissal is always the primary goal. By challenging the state’s evidence, proving a constitutional violation, or demonstrating entrapment, we can file motions to have the judge dismiss the case before it ever reaches a jury.
Do I need a lawyer for a charge like this in St. Cloud?
Absolutely. Given the complexities of § 609.325 and the serious penalties involved, trying to represent yourself in St. Cloud or any other Minnesota court would be a disaster. You need a lawyer who understands these specific statutes and the local court system.
How long does a conviction stay on my record?
A conviction in Minnesota is permanent unless it is expunged. Expungement is a separate legal process that is never guaranteed. The best way to keep your record clean is to prevent the conviction in the first place.
Since consent isn’t a defense, does that mean I’m automatically guilty?
Not at all. It just means we have to focus our defense on other elements. We don’t need to argue about consent if we can prove you never had criminal intent or that no actual agreement was ever made.
What is the one affirmative defense listed in the statute?
Subdivision 4 provides an affirmative defense for defendants who are themselves victims of sex or labor trafficking and committed the prostitution offense as a result of being trafficked. This defense applies to those charged as prostitutes, not patrons.
What if I was just joking in the text messages?
This goes directly to your intent. If the context of the conversation shows you were not serious and were merely joking or engaging in fantasy, we can argue you lacked the required criminal intent to form an illegal agreement. This can be a very effective defense.
What if no money changed hands?
This does not matter. The law criminalizes the “offer” or “agreement” to hire someone for sex. Most arrests in sting operations happen before any money is exchanged. The case is about the conversation, not the transaction.
Can the charge be reduced to something less serious?
Yes. A common and favorable outcome is negotiating a reduction of the gross misdemeanor patronizing charge to a lesser offense, such as disorderly conduct. This avoids many of the worst consequences, including the mandatory minimum fine.
Will my name be in the news?
It’s possible. Arrests are public records, and some police departments publicize the names and photos of people arrested in stings. Having an attorney working to protect your interests from day one is critical to managing this potential fallout.
What if I’m not a U.S. citizen?
The stakes are even higher. A conviction for a prostitution-related offense can be considered a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude (CIMT), which can have catastrophic immigration consequences, including deportation, even if you are a legal permanent resident.
What should I do first?
Exercise your right to remain silent. Do not speak to the police. Do not try to explain your side of the story. Call a criminal defense attorney immediately. Anything you say can and will be used against you, often by twisting your words to defeat the very defenses we need to build.
What a Conviction Could Mean for the Rest of Your Life
The reason we fight so hard, even when a law like § 609.325 tries to stand in the way, is because the consequences of a conviction are permanent and devastating. A “life after a [crime] conviction in Minnesota” is a life of diminished opportunities and constant explanations. You are not just fighting a court case; you are fighting to preserve your career, your family’s security, and your future.
Your Permanent Criminal Record and Job Impact
A conviction for patronizing a prostitute becomes a public record that will show up on every background check for the rest of your life. It can lead to immediate termination from your current job and make it incredibly difficult to find new employment. For anyone with a professional license (teacher, doctor, nurse, lawyer, realtor), it can trigger a board review that could result in the suspension or revocation of your license.
Loss of Housing and Educational Opportunities
Landlords frequently deny rental applications to individuals with criminal records, especially for offenses with a social stigma. A conviction could force you out of your home and make it hard to find a new one. It can also render you ineligible for federal student aid, closing off paths to higher education for you or your family.
Damage to Your Reputation and Family
The personal toll is immense. A conviction can irrevocably damage the trust you have with your spouse, children, and friends. It can lead to public shaming and social isolation, especially in smaller Minnesota communities. The personal cost of the conviction often far outweighs the legal penalties imposed by the court.
Immigration Consequences
For non-citizens, a conviction is not just a blemish; it’s a potential deportation order. Prostitution-related offenses are viewed with extreme prejudice by immigration authorities. A conviction can prevent you from ever becoming a U.S. citizen, get your green card revoked, and lead to your removal from the country, regardless of how long you have lived here or the family you have built.
Why You Need a Tough, Experienced Minnesota Attorney Who Understands § 609.325
When the state has a statute specifically designed to undermine your defense, you cannot afford to have an attorney who isn’t prepared for it. You need a lawyer who sees § 609.325 not as a dead end, but as a challenge to be outmaneuvered. You need a dedicated advocate who will find the paths to victory that the state wants you to believe don’t exist.
A Private Lawyer Who Knows How to Pivot
Many lawyers might see the roadblocks in § 609.325 and immediately push you toward a bad plea deal. My approach is different. I see this statute as a roadmap to the state’s case, and I use it to build a defense they aren’t expecting. I know how to pivot from the arguments the law blocks to the more powerful, nuanced arguments it can’t touch. This strategic flexibility is essential to winning your case. I will be your sole advocate, personally handling your case from start to finish.
Fast Action is More Critical Than Ever
Because defenses like entrapment and lack of intent are so fact-intensive, we need to act immediately. We must preserve the text messages and online chats before they can be deleted. We need to document your side of the story while it’s fresh in your mind. We need to get a head start on the prosecution. The moment you hire me, I begin building your defense, putting us in a position of strength from day one.
I Understand How to Fight Stings in Minnesota Courts
I have defended clients against these charges in courtrooms across Minnesota, from Hennepin County to St. Louis County. I know how undercover stings are prosecuted in Minneapolis, St. Paul, Rochester, and beyond. I understand the tactics different police departments use and the arguments that are most effective with local judges and prosecutors. This on-the-ground experience is an invaluable asset in a case that is so heavily dependent on challenging police conduct.
Building a Case to Overcome the Roadblocks
My goal is not just to manage the charge against you; it is to dismantle it. I prepare every case with the expectation that we will go to trial, meticulously building an argument designed to create reasonable doubt and win an acquittal. This thorough preparation and aggressive posture show the prosecutor that we will not be intimidated by § 609.325. It is this reputation for fighting—and winning—that often leads to the best possible outcomes for my clients, whether it’s a full dismissal, a not-guilty verdict, or a favorable resolution that protects your record and your future.