Twin Cities Criminal Lawyer

Civil Disorder

Defending Against Civil Disorder Charges in Minneapolis-St. Paul: Understanding Minnesota Statute § 609.669

Minnesota law criminalizes specific actions related to preparing for or promoting unlawful activities during times of public unrest. Minnesota Statute § 609.669, addressing “Civil Disorder,” makes it a gross misdemeanor to either teach or demonstrate the use of firearms, explosives, or incendiary devices intended for unlawful employment in a civil disorder, or to assemble with others for such training. For residents of the Twin Cities metropolitan area, including Minneapolis, St. Paul, Hennepin County, Ramsey County, and surrounding Minnesota counties, understanding the serious implications of this statute is crucial. These charges target conduct that aims to escalate or arm participants for unlawful actions during public disturbances, thereby threatening public safety and order.

An allegation under Minnesota Statute § 609.669 is not taken lightly, as it strikes at actions that can fuel violence and chaos. A gross misdemeanor conviction carries significant penalties, including potential jail time, fines, and a lasting criminal record. The statute provides clear definitions of “civil disorder,” “firearm,” and “explosive or incendiary device,” which are central to any prosecution. For individuals in Dakota, Anoka, or Washington counties facing such accusations, it is vital to recognize that the state must prove each element of the specific offense beyond a reasonable doubt. A thorough understanding of the law, its definitions, and available defense strategies is essential when confronting these charges within the Minnesota legal system.

Minnesota Statute § 609.669: The Law Governing Civil Disorder Offenses

Minnesota state law specifically addresses conduct intended to facilitate or prepare for unlawful actions during periods of public unrest. These provisions are codified under Minnesota Statute § 609.669, titled “Civil Disorder.” The statute defines the prohibited acts, key terms like “civil disorder” and “firearm,” and establishes the offense level as a gross misdemeanor.

609.669 CIVIL DISORDER.

Subdivision 1.Prohibited acts. (a) A person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor who:

(1) teaches or demonstrates to any other person how to use or make any firearm, or explosive or incendiary device capable of causing injury or death, knowing or having reason to know that it will be unlawfully employed for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder; or

(2) assembles with one or more persons for the purpose of training with, practicing with, or being instructed in the use of any firearm, or explosive or incendiary device capable of causing injury or death, with the intent that it be unlawfully employed for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder.

(b) This section does not apply to law enforcement officers engaged in the lawful performance of the officer’s official duties.

Subd. 2.Definitions. For purposes of this section, the following terms have the meanings given them:

(1) “civil disorder” means any public disturbance involving acts of violence by assemblages of three or more persons, which causes an immediate danger of or results in damage or injury to the property or person of any other individual;

(2) “firearm” means any weapon which is designed to or may readily be converted to expel any projectile by the action of an explosive; or the frame or receiver of any such weapon;

(3) “explosive or incendiary device” has the meaning given in section 609.668, subdivision 1; and

(4) “law enforcement officer” means any officer or employee of the United States, the state, or any political subdivision of the state, and specifically includes members of the National Guard and members of the armed forces of the United States.

History: 1995 c 244 s 23

Key Elements of Civil Disorder Offenses in Minnesota

To secure a conviction under Minnesota Statute § 609.669 for offenses related to civil disorder, the prosecution must prove all essential elements of the specific charged act beyond a reasonable doubt. This high burden of proof is a cornerstone of the justice system in Minnesota, including in Hennepin County and Ramsey County courts. The statute outlines two distinct prohibited acts, each with its own set of elements focusing on the teaching or demonstration of weapon use, or assembling for such training, with the knowledge or intent that these skills will be unlawfully employed in a civil disorder.

Elements for Teaching or Demonstrating Weapon Use for Civil Disorder (Subd. 1(a)(1))

  • Teaching or Demonstrating Use/Making of Weapon: Explanation: The prosecution must first prove that the defendant engaged in the act of teaching (imparting knowledge or skill) or demonstrating (showing how to do something) to another person. This instruction must pertain to how to use or make a “firearm” (as defined in Subd. 2(2)), or an “explosive or incendiary device” (as defined by reference to § 609.668, Subd. 1) that is capable of causing injury or death. The act of instruction itself is a key component.
  • Weapon Capable of Causing Injury or Death: Explanation: The firearm, explosive, or incendiary device that is the subject of the teaching or demonstration must be capable of causing injury or death. This element underscores the dangerous nature of the items involved and distinguishes them from harmless objects. The prosecution would need to present evidence about the weapon’s potential lethality or capacity to injure.
  • Knowledge or Reason to Know of Unlawful Employment in Civil Disorder: Explanation: This is a crucial mens rea (mental state) element. The defendant must have known, or had reason to know, that the skills or devices they were teaching/demonstrating would be unlawfully employed for use in, or in furtherance of, a “civil disorder.” “Civil disorder” is defined in Subd. 2(1) as a public disturbance involving violent acts by three or more people, causing immediate danger or actual damage/injury. The prosecution must link the defendant’s knowledge to this specific unlawful purpose.

Elements for Assembling for Weapon Training for Civil Disorder (Subd. 1(a)(2))

  • Assembling with One or More Persons: Explanation: The defendant must have assembled, meaning gathered together, with at least one other person. This implies a collective action rather than solitary practice. The presence of multiple individuals for the prohibited purpose is central to this clause.
  • Purpose of Training, Practicing, or Being Instructed: Explanation: The purpose of this assembly must have been for training with, practicing with, or being instructed in the use of a “firearm,” or an “explosive or incendiary device” capable of causing injury or death. This element focuses on the group’s objective: to gain or impart proficiency with these dangerous items.
  • Weapon Capable of Causing Injury or Death: Explanation: Similar to the first clause, the firearm, explosive, or incendiary device involved in the training or practice must be capable of causing injury or death. This highlights the dangerous nature of the training undertaken by the assembled group.
  • Specific Intent of Unlawful Employment in Civil Disorder: Explanation: This clause requires a specific intent. The defendant (and the group) must have assembled with the intent that the firearm, explosive, or incendiary device be unlawfully employed for use in, or in furtherance of, a “civil disorder” (as defined in Subd. 2(1)). This is a higher mental state than “knowing or having reason to know” and requires proof that this unlawful purpose was a conscious objective of the assembly.

It’s also important to note Subd. 1(b), which provides an exception: the entire section does not apply to law enforcement officers (as defined in Subd. 2(4)) engaged in the lawful performance of their official duties.

Potential Penalties and Consequences for Civil Disorder Convictions in Minnesota

A conviction for either teaching/demonstrating weapon use for a civil disorder or assembling for such training under Minnesota Statute § 609.669 is classified as a gross misdemeanor. While not a felony, a gross misdemeanor is a serious offense in Minnesota, carrying significant penalties and the potential for lasting negative consequences for individuals in Minneapolis, St. Paul, and across the state.

Gross Misdemeanor Penalties

Under Minnesota law, a gross misdemeanor conviction pursuant to § 609.669 can result in the following court-imposed sanctions, applicable in Hennepin County, Ramsey County, or any other Minnesota jurisdiction:

  • Imprisonment: A sentence of imprisonment for not more than one year in the county jail. This means a convicted individual could face a substantial period of incarceration, which can disrupt employment, family life, and personal freedom.
  • Fine: A financial penalty of not more than $3,000. This fine can be levied by the court in addition to, or as an alternative to, a jail sentence, creating a significant financial burden for the convicted person.
  • Both Jail and Fine: The sentencing judge has the discretion to impose both imprisonment (up to one year) and a fine (up to $3,000) for a gross misdemeanor conviction.

Additional Collateral Consequences

Beyond the direct statutory penalties, a gross misdemeanor conviction for an offense related to civil disorder can trigger a range of other serious and long-term collateral consequences:

  • Criminal Record: A conviction results in a permanent criminal record. This record is accessible through background checks conducted by employers, landlords, educational institutions, and volunteer organizations, potentially hindering future opportunities.
  • Impact on Employment: Securing or maintaining employment can become more difficult with such a conviction, especially for roles requiring public trust, positions in security, or jobs involving firearms or sensitive materials. Employers in the Twin Cities market may be wary of applicants with convictions related to public disorder.
  • Firearm Rights: While a gross misdemeanor might not always lead to a lifetime ban on firearm possession in Minnesota, any conviction related to the unlawful use or training with firearms, especially in the context of civil disorder, could be scrutinized and potentially lead to restrictions on firearm rights or difficulties obtaining permits.
  • Professional Licensing: Individuals holding or seeking professional licenses might face challenges, as licensing boards may consider such a conviction as reflecting poorly on character and fitness.
  • Social Stigma: A conviction for an offense perceived as contributing to public violence or unrest can carry a significant social stigma, affecting personal relationships and community standing.

Understanding Civil Disorder Offenses Through Examples in the Metro Area

Minnesota Statute § 609.669 targets specific preparatory acts that facilitate unlawful violence during public disturbances. The law defines “civil disorder” as a public disturbance where three or more people engage in violent acts causing immediate danger or actual harm to people or property. This definition is key to understanding when the teaching or training with weapons becomes illegal under this statute. These scenarios could occur in various settings within the Twin Cities, from organized group meetings in Minneapolis to informal gatherings in St. Paul.

The statute distinguishes between two main types of prohibited conduct: first, teaching or demonstrating how to make or use dangerous weapons with knowledge they’ll be used in a civil disorder; and second, assembling with others to train with such weapons with the intent they’ll be used in a civil disorder. The focus is on the unlawful purpose and context of the weapon-related instruction or practice. Lawful firearm training or self-defense instruction, for instance, is not targeted by this law.

Example: Teaching Protestors to Make Incendiary Devices in Minneapolis

An individual in Minneapolis, anticipating a large protest that they believe will turn violent, gathers a small group and teaches them how to construct Molotov cocktails (incendiary devices). This individual explicitly states or implies these devices are to be used against property or police lines if the protest escalates into what would be defined as a “civil disorder.” This person knows or has reason to know the devices will be unlawfully employed in furtherance of a civil disorder. This conduct would likely violate § 609.669, Subd. 1(a)(1).

Example: Assembling for Firearm Drills for a Planned St. Paul Riot

A group of individuals in St. Paul, disgruntled about a political issue, decide to organize a disruptive event they intend to escalate into a violent confrontation with authorities, meeting the definition of a “civil disorder.” They assemble in a secluded area to practice tactical firearm drills, including simulated engagements. Their explicit purpose and intent is to use these firearms unlawfully during their planned disorder. This assembly for training with firearms, with the intent of unlawful employment in a civil disorder, would likely violate § 609.669, Subd. 1(a)(2).

Example: Online Demonstration of Explosive Device Construction for “Civil Unrest” in Hennepin County

A resident of Hennepin County creates and posts online videos demonstrating how to construct small improvised explosive devices. In the videos or accompanying text, they advocate for using these devices during “times of civil unrest” to “fight back” against perceived oppression, in contexts that would clearly constitute a “civil disorder.” If it can be proven they are teaching or demonstrating this to others knowing or having reason to know the devices will be unlawfully employed in a civil disorder, this could fall under § 609.669, Subd. 1(a)(1), even if the “teaching” is remote.

Example: Group Practicing with Melee Weapons and Firearms for “Street Confrontations” in Ramsey County

A self-styled militia group in Ramsey County regularly meets to train with firearms and melee weapons. Their discussions and training scenarios explicitly focus on preparing for violent street confrontations during protests or public disturbances they anticipate or intend to incite, which would meet the definition of “civil disorder.” If their assembly and training with firearms (or even other weapons if they are taught alongside firearms/explosives with the same unlawful intent) is proven to be with the intent of unlawfully employing these weapons in furtherance of a civil disorder, they could be charged under § 609.669, Subd. 1(a)(2).

Building a Strong Defense Against Civil Disorder Allegations in Minneapolis

Accusations under Minnesota Statute § 609.669, related to teaching or training with weapons for use in a civil disorder, are serious gross misdemeanor charges. For individuals in Minneapolis, St. Paul, or surrounding counties like Dakota or Anoka, facing such allegations requires a robust defense strategy. The prosecution must prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, including the defendant’s specific knowledge or intent regarding the unlawful employment of weapons in a “civil disorder” as defined by the statute.

An effective defense will critically examine the state’s evidence concerning the alleged teaching, demonstration, or assembly. It will also scrutinize whether the items involved truly qualify as “firearms,” “explosive devices,” or “incendiary devices” capable of causing injury or death. Most importantly, the defense will challenge the prosecution’s assertions about the defendant’s mental state—their knowledge or intent concerning the use of these weapons in a civil disorder. For those in Washington or Scott counties, understanding that lawful activities, such as legitimate self-defense training or constitutionally protected assembly, are not prohibited by this statute is a key starting point.

Lack of Requisite Knowledge or Intent

A primary defense strategy focuses on negating the specific mental state (mens rea) required by the statute.

  • No Knowledge/Reason to Know of Unlawful Employment (for Subd. 1(a)(1)): Explanation: The defense can argue that the defendant, while perhaps teaching or demonstrating the use of a firearm or device, did not know and had no reason to know that the recipient intended to unlawfully employ it in a civil disorder. For example, teaching basic firearm safety or self-defense without any indication of the trainee’s unlawful intentions would not meet this element.
  • No Intent of Unlawful Employment (for Subd. 1(a)(2)): Explanation: For the charge of assembling for training, the prosecution must prove specific intent. The defense can argue that the assembly and training were for lawful purposes, such as general preparedness, sport, or self-defense, without any collective intent to unlawfully employ the weapons in a civil disorder. The group’s stated purpose and activities would be crucial.

Conduct Does Not Meet Statutory Definitions

The definitions provided in Subd. 2 are critical. If the alleged conduct or items do not fit these definitions, the charge may fail.

  • No “Civil Disorder” Contemplated or Occurring: Explanation: The definition of “civil disorder” requires a public disturbance with violent acts by three or more people causing immediate danger or actual harm. If the anticipated event did not meet this threshold, or if the defendant’s knowledge/intent was related to a different, non-violent form of protest or a private dispute, the statute might not apply.
  • Item Not a “Firearm,” “Explosive,” or “Incendiary Device”: Explanation: The defense can challenge whether the item involved actually meets the statutory definition of a firearm (e.g., a non-functional replica, certain air guns) or an explosive/incendiary device (e.g., standard fireworks not modified, common tools). If the item is not covered, the statute is inapplicable.

Lawful Performance of Duties or Protected Activity

The statute includes an explicit exception and must be read in light of constitutional rights.

  • Law Enforcement Officer Exemption (Subd. 1(b)): Explanation: If the defendant is a law enforcement officer (as defined in Subd. 2(4)) and the teaching, demonstration, or training was part of their lawful official duties (e.g., police training exercises), this section does not apply.
  • Constitutionally Protected Speech or Assembly: Explanation: While not an explicit statutory defense, activities that constitute protected speech under the First Amendment (e.g., general advocacy not amounting to incitement or specific unlawful instruction) or lawful assembly for peaceful purposes are not criminalized. The defense can argue the conduct fell within these protected rights rather than the specific prohibited acts.

Insufficient Evidence of Prohibited Act

The prosecution must prove the defendant actually engaged in the prohibited teaching, demonstration, or assembly for the unlawful purpose.

  • No Teaching or Demonstration Occurred: Explanation: The defense can argue that no actual teaching or demonstration took place, or that what occurred was misinterpreted. Mere discussion or possession of information might not rise to the level of “teaching or demonstrating to any other person.”
  • Assembly for a Different Purpose: Explanation: For charges of unlawful assembly for training, the defense can present evidence that the group assembled for a different, lawful purpose, and that any discussion or handling of weapons was incidental or not tied to an intent for unlawful employment in a civil disorder.

Answering Your Questions About Minnesota’s Civil Disorder and Weapons Training Law

Minnesota Statute § 609.669 addresses specific concerns about individuals preparing for or encouraging unlawful violence during public disturbances. Residents of Minneapolis, St. Paul, and surrounding areas may have questions about what this law prohibits.

What exactly does Minnesota Statute § 609.669 outlaw?

This statute makes it a gross misdemeanor to do either of two things:

  1. Teach or demonstrate to someone how to use or make a firearm, explosive, or incendiary device, knowing or having reason to know it will be unlawfully used in a civil disorder.
  2. Assemble with others to train with, practice with, or be instructed in the use of such items, with the intent that they be unlawfully used in a civil disorder.

How does Minnesota law define “civil disorder” for this statute?

Subdivision 2(1) defines “civil disorder” as “any public disturbance involving acts of violence by assemblages of three or more persons, which causes an immediate danger of or results in damage or injury to the property or person of any other individual.”

What is considered a “firearm” under this law?

Subdivision 2(2) defines a “firearm” as “any weapon which is designed to or may readily be converted to expel any projectile by the action of an explosive; or the frame or receiver of any such weapon.”

What kind of “explosive or incendiary device” is covered?

Subdivision 2(3) states that “explosive or incendiary device” has the meaning given in section 609.668, subdivision 1. This includes items like bombs, grenades, Molotov cocktails, and fireworks modified for destructive purposes, but excludes standard firearms ammunition and common items like matches or lighters used lawfully.

What are the penalties for violating this civil disorder statute in St. Paul or Minneapolis?

A violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.669 is a gross misdemeanor. This is punishable by up to one year in jail and/or a fine of up to $3,000. These penalties apply in St. Paul (Ramsey County), Minneapolis (Hennepin County), and throughout Minnesota.

Does this law apply to legitimate self-defense training in Hennepin County?

No, this law is not intended to prohibit legitimate self-defense training or lawful firearm instruction. The key elements are the defendant’s knowledge or intent that the weapons or skills will be unlawfully employed for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder. Lawful self-defense is not unlawful employment.

What if I teach someone about firearms but don’t know their intentions?

For the “teaching or demonstrating” offense (Subd. 1(a)(1)), the prosecution must prove you knew or had reason to know it would be unlawfully employed in a civil disorder. If you had no such knowledge or reasonable basis to believe this, you would likely not be guilty under this clause.

Can I be charged for simply attending a protest in Ramsey County where some people later become violent?

No, merely attending a protest, even one that later involves some individuals engaging in violence, does not violate this specific statute. Minn. Stat. § 609.669 targets the teaching or training with weapons for unlawful use in such a disorder, not mere presence at a protest. Other laws might address participation in riots, however.

Are law enforcement officers exempt from this statute?

Yes, Subdivision 1(b) explicitly states that this section does not apply to law enforcement officers (as defined in Subd. 2(4), including National Guard and armed forces members) engaged in the lawful performance of their official duties.

What if a group is training for community defense but not to start a civil disorder?

This is a nuanced area. If the training is genuinely for lawful community defense and there is no intent to unlawfully employ weapons in what meets the definition of a “civil disorder” (i.e., initiating or escalating unlawful violence), then it might not violate this statute. However, the group’s intent and the nature of the anticipated “defense” would be heavily scrutinized.

Does “assembling” mean a formal meeting, or can it be an informal gathering?

“Assembles” generally means to gather together. It does not necessarily require a formal meeting structure. An informal gathering of one or more persons with the defendant for the prohibited purpose of training with weapons with the unlawful intent could suffice.

What if the “weapon” taught is a common item not usually seen as a weapon?

The statute specifies “firearm, or explosive or incendiary device capable of causing injury or death.” If the item does not meet these definitions, the statute would not apply. For example, teaching someone to use a stick for self-defense would not fall under this law.

Can online instruction or demonstrations lead to charges under this Minnesota law?

Potentially, yes. If a person “teaches or demonstrates” online (e.g., via video, live stream, or detailed written instructions) how to use or make a covered weapon, and does so knowing or having reason to know it will be unlawfully employed in a civil disorder, the elements could be met. The reach of “to any other person” can include online audiences.

Is it a defense if the planned civil disorder never actually happens?

The crime, as defined, focuses on the act of teaching/demonstrating with knowledge of unlawful employment, or assembling for training with intent of unlawful employment. The civil disorder itself does not necessarily have to occur for a person to be charged under this statute if the preparatory acts and mental states are proven.

What is the first thing I should do if accused of violating Minn. Stat. § 609.669 in the Twin Cities?

If you are accused of violating this civil disorder statute in the Twin Cities area, the most critical first step is to exercise your right to remain silent and immediately contact an experienced criminal defense attorney. Do not discuss the allegations or your activities with law enforcement without legal counsel.

Beyond the Courtroom: Long-Term Effects of a Minnesota Civil Disorder Conviction

A gross misdemeanor conviction under Minnesota Statute § 609.669, for teaching or training with weapons in furtherance of a civil disorder, carries significant long-term consequences that can impact an individual’s life well after any court-imposed sentence is completed. For residents of Minneapolis, St. Paul, and across Minnesota, understanding these potential repercussions is vital.

Creation of a Permanent Criminal Record

A conviction for this offense results in a permanent criminal record. This record is accessible through background checks conducted by employers, landlords, educational institutions, and volunteer organizations. In the competitive Twin Cities job market, a conviction related to civil disorder and the illicit use or training with weapons can be a substantial impediment. It may limit employment opportunities, particularly in fields requiring public trust, positions involving security, government jobs, or roles where character and judgment are paramount.

Impact on Employment and Professional Opportunities

Many employers are wary of hiring individuals with criminal records that suggest a propensity for violence, public disruption, or disregard for the law. A conviction under § 609.669 could make it difficult to secure or maintain employment, especially in professions that require licensing or a clean background. Opportunities for career advancement may be curtailed, and certain career paths could become inaccessible, affecting long-term earning potential and financial stability for those in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area.

Potential Restrictions on Firearm Rights

While a gross misdemeanor in Minnesota does not automatically result in a lifetime ban on firearm possession for all individuals, a conviction related to the unlawful training or intended unlawful use of firearms in the context of civil disorder could certainly lead to scrutiny and potential future restrictions. It may complicate applications for permits to carry or purchase firearms and could be considered an aggravating factor in other legal contexts. Federal law also has its own set of disqualifiers for firearm possession that could be implicated.

Social Stigma and Reputational Harm

Being convicted of an offense that involves preparing for or promoting unlawful violence during public disturbances can carry a significant social stigma. It can damage personal relationships, affect one’s standing within the community, and lead to being perceived as a threat to public order. This reputational harm can be long-lasting and difficult to overcome, impacting social interactions and community involvement for individuals in the Twin Cities and beyond. It may also affect participation in civic or political activities.

Why Experienced Legal Representation is Crucial for Civil Disorder Defense in the Twin Cities

When facing serious gross misdemeanor charges under Minnesota Statute § 609.669 for offenses related to civil disorder and weapons training, securing knowledgeable and dedicated criminal defense representation is of paramount importance. The potential for jail time, significant fines, and a lasting criminal record necessitates a robust legal defense. For individuals accused in Minneapolis, St. Paul, Hennepin County, Ramsey County, or the surrounding Minnesota communities, an experienced attorney can make a critical difference in navigating the complexities of the charges and protecting their rights.

Interpreting Complex Statutory Language and Definitions

Minnesota Statute § 609.669 contains specific legal definitions for “civil disorder,” “firearm,” and “explosive or incendiary device.” The statute also requires proof of particular mental states – “knowing or having reason to know” for teaching, and “intent” for assembling. An attorney with a strong understanding of Minnesota criminal law can meticulously analyze these definitions and mental state requirements in the context of the specific allegations. This expertise is crucial for identifying weaknesses in the prosecution’s case and ensuring the law is applied correctly in Twin Cities courts.

Developing Tailored Defense Strategies to Counter the Allegations

No two civil disorder cases are identical. An effective defense strategy must be tailored to the unique facts and circumstances of the accused’s situation. This involves a thorough investigation of the alleged teaching, demonstration, or assembly. Was the activity truly for an unlawful purpose related to a “civil disorder,” or was it for lawful self-defense, sport, or constitutionally protected expression? Counsel will explore all potential defenses, such as lack of the requisite knowledge or intent, that the items involved did not meet the statutory definitions, or that the defendant’s actions fell under the law enforcement exemption.

Protecting Constitutional Rights Throughout the Legal Process

Individuals accused of any crime, including offenses under § 609.669, have fundamental constitutional rights. These include the rights to remain silent, to counsel, to confront witnesses, and to a fair trial, as well as protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. An experienced defense attorney will ensure these rights are vigorously protected at every stage of the legal process in Minneapolis, St. Paul, and other Minnesota courts. This includes challenging any illegally obtained evidence or improperly elicited statements.

Negotiating with Prosecutors and Striving for Favorable Outcomes

While the goal is often to achieve a dismissal or acquittal, skilled legal counsel also understands the art of negotiation. In appropriate circumstances, an attorney can engage with prosecutors to potentially secure a reduction in charges, a more lenient sentencing recommendation, or an alternative resolution that minimizes the long-term consequences of a conviction. Given the impact a gross misdemeanor record can have on employment and reputation, every effort must be made to achieve the best possible outcome and protect the client’s future in the Twin Cities legal system.