Twin Cities Criminal Lawyer

Explosive And Incendiary Devices

Defending Against Charges Involving Explosive or Incendiary Devices in Minneapolis-St. Paul: Navigating Minnesota Statute § 609.668

Minnesota law takes an extremely serious stance against the unlawful possession, manufacture, transportation, storage, or malicious use of explosive and incendiary devices. Minnesota Statute § 609.668 provides a comprehensive framework defining these devices, outlining who is prohibited from possessing them, detailing permissible uses under strict conditions, and establishing severe felony penalties for violations. For individuals in the Twin Cities metropolitan area, including Minneapolis, St. Paul, Hennepin County, Ramsey County, and surrounding Minnesota counties, facing allegations under this statute represents a critical legal challenge with potentially life-altering consequences. These offenses are prosecuted vigorously due to the immense potential for destruction, injury, and public panic.

Understanding the intricate details of Minnesota Statute § 609.668 is paramount for anyone accused of such an offense. The statute meticulously defines what constitutes an “explosive device” and an “incendiary device,” lists categories of persons prohibited from possessing them (such as those with prior convictions for crimes of violence or certain mental health commitments), and specifies acts that can lead to felony charges with sentences reaching up to 20 years in prison. For those in Dakota, Anoka, or Washington counties, it is crucial to recognize that the state bears a heavy burden of proof. A robust defense requires a thorough analysis of the statute’s numerous provisions, from definitions and exceptions to the specific elements of the alleged prohibited act.

Minnesota Statute § 609.668: The Comprehensive Law Governing Explosive and Incendiary Devices

Minnesota state law provides a detailed and stringent framework for regulating explosive and incendiary devices to protect public safety. This comprehensive legislation is codified under Minnesota Statute § 609.668, titled “Explosive and Incendiary Devices.” The statute includes precise definitions, lists persons prohibited from possessing such devices, outlines authorized uses and reporting requirements, provides exceptions, and details severe penalties for violations.

609.668 EXPLOSIVE AND INCENDIARY DEVICES.

Subdivision 1.Definitions. For purposes of this section, the following terms have the meanings given them.

(a) “Explosive device” means a device so articulated that an ignition by fire, friction, concussion, chemical reaction, or detonation of any part of the device may cause such sudden generation of highly heated gases that the resultant gaseous pressures are capable of producing destructive effects. Explosive devices include, but are not limited to, bombs, grenades, rockets having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, mines, and fireworks modified for other than their intended purpose. The term includes devices that produce a chemical reaction that produces gas capable of bursting its container and producing destructive effects. The term does not include firearms ammunition.

(b) “Incendiary device” means a device so articulated that an ignition by fire, friction, concussion, detonation, or other method may produce destructive effects primarily through combustion rather than explosion. The term does not include a manufactured device or article in common use by the general public that is designed to produce combustion for a lawful purpose, including but not limited to matches, lighters, flares, or devices commercially manufactured primarily for the purpose of illumination, heating, or cooking. The term does not include firearms ammunition.

(c) “Crime of violence” has the meaning given in section 624.712, subdivision 5, and also includes a domestic assault conviction when committed within the last three years or while an order for protection is active against the person, whichever period is longer.

Subd. 2.Possession by certain persons prohibited. The following persons are prohibited from possessing or reporting an explosive device or incendiary device:

(a) a person under the age of 18 years;

(b) a person who has been convicted in this state or elsewhere of a crime of violence unless ten years have elapsed since the person’s civil rights have been restored or the sentence has expired, whichever occurs first, and during that time the person has not been convicted of any other crime of violence. For purposes of this section, crime of violence includes crimes in other states or jurisdictions that would have been crimes of violence if they had been committed in this state;

(c) a person who is or has ever been confined or committed in Minnesota or elsewhere as a person who is mentally ill, developmentally disabled, or mentally ill and dangerous to the public, as defined in section 253B.02, to a treatment facility, unless the person possesses a certificate of a medical doctor or psychiatrist licensed in Minnesota, or other satisfactory proof, that the person is no longer suffering from this disability;

(d) a person who has been convicted in Minnesota or elsewhere for the unlawful use, possession, or sale of a controlled substance other than conviction for possession of a small amount of marijuana, as defined in section 152.01, subdivision 16, or who is or has ever been hospitalized or committed for treatment for the habitual use of a controlled substance or marijuana, as defined in sections 152.01 and 152.02, unless the person possesses a certificate of a medical doctor or psychiatrist licensed in Minnesota, or other satisfactory proof, that the person has not abused a controlled substance or marijuana during the previous two years;

(e) a person who has been confined or committed to a treatment facility in Minnesota or elsewhere as chemically dependent, as defined in section 253B.02, unless the person has completed treatment; and

(f) a peace officer who is informally admitted to a treatment facility under section 253B.04 for chemical dependency, unless the officer possesses a certificate from the head of the treatment facility discharging or provisionally discharging the officer from the treatment facility.

A person who in good faith issues a certificate to a person described in this subdivision to possess or use an incendiary or explosive device is not liable for damages resulting or arising from the actions or misconduct with an explosive or incendiary device committed by the individual who is the subject of the certificate.

Subd. 3.Uses permitted. (a) The following persons may own or possess an explosive device or incendiary device provided that subdivision 4 is complied with:

(1) law enforcement officers for use in the course of their duties;

(2) fire department personnel for use in the course of their duties;

(3) corrections officers and other personnel at correctional facilities or institutions when used for the retention of persons convicted or accused of crime;

(4) persons possessing explosive devices or incendiary devices that although designed as devices have been determined by the commissioner of public safety or the commissioner’s delegate, by reason of the date of manufacture, value, design, or other characteristics, to be a collector’s item, relic, museum piece, or specifically used in a particular vocation or employment, such as the entertainment industry; and

(5) dealers and manufacturers who are federally licensed or registered.

(b) Persons listed in paragraph (a) shall also comply with the federal requirements for the registration and licensing of destructive devices.

Subd. 4.Report required. (a) Before owning or possessing an explosive device or incendiary device as authorized by subdivision 3, a person shall file a written report with the Department of Public Safety showing the person’s name and address; the person’s title, position, and type of employment; a description of the explosive device or incendiary device sufficient to enable identification of the device; the purpose for which the device will be owned or possessed; the federal license or registration number, if appropriate; and other information as the department may require.

(b) Before owning or possessing an explosive device or incendiary device, a dealer or manufacturer shall file a written report with the Department of Public Safety showing the name and address of the dealer or manufacturer; the federal license or registration number, if appropriate; the general type and disposition of the device; and other information as the department may require.

Subd. 5.Exceptions. This section does not apply to:

(1) members of the armed forces of either the United States or the state of Minnesota when for use in the course of duties;

(2) educational institutions when the devices are manufactured or used in conjunction with an official education course or program;

(3) propellant-actuated devices, or propellant-actuated industrial tools manufactured, imported, or distributed for their intended purpose;

(4) items that are neither designed or redesigned for use as explosive devices or incendiary devices;

(5) governmental organizations using explosive devices or incendiary devices for agricultural purposes or control of wildlife;

(6) governmental organizations using explosive devices or incendiary devices for official training purposes or as items retained as evidence; or

(7) arsenals, navy yards, depots, or other establishments owned by, or operated by or on behalf of, the United States.

Subd. 6.Acts prohibited; penalties. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever possesses, manufactures, transports, or stores an explosive device or incendiary device in violation of this section may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both.

(b) Whoever legally possesses, manufactures, transports, or stores an explosive device or incendiary device, with intent to use the device to damage property or cause injury, may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both.

(c) Whoever, acting with gross disregard for human life or property, negligently causes an explosive device or incendiary device to be discharged, may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 20 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $100,000, or both.

Subd. 7. [Repealed, 2003 c 2 art 1 s 45]

History: 1994 c 636 art 5 s 15; 2002 c 221 s 47; 2005 c 56 s 1

Key Elements of Explosive or Incendiary Device Offenses in Minnesota

Minnesota Statute § 609.668 establishes several distinct felony offenses related to explosive and incendiary devices. For any conviction, the prosecution bears the heavy burden of proving each essential element of the specific charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. This rigorous standard is applied in all Minnesota courts, including those in Hennepin County and Ramsey County. The complexity of this statute means that the elements can vary significantly depending on whether the charge involves unlawful possession by a prohibited person, illegal manufacture, transportation, or storage, possession with unlawful intent, or negligent discharge.

Elements for Unlawful Possession, Manufacture, Transport, or Storage (Subd. 6(a))

This is the broadest category of offense under the statute.

  • Act of Possessing, Manufacturing, Transporting, or Storing: Explanation: The prosecution must prove the defendant engaged in one of these specific actions. “Possession” can be actual (on one’s person) or constructive (in a place under one’s control with knowledge of its presence). “Manufacturing” involves creating or assembling such a device. “Transporting” means moving it from one place to another. “Storing” refers to keeping or accumulating the device.
  • Device is an “Explosive Device” or “Incendiary Device”: Explanation: The object in question must meet the detailed statutory definitions provided in Subd. 1(a) for an “explosive device” (e.g., bombs, grenades, certain rockets, modified fireworks, chemical reaction devices causing container rupture) or Subd. 1(b) for an “incendiary device” (e.g., Molotov cocktails, devices causing destruction primarily through combustion, excluding common items like matches or lighters used for lawful purposes). This often requires expert testimony to classify the device.
  • In Violation of This Section: Explanation: This crucial element means the act (possession, manufacture, etc.) was not authorized by or fell outside the exceptions or permitted uses outlined elsewhere in § 609.668. For example, if the defendant is a “prohibited person” under Subd. 2, their possession is inherently “in violation.” If they are a permitted person under Subd. 3 but failed to comply with reporting requirements under Subd. 4, their possession could also be “in violation.” The prosecution must specify how the conduct violated the section.
  • Knowledge (Generally Required for Possession): Explanation: For possession-based offenses, the prosecution typically must prove the defendant knowingly possessed the device. This means they were aware of the device’s presence and its general nature as an explosive or incendiary item. Knowledge can be inferred from the circumstances.

Elements for Lawful Possession/Manufacture/Etc. With Intent to Damage Property or Cause Injury (Subd. 6(b))

This offense applies even if the person might otherwise be allowed to possess the device.

  • Lawful Initial Possession, Manufacture, Transport, or Storage: Explanation: The defendant must have initially been in legal possession (or legally manufacturing, transporting, or storing) the explosive or incendiary device, perhaps under an exception in Subd. 5 or as a permitted person in Subd. 3 who complied with Subd. 4.
  • Device is an “Explosive Device” or “Incendiary Device”: Explanation: As with Subd. 6(a), the device must meet the statutory definitions from Subd. 1(a) or Subd. 1(b). The nature of the device as inherently dangerous and capable of causing destructive effects is paramount.
  • Specific Intent to Use Device to Damage Property or Cause Injury: Explanation: This is the critical distinguishing element. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant harbored the specific intent to use the lawfully held device to unlawfully damage property or cause injury to a person. This requires evidence of the defendant’s state of mind, which might be inferred from threats, plans, statements, or other circumstantial evidence indicating a malicious purpose.

Elements for Negligent Discharge (Subd. 6(c))

This offense focuses on the reckless or grossly negligent handling of such devices.

  • Acting with Gross Disregard for Human Life or Property: Explanation: The defendant’s conduct must demonstrate a “gross disregard” for safety. This is a higher standard than simple negligence; it implies a reckless indifference to the substantial and unjustifiable risk of harm that their actions created.
  • Negligently Causing Discharge: Explanation: The defendant must have negligently caused the explosive or incendiary device to discharge. “Negligently” means failing to exercise the degree of care that a reasonable person would under similar circumstances when handling such a dangerous item. The discharge must be a result of this negligent conduct.
  • Device is an “Explosive Device” or “Incendiary Device”: Explanation: Again, the device that was discharged must meet the statutory definitions from Subd. 1(a) or Subd. 1(b). The destructive potential of the item is central to the severity of this offense.
  • Causation of Discharge: Explanation: There must be a direct causal link between the defendant’s grossly negligent conduct and the actual discharge of the device. The prosecution needs to show that but for the defendant’s actions (or inactions amounting to gross negligence), the discharge would not have occurred.

Potential Penalties and Consequences for Explosive or Incendiary Device Convictions in Minnesota

Violations of Minnesota Statute § 609.668 are all classified as serious felonies, carrying substantial penalties that underscore the grave danger these devices pose to public safety. Convictions for offenses involving explosive or incendiary devices in Minneapolis, St. Paul, or any Minnesota jurisdiction can lead to lengthy imprisonment, significant fines, and a host of lifelong collateral consequences.

Penalties for Unlawful Possession, Manufacture, Transport, or Storage (Subd. 6(a))

For individuals who possess, manufacture, transport, or store an explosive or incendiary device in violation of the statute (e.g., being a prohibited person under Subd. 2, or failing to meet permitted use/reporting requirements of Subd. 3 and 4):

  • Imprisonment: Up to ten years in a state correctional facility.
  • Fine: Up to $20,000.
  • Both: The court may impose both imprisonment and a fine.

Penalties for Lawful Possession/Etc. with Intent to Damage Property or Cause Injury (Subd. 6(b))

For individuals who might otherwise legally possess, manufacture, transport, or store such a device, but do so with the specific intent to use it to damage property or cause injury:

  • Imprisonment: Up to ten years in a state correctional facility.
  • Fine: Up to $20,000.
  • Both: The court may impose both imprisonment and a fine. This penalty matches Subd. 6(a) but targets the malicious intent even if initial possession was lawful.

Penalties for Negligent Discharge (Subd. 6(c))

For individuals who, acting with gross disregard for human life or property, negligently cause an explosive or incendiary device to be discharged:

  • Imprisonment: Up to twenty years in a state correctional facility.
  • Fine: Up to $100,000.
  • Both: The court may impose both imprisonment and a fine. This is the most severe penalty under this statute, reflecting the actual discharge and heightened danger.

Severe Lifelong Collateral Consequences of a Felony Conviction

Beyond these direct statutory penalties, any felony conviction under § 609.668 in Hennepin County, Ramsey County, or elsewhere in Minnesota will result in:

  • A permanent felony criminal record.
  • Loss of civil rights, including the right to vote (until sentence completion) and, crucially, a lifetime ban on possessing firearms and ammunition under state and federal law.
  • Extreme barriers to employment, housing, and educational opportunities.
  • Potential revocation or denial of professional licenses.
  • For non-citizens, severe immigration consequences including deportation.
  • Significant social stigma and damage to personal and professional relationships.

Understanding Explosive & Incendiary Device Offenses Through Examples in the Metro Area

The prohibitions under Minnesota Statute § 609.668 are broad, covering a range of dangerous items and conduct. From homemade bombs in a Minneapolis apartment to unlawfully possessed commercial explosives in a St. Paul suburb, the law aims to prevent catastrophic events. These examples illustrate how violations might occur within the Twin Cities region.

The statute’s detailed definitions of “explosive device” and “incendiary device” are critical. An “explosive device” causes destruction through sudden gas generation (e.g., bombs, grenades, certain rockets, modified fireworks), while an “incendiary device” causes destruction primarily through combustion (e.g., Molotov cocktail, excluding common items like lighters). The law also heavily regulates who can possess these items, with strict prohibitions for individuals with certain criminal histories or mental health backgrounds, unless specific legal exceptions or certifications are met.

Example: Prohibited Person Possessing Commercial Explosives in Hennepin County

An individual in Hennepin County has a prior conviction for a “crime of violence” as defined in Minnesota statutes. Less than ten years have passed since their civil rights were restored. They are found in possession of several sticks of dynamite (an explosive device) that they acquired illicitly. This person is a “prohibited person” under § 609.668, Subd. 2(b). Their possession of the dynamite, regardless of their intent, would constitute a violation of Subd. 6(a), as they are possessing an explosive device in violation of the section (specifically, Subd. 2(b)).

Example: Manufacturing Molotov Cocktails in a St. Paul Garage

A group of individuals in a St. Paul garage is found assembling Molotov cocktails – glass bottles filled with gasoline and fitted with cloth wicks. These meet the definition of an “incendiary device” under Subd. 1(b). Assuming these individuals are not covered by any permitted uses (Subd. 3) or exceptions (Subd. 5), their act of “manufacturing” these incendiary devices is a violation of § 609.668, Subd. 6(a). If evidence showed they intended to use these devices to damage a specific building, they could also face charges under Subd. 6(b).

Example: Negligent Discharge of Modified Fireworks in Anoka County

During a party in Anoka County, an individual ignites a large firework that they had significantly modified by adding extra propellant and shrapnel, turning it into an “explosive device” beyond its intended use. They do so in a crowded backyard with “gross disregard for human life or property.” The device detonates improperly, causing shrapnel injuries to bystanders. This individual could be charged under § 609.668, Subd. 6(c) for negligently causing an explosive device to be discharged, leading to injury. The modification of the firework is key to it being classified as an explosive device under the statute.

Example: Unlawful Storage of Improvised Explosive Device Components in a Dakota County Apartment

Law enforcement in Dakota County, responding to an unrelated call, discovers components and chemicals in an apartment that are clearly being assembled into an Improvised Explosive Device (IED). The resident, who has a past conviction for unlawful sale of controlled substances (making them a prohibited person under Subd. 2(d) without a certificate), is deemed to be “manufacturing” and “storing” an explosive device. This would be a violation of § 609.668, Subd. 6(a). The combination of prohibited status and the act of manufacturing/storing the device components constitutes the offense.

Building a Strong Defense Against Explosive or Incendiary Device Allegations in Minneapolis

Charges under Minnesota Statute § 609.668 are among the most serious felony offenses an individual can face in the Twin Cities. Given the severe potential penalties, including lengthy imprisonment, developing a comprehensive and aggressive defense strategy is paramount. Whether the allegations arise in Minneapolis, St. Paul, or surrounding counties like Washington or Scott, the prosecution bears the substantial burden of proving every element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Numerous avenues for defense may exist, depending on the specific facts of the case and the particular subdivision under which charges are brought.

An effective defense requires a meticulous examination of the evidence, a deep understanding of the complex statutory definitions, and a proactive approach to challenging the state’s claims. Was the item in question truly an “explosive device” or “incendiary device” as legally defined? Was the accused actually a “prohibited person”? Did their conduct fall under a statutory exception or permitted use? Were their constitutional rights violated during the investigation? These are all critical areas of inquiry for defense counsel.

Device Does Not Meet Statutory Definition

A foundational defense is to argue that the item in question does not legally qualify as an “explosive device” or “incendiary device” under the strict definitions provided in § 609.668, Subd. 1.

  • Not an “Explosive Device”: Explanation: The defense may present evidence or expert testimony showing the device lacked the necessary articulation or components to cause a “sudden generation of highly heated gases” producing “destructive effects.” For example, an item mistaken for a bomb might be inert or incapable of detonation as described. The exclusion of “firearms ammunition” is also notable.
  • Not an “Incendiary Device”: Explanation: Similarly, it could be argued that the device was not designed to produce “destructive effects primarily through combustion” or that it falls under the exception for common, lawfully used manufactured items (matches, lighters, flares, etc.). The intent and design of the device are crucial.

Defendant Not a “Prohibited Person” (Challenging Subd. 2 Status)

If the charge relies on the defendant being a “prohibited person” under Subd. 2 (often leading to a Subd. 6(a) violation for possession), challenging this status is key.

  • No Qualifying Prior Conviction/Commitment: Explanation: The defense can argue that a prior conviction does not meet the definition of a “crime of violence,” or that the required time (e.g., ten years for crime of violence) has elapsed and civil rights were restored without further convictions. Similarly, for mental health or chemical dependency prohibitions, the specific statutory criteria for commitment or the existence of a valid certificate of recovery can be contested.
  • Possession of Valid Certificate: Explanation: For certain prohibitions under Subd. 2(c) (mental health) and Subd. 2(d) (controlled substance history), the statute allows for possession if the person has a valid certificate from a medical doctor or psychiatrist. Presenting such a certificate would be a complete defense to a prohibition based on those grounds.

Conduct Falls Under Permitted Uses (Subd. 3) or Exceptions (Subd. 5)

The statute provides explicit categories for permitted uses and general exceptions.

  • Authorized User/Permitted Use with Reporting: Explanation: If the defendant is a law enforcement officer, firefighter, federally licensed dealer/manufacturer, or qualifies as possessing a collector’s item (Subd. 3), and complied with the reporting requirements of Subd. 4, their possession or handling of the device may be lawful.
  • Applicability of Statutory Exceptions: Explanation: The conduct might fall under one of the broad exceptions in Subd. 5, such as military personnel in the course of duty, educational institutions for official programs, or items not designed or redesigned as explosive/incendiary devices. Demonstrating that an exception applies would negate criminal liability.

Lack of Requisite Intent or Mens Rea

For specific offenses, particularly under Subd. 6(b) (intent to damage/injure) or Subd. 6(c) (gross disregard), challenging the mental state is crucial.

  • No Intent to Damage Property or Cause Injury (for Subd. 6(b)): Explanation: The prosecution must prove specific intent. The defense can argue that even if the defendant possessed the device (perhaps lawfully), there is no evidence they intended to use it for harmful purposes. Possession for collection, research (if permitted), or another non-malicious reason would counter this element.
  • Conduct Not “Gross Disregard” (for Subd. 6(c)): Explanation: “Gross disregard” is a high standard of recklessness. The defense can argue that while an accident involving a discharge may have occurred, the defendant’s conduct did not rise to the level of gross disregard for human life or property, perhaps amounting only to ordinary negligence or an unforeseeable accident not of their making.

Constitutional Violations and Evidentiary Challenges

Fundamental constitutional protections apply in all criminal cases, including those involving alleged explosive or incendiary devices.

  • Illegal Search and Seizure: Explanation: If law enforcement discovered the alleged device or related evidence through an unlawful search of the defendant’s person, home, vehicle, or property, that evidence may be suppressed. If the suppressed evidence is critical, it could lead to dismissal of charges. This is a common and powerful defense in Hennepin, Ramsey, and all Minnesota courts.
  • Miranda Violations/Coerced Statements: Explanation: Any statements obtained from the defendant in violation of their Miranda rights (e.g., during custodial interrogation without proper warnings) or through coercion may be inadmissible. Challenging the admissibility of such statements can significantly impact the prosecution’s case.

Answering Your Questions About Minnesota’s Explosive and Incendiary Device Law

Charges under Minnesota Statute § 609.668 are extremely serious, involving complex definitions and severe felony penalties. Individuals in Minneapolis, St. Paul, and across Minnesota often have urgent questions when facing or learning about these laws.

What is an “explosive device” under Minn. Stat. § 609.668?

An “explosive device” is defined in Subd. 1(a) as something that, upon ignition (by various means), can cause a sudden generation of highly heated gases, resulting in destructive effects. Examples include bombs, grenades, rockets with over four ounces of propellant, mines, and fireworks modified from their intended purpose. It also includes chemical reaction devices that can burst their container destructively. Standard firearms ammunition is excluded.

How is an “incendiary device” different from an explosive one?

An “incendiary device,” per Subd. 1(b), produces destructive effects primarily through combustion (fire) rather than explosion. Common items like matches, lighters, or flares used for lawful purposes are excluded. Molotov cocktails are a classic example of an incendiary device. Firearms ammunition is also excluded.

Who is considered a “prohibited person” from possessing these devices in Minnesota?

Subdivision 2 lists several categories, including: persons under 18; those convicted of a “crime of violence” (unless specific conditions are met); persons with certain mental health commitments (unless certified recovered); persons with certain controlled substance convictions or habitual use treatment history (unless certified recovered); and those committed as chemically dependent (unless treatment is completed).

Are there any legal uses for explosive or incendiary devices in St. Paul or Minneapolis?

Yes, Subd. 3 permits certain individuals like law enforcement, fire personnel, corrections officers, and federally licensed dealers/manufacturers to own or possess these devices under specific conditions, including compliance with federal regulations and state reporting requirements (Subd. 4). Collectors may also possess certain devices if deemed relics or museum pieces by the Commissioner of Public Safety and reporting requirements are met.

What are the penalties for unlawfully possessing an explosive device in Hennepin County?

Unlawful possession, manufacture, transport, or storage of an explosive or incendiary device (violating § 609.668, Subd. 6(a)) is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and/or a $20,000 fine in Hennepin County or any Minnesota jurisdiction.

What if someone possesses a legal explosive but intends to use it to damage property?

This is covered by Subd. 6(b). Even if initial possession is lawful, if there’s an intent to use the device to damage property or cause injury, it’s a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and/or a $20,000 fine.

What happens if someone negligently causes an explosive device to go off in Ramsey County?

If someone, acting with “gross disregard for human life or property,” negligently causes an explosive or incendiary device to discharge in Ramsey County or elsewhere, they face the most severe penalty under Subd. 6(c): up to 20 years in prison and/or a $100,000 fine.

Does this Minnesota law apply to fireworks?

Standard consumer fireworks used as intended are generally not considered “explosive devices” under this statute. However, Subd. 1(a) explicitly includes “fireworks modified for other than their intended purpose” as potential explosive devices. If fireworks are altered to be significantly more destructive, they could fall under this law.

What is a “crime of violence” for determining who is a prohibited person?

Subd. 1(c) states that “crime of violence” has the meaning given in section 624.712, subdivision 5 (Minnesota’s general definition for firearm prohibitions), and also includes a domestic assault conviction under certain conditions. This typically includes offenses like murder, assault, robbery, kidnapping, arson, and terroristic threats.

Are there exceptions for military or educational institutions?

Yes, Subd. 5 provides exceptions for members of the armed forces in the course of their duties, and for educational institutions when devices are manufactured or used in official courses or programs. There are also exceptions for certain propellant-actuated tools and governmental agricultural/wildlife control uses.

What if I find what I think is an explosive device? Should I report it?

Yes. If you find something you suspect is an explosive or incendiary device, do not touch it. Move to a safe distance and immediately call 911 to report it to law enforcement. They have the training to handle such situations safely.

Can a person with a past drug conviction possess an explosive device if they get a doctor’s note?

Subd. 2(d) states that a person with certain unlawful drug use, possession, or sale convictions (other than small amount of marijuana) or habitual use treatment history is prohibited unless they possess a certificate from a doctor/psychiatrist licensed in Minnesota (or other satisfactory proof) that they have not abused controlled substances or marijuana during the previous two years.

What kind of reporting is required for lawful possession by permitted individuals?

Subdivision 4 requires persons authorized under Subd. 3 (like collectors or industry professionals) to file a written report with the Minnesota Department of Public Safety before owning or possessing the device. This report must include detailed information about the person, the device, its purpose, federal license numbers if applicable, and other required data.

If I’m charged under this statute, what is the most important first step to take?

If you are charged with any offense under Minnesota Statute § 609.668 in the Twin Cities or anywhere in Minnesota, the most critical first step is to exercise your right to remain silent and immediately contact an experienced criminal defense attorney. These are extremely serious felony charges with severe consequences.

Does this law apply to items that could be made into a bomb but aren’t assembled yet?

The statute covers “manufacturing” an explosive or incendiary device. Possessing a collection of components that clearly indicates an intent and capability to assemble such a device could lead to charges for attempting or manufacturing, depending on the stage of assembly and other evidence. The definition of “device so articulated” suggests some level of assembly or readiness.

Beyond the Courtroom: Long-Term Effects of a Minnesota Explosive or Incendiary Device Felony Conviction

A felony conviction under Minnesota Statute § 609.668 for an offense involving explosive or incendiary devices is one of the most serious judgments a person can face in the Minnesota legal system. The consequences extend far beyond the significant prison sentences and heavy fines, creating a cascade of lifelong disabilities and disadvantages for individuals in Minneapolis, St. Paul, and across the state.

Permanent Felony Criminal Record and Devastating Loss of Civil Rights

The most immediate and irreversible consequence is the creation of a permanent felony criminal record. This public record carries an immense stigma. In Minnesota, convicted felons lose fundamental civil rights. This includes the right to vote until their full sentence (including any probation or parole) is completed. Critically, under both federal and Minnesota law, a felony conviction results in a lifetime prohibition on ever lawfully possessing firearms or ammunition. This complete loss of Second Amendment rights is a profound and permanent consequence. Other civil rights, such as the right to serve on a jury, are also lost.

Catastrophic Barriers to Employment and Economic Stability in the Twin Cities

Securing and maintaining meaningful employment in the competitive Twin Cities job market becomes nearly impossible with a felony conviction for an explosives-related offense. Employers almost universally conduct background checks, and such a conviction often leads to automatic disqualification. The perceived danger and untrustworthiness associated with these offenses make individuals virtually unemployable in many sectors. This leads to chronic unemployment, underemployment, profound economic hardship, and an inability to support oneself or one’s family, often resulting in long-term financial instability.

Insurmountable Housing Obstacles and Social Stigma

Finding safe and stable housing in Hennepin County, Ramsey County, or elsewhere becomes an extreme challenge. Landlords routinely perform background checks and are highly likely to deny rental applications from individuals with felony convictions, particularly those as serious as offenses under § 609.668. This can lead to homelessness or relegation to substandard and insecure living conditions. The social stigma attached to such a conviction is also immense, leading to ostracization, damaged personal relationships, and difficulty reintegrating into the community.

Denial or Revocation of Professional Licenses and Educational Aspirations

A felony conviction for an explosive or incendiary device offense will almost certainly result in the denial of any application for a professional license (e.g., in healthcare, education, skilled trades, finance, law) or the swift revocation of any existing licenses. This effectively bars individuals from many career paths. Educational opportunities may also be severely limited, as colleges and vocational programs may deny admission to those with such serious felony records. These barriers permanently curtail opportunities for personal and professional advancement. For non-U.S. citizens, such a conviction will inevitably lead to deportation and a permanent bar from re-entering the United States.

Why Experienced Legal Representation is Absolutely Essential for Explosive & Incendiary Device Defense in the Twin Cities

When an individual is accused of violating Minnesota Statute § 609.668, concerning explosive or incendiary devices, they are facing some of the most serious felony charges in the state’s criminal code. The potential penalties—up to 20 years in prison and fines up to $100,000—coupled with devastating lifelong collateral consequences, make securing highly skilled and experienced criminal defense representation an absolute necessity. For those confronting such allegations in Minneapolis, St. Paul, Hennepin County, Ramsey County, or anywhere in the Twin Cities metropolitan area, the choice of legal counsel can be the single most important factor influencing the outcome of their case.

Deciphering Highly Complex Statutory Language and Definitions

Minnesota Statute § 609.668 is exceptionally detailed, containing intricate definitions for “explosive device,” “incendiary device,” and “crime of violence.” It outlines numerous categories of “prohibited persons,” specific conditions for “permitted uses,” mandatory “reporting requirements,” and various “exceptions.” An attorney with substantial experience in complex felony cases and Minnesota firearms/weapons laws is essential to accurately interpret these provisions and determine how they apply to the specific facts of a client’s case. Misinterpreting any part of this statute can have dire consequences.

Crafting Sophisticated Defense Strategies for Grave Felony Allegations

Given the severity of potential penalties, defense strategies must be meticulously developed and aggressively pursued. This involves a deep dive into the prosecution’s evidence to identify weaknesses and inconsistencies. Was the item correctly identified as a prohibited device? Can the state prove the necessary intent for charges under Subd. 6(b)? Was the defendant’s conduct truly “gross disregard” under Subd. 6(c)? Did the defendant fall under a statutory exception or a category of permitted users who met all conditions? Experienced counsel will explore every possible angle, from challenging the elements of the offense to asserting affirmative defenses, tailored to the unique circumstances of the case in Minneapolis or St. Paul.

Rigorously Challenging Evidence and Protecting Fundamental Constitutional Rights

A critical function of defense counsel is to ensure that the defendant’s constitutional rights were upheld throughout the investigation and legal proceedings. This includes challenging the legality of searches and seizures that led to the discovery of alleged devices or evidence, scrutinizing the methods of evidence collection and forensic analysis, and contesting the admissibility of any statements obtained in violation of Miranda rights. In the high-stakes felony courts of Hennepin and Ramsey Counties, the ability to effectively litigate these constitutional issues can be outcome-determinative.

Negotiating with Prosecutors and Fighting to Mitigate Catastrophic Outcomes

While the primary objective is often to achieve a dismissal or acquittal, the realities of the legal system sometimes necessitate strategic negotiations with the prosecution. An experienced attorney, respected in the Twin Cities legal community, can effectively negotiate for potential charge reductions, argue for more lenient sentencing if a conviction is unavoidable, or explore alternative resolutions that might lessen the devastating lifelong impact of a felony conviction under § 609.668. Protecting the client’s future from the full brunt of these catastrophic charges is the ultimate aim of dedicated legal advocacy.