Twin Cities Criminal Lawyer

Obstructing Legal Process, Arrest, Or Firefighting

Resolute Defense Against Obstruction Charges in Minneapolis-St. Paul Under Minnesota Statute § 609.50

An accusation of Obstructing Legal Process, Arrest, or Firefighting under Minnesota Statute § 609.50 is a serious offense that can arise from a wide array of interactions with law enforcement, firefighters, ambulance personnel, or other public officials. This statute criminalizes intentionally obstructing, hindering, resisting, or interfering with these officials while they are lawfully performing their duties, or preventing the execution of legal process or the apprehension of another. The penalties for a conviction can vary significantly, from a misdemeanor to a felony carrying substantial prison time and fines, depending on the circumstances, such as whether force was used or if the act created a risk of death or serious harm. For individuals in the Twin Cities metropolitan area, including Minneapolis, St. Paul, Hennepin County, and Ramsey County, understanding the scope of this law and its potential ramifications is critically important.

Successfully navigating charges under § 609.50 requires a clear comprehension of what constitutes unlawful obstruction, the specific duties of the officials involved, and the intent required for a conviction. The law covers diverse situations, from physically resisting an arrest to interfering with firefighters at an emergency scene or obstructing revenue department employees. Given the potential for significant consequences, including a criminal record and incarceration, particularly in the active legal environments of Hennepin and Ramsey counties, a robust and well-informed defense strategy is essential. A confident approach, grounded in a thorough understanding of the charges and the legal system, is paramount when facing these allegations.

Minnesota Statute § 609.50: The Legal Foundation for Obstruction Charges

Minnesota state law defines the crime of Obstructing Legal Process, Arrest, or Firefighting, and related interferences, under Minnesota Statute § 609.50. This statute outlines the various prohibited acts of obstruction and interference, identifies the officials protected, and details the tiered penalty structure based on the severity and circumstances of the offense.

609.50 OBSTRUCTING LEGAL PROCESS, ARREST, OR FIREFIGHTING.

Subdivision 1.Crime. Whoever intentionally does any of the following may be sentenced as provided in subdivision 2:

(1) obstructs, hinders, or prevents the lawful execution of any legal process, civil or criminal, or apprehension of another on a charge or conviction of a criminal offense;

(2) obstructs, resists, or interferes with a peace officer while the officer is engaged in the performance of official duties;

(3) interferes with or obstructs a firefighter while the firefighter is engaged in the performance of official duties;

(4) interferes with or obstructs a member of an ambulance service personnel crew, as defined in section 144E.001, subdivision 3a, who is providing, or attempting to provide, emergency care; or

(5) by force or threat of force endeavors to obstruct any employee of the Department of Revenue, Department of Public Safety Driver and Vehicle Services Division, a driver’s license agent appointed under section 171.061, or a deputy registrar appointed under section 168.33 while the employee is lawfully engaged in the performance of official duties for the purpose of deterring or interfering with the performance of those duties.

Subd. 2.Penalty. A person convicted of violating subdivision 1 may be sentenced as follows:

(1) if (i) the person knew or had reason to know that the act created a risk of death, substantial bodily harm, or serious property damage; or (ii) the act caused death, substantial bodily harm, or serious property damage; to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both;

(2) if the act was accompanied by force or violence or the threat thereof, and is not otherwise covered by clause (1), to imprisonment for not more than 364 days or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both; or

(3) in other cases, to imprisonment for not more than 90 days or to payment of a fine of not more than $1,000, or both.

Key Legal Elements of Obstructing Legal Process in Minnesota Courts

To secure a conviction for Obstructing Legal Process, Arrest, or Firefighting under Minnesota Statute § 609.50, the prosecution, whether in Hennepin County, Ramsey County, or any other Minnesota jurisdiction, must prove each essential element of the specific clause charged beyond a reasonable doubt. A failure to establish any one of these elements will prevent a lawful conviction. The statute requires intentional conduct that falls into one of the prohibited categories of obstruction or interference.

  • Intentional Act of Obstruction, Hindrance, Prevention, Resistance, or Interference: The cornerstone of any charge under § 609.50 is that the accused acted intentionally. This means the person must have consciously and purposefully engaged in conduct designed to obstruct, hinder, prevent, resist, or interfere with the lawful actions of specified officials or processes. Accidental or negligent actions, even if they inadvertently impede an officer or process, would not typically meet this high mens rea standard. The prosecution must demonstrate that the accused’s objective was to create an impediment. This is a critical point of contention in many Minneapolis and St. Paul obstruction cases.
  • Obstructing Lawful Execution of Legal Process or Apprehension (Subd. 1(1)): This clause requires proof that the accused intentionally obstructed, hindered, or prevented either the lawful execution of any legal process (civil or criminal, such as serving a court order or seizing property under a writ) or the lawful apprehension (arrest) of another person on a charge or conviction of a crime. The “lawfulness” of the process or apprehension is key; if the underlying process or attempted arrest was unlawful, this charge might fail. The accused’s actions must have actively impeded these official functions.
  • Obstructing, Resisting, or Interfering with a Peace Officer (Subd. 1(2)): This is one of the most commonly charged forms of obstruction. The prosecution must prove the accused intentionally obstructed, resisted (actively opposed), or interfered with a known peace officer while that officer was engaged in the performance of their official duties. This can include physical resistance to arrest, providing false information to misdirect an officer during an investigation, or creating a disturbance that prevents an officer from handling a situation. The officer must be acting within the scope of their lawful duties; interference with unlawful police conduct may be defensible. This is frequently litigated in Hennepin and Ramsey County courts.
  • Interfering with or Obstructing a Firefighter or Ambulance Personnel (Subd. 1(3) & (4)): These clauses protect emergency responders. The State must show the accused intentionally interfered with or obstructed a firefighter performing official duties (e.g., fighting a fire, rescue) or a member of an ambulance service crew providing or attempting to provide emergency care. This could involve physically blocking access, refusing lawful orders at an emergency scene that endangers the operation, or tampering with equipment. The focus is on conduct that hampers emergency response efforts in communities across the Twin Cities.
  • Obstructing Revenue or DVS Employees by Force or Threat (Subd. 1(5)): This clause specifically addresses obstruction of certain state employees (Department of Revenue, DVS, driver’s license agents, deputy registrars) while they are lawfully performing official duties. A key distinction here is that the obstruction must be by force or threat of force, and it must be for the purpose of deterring or interfering with those duties. This targets more aggressive forms of interference with these specific government functions, such as tax collection or vehicle registration processes.

Understanding the Stakes: Penalties for Obstructing Legal Process Convictions in Minnesota

A conviction for Obstructing Legal Process, Arrest, or Firefighting under Minnesota Statute § 609.50 can result in a range of penalties, from a misdemeanor to a serious felony, depending on the specific circumstances and severity of the conduct. The law establishes a tiered penalty structure based on factors such as the risk or actual harm caused, and whether force or violence was involved. Individuals facing these charges in the Twin Cities must understand the significant potential for incarceration, fines, and a lasting criminal record.

Felony Level Obstruction (Risk or Causation of Death, Substantial Bodily Harm, or Serious Property Damage – Subd. 2(1))

The most severe penalties apply if the act of obstruction involved heightened danger or actual harm. A person may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both, if:

  • The person knew or had reason to know that their obstructive act created a risk of death, substantial bodily harm, or serious property damage; OR
  • The obstructive act actually caused death, substantial bodily harm, or serious property damage. This felony-level charge would apply in situations where, for example, resisting arrest foreseeably endangers officers or bystanders, or interfering with firefighters significantly increases property destruction or risk to life in a Hennepin or Ramsey County incident.

Gross Misdemeanor Level Obstruction (Accompanied by Force or Violence or Threat Thereof – Subd. 2(2))

If the obstructive act was accompanied by force or violence, or the threat of force or violence, and is not otherwise covered by the more serious felony provision (clause 1), the person may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 364 days or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both. This makes the offense a gross misdemeanor. This would cover situations where an individual physically struggles with an officer without causing substantial bodily harm, or makes credible threats of force during the obstruction.

Misdemeanor Level Obstruction (Other Cases – Subd. 2(3))

In other cases of obstruction that do not meet the criteria for the felony or gross misdemeanor levels (i.e., no known risk/causation of serious harm, and no force/violence or threat thereof), the person may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 90 days or to payment of a fine of not more than $1,000, or both. This makes the offense a misdemeanor. This could apply to passive resistance or verbal interference that doesn’t involve force or create a high risk of harm.

How Obstruction Charges Can Arise: Illustrative Examples in the Metro Area

Minnesota Statute § 609.50 covers a broad spectrum of conduct where an individual intentionally impedes the lawful actions of peace officers, emergency responders, or the execution of legal processes. These charges are common in Minneapolis, St. Paul, and surrounding Minnesota communities, often arising from dynamic and sometimes volatile situations. Understanding these practical applications can clarify how one might face allegations of obstruction.

The core of the offense is always the intentional act of hindering, resisting, or interfering. The specific circumstances, such as who was obstructed and how, will determine which clause of subdivision 1 applies and the potential severity of the charge under subdivision 2. Prosecutors in Hennepin County and Ramsey County frequently charge this offense, either as a standalone crime or in conjunction with other alleged misconduct.

Example: Physically Resisting Arrest During a Minneapolis Traffic Stop (Subd. 1(2))

During a lawful traffic stop in Minneapolis, a driver is informed they are under arrest for suspicion of DWI. The driver refuses to exit the vehicle, physically pulls away from the officer attempting to handcuff them, and attempts to flee on foot. This intentional physical resistance against a peace officer performing their official duty (making an arrest) would constitute Obstructing Legal Process under § 609.50, subd. 1(2). Depending on the level of force used and any risk created, it could be charged as a misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor, or even a felony.

Example: Providing False Information to Misdirect St. Paul Police (Subd. 1(2))

St. Paul police officers are investigating a reported burglary and are questioning individuals in the area. One person, wanting to protect the actual burglar who is a friend, intentionally provides officers with a false description of the suspect and a fabricated direction of travel, sending the officers on a wild goose chase. This intentional act of providing false information to hinder or obstruct peace officers in the performance of their investigative duties could be charged under § 609.50, subd. 1(2).

Example: Interfering with Firefighters at an Anoka County Fire Scene (Subd. 1(3))

At the scene of a building fire in Anoka County, firefighters have established a safety perimeter and are actively battling the blaze. A bystander, concerned about property inside the burning structure, repeatedly ignores lawful orders from firefighters to stay back and attempts to enter the restricted area, distracting firefighters and potentially endangering themselves and the emergency operation. This intentional interference with firefighters engaged in their official duties would violate § 609.50, subd. 1(3).

Example: Preventing Service of a Court Order in Dakota County (Subd. 1(1))

A process server in Dakota County attempts to lawfully serve a civil court order (a form of legal process) on an individual at their residence. The individual, upon seeing the process server, intentionally slams the door, refuses to accept the documents, and verbally threatens the server to leave the property, thereby preventing the lawful execution of the legal process. This intentional obstruction of the execution of legal process could lead to charges under § 609.50, subd. 1(1).

Building a Strong Defense Against Allegations of Obstructing Legal Process in Minneapolis

An accusation of Obstructing Legal Process, Arrest, or Firefighting under Minnesota Statute § 609.50 can arise from a wide variety of encounters with authority and can lead to serious criminal consequences. However, an arrest or charge is not a conviction. A robust and strategically sound defense is essential for anyone facing these allegations in Minneapolis, St. Paul, or the surrounding counties of Dakota, Anoka, and Washington. The prosecution bears the significant burden of proving every element of the specific type of obstruction charged beyond a reasonable doubt.

A successful defense strategy begins with a meticulous examination of all evidence, including police reports, body camera footage, witness statements, and the specific circumstances of the alleged incident. Challenging the prosecution’s assertions regarding the defendant’s intent, the lawfulness of the officer’s or official’s conduct, or whether the actions truly constituted “obstruction” can create the reasonable doubt necessary for an acquittal or a more favorable outcome. A confident legal approach, focused on the precise statutory language and constitutional protections, is paramount.

Lack of Intent to Obstruct, Hinder, or Interfere

A critical element of § 609.50 is that the accused acted “intentionally.” If the actions were accidental, a result of misunderstanding, or lacked the specific purpose of obstructing, the charge may fail.

  • Actions Were Accidental or Negligent: The accused’s conduct may have inadvertently impeded an officer or process but was not done with the conscious objective of obstructing. For example, accidentally bumping into an officer in a crowded Minneapolis scene or being slow to comply due to confusion, without intent to resist, might not meet the threshold.
  • Misunderstanding of Commands or Situation: In chaotic situations, individuals may misunderstand an officer’s commands or the nature of the legal process. Actions taken due to genuine confusion, rather than a deliberate intent to obstruct, could be a defense. This is particularly relevant if commands were unclear or conflicting.
  • Exercising Constitutional Rights: Merely questioning an officer’s actions, asserting one’s constitutional rights (like the right to remain silent or refuse a consent search), or verbally disagreeing, without physically resisting or actively hindering, is generally not obstruction. The line between protected speech and unlawful obstruction in a St. Paul interaction can be a key defense area.

Unlawful Conduct by the Officer or Official

The statute often requires that the peace officer, firefighter, or other official was engaged in the “lawful execution” of duties or “performance of official duties.” If the official’s actions were unlawful, subsequent resistance or interference might be justified or excused.

  • Unlawful Arrest or Detention: If an officer attempts an arrest without probable cause or conducts an unlawful detention, a person’s resistance to that unlawful act might not constitute obstruction of lawful duties. The legality of the officer’s initial actions in a Hennepin County encounter is a critical prerequisite.
  • Excessive Force by Officer: If an officer uses excessive or unlawful force, a person’s actions to protect themselves from that force might be defensible and not considered unlawful resistance to official duties. Self-defense principles could apply.
  • Official Acting Outside Scope of Authority: If the official (e.g., firefighter, revenue employee) was acting outside the legitimate scope of their legal authority or duties when the alleged obstruction occurred, the statute may not apply. Their actions must be within their official, lawful capacity.

Conduct Did Not Actually Obstruct, Hinder, or Interfere

The prosecution must prove that the accused’s actions actually resulted in obstruction, hindrance, resistance, or interference, or at least were an attempt to do so that was more than trivial.

  • Mere Argument or Annoyance: Simply arguing with an officer, being verbally uncooperative, or annoying an official, without more, may not rise to the level of criminal obstruction. The conduct must typically involve some physical act or a verbal act that clearly impedes the officer’s ability to perform their duties.
  • Ineffectual or Trivial Interference: If the alleged interference was so minor or ineffectual that it did not actually hinder the officer or process in any meaningful way, it might be argued that the statutory threshold for obstruction was not met. For example, a brief, quickly abandoned verbal protest that causes no delay.
  • No Prevention of Legal Process or Apprehension: For charges under Subd. 1(1), if the legal process was ultimately executed successfully despite the accused’s actions, or if the apprehension was not actually prevented or significantly hindered by the accused, the “prevention” element might be challenged.

Challenging the Penalty Level (Felony, Gross Misdemeanor, Misdemeanor)

Even if some level of obstruction occurred, the defense can vigorously challenge the specific penalty level sought by the prosecution under Subdivision 2.

  • No Knowledge of Risk of Serious Harm (for Felony): To prove felony obstruction, the state must often show the accused knew or had reason to know their act created a risk of death, substantial bodily harm, or serious property damage. The defense can argue the accused was unaware of such a risk, or that no such risk was reasonably foreseeable from their actions in a Dakota County incident.
  • No Actual Causation of Serious Harm (for Felony): If the state alleges the act caused serious harm, the defense can challenge the causal link between the obstructive act and the resulting harm, arguing intervening causes or lack of direct causation.
  • No Force, Violence, or Threat Thereof (for Gross Misdemeanor): If the charge is a gross misdemeanor based on force or violence, the defense can argue that the conduct did not involve actual physical force, an act of violence, or a credible threat of such. Passive resistance or non-threatening verbalizations would not qualify for this elevated charge in an Anoka County case.

Answering Your Questions About Minnesota’s Law on Obstructing Legal Process

Accusations of Obstructing Legal Process, Arrest, or Firefighting can arise in many different situations. Here are answers to some frequently asked questions concerning Minnesota Statute § 609.50, particularly relevant for those in the Twin Cities metro area.

What does “Obstructing Legal Process” generally mean in Minneapolis?

In Minneapolis and statewide, it means intentionally hindering, preventing, or resisting the lawful execution of a court order or other legal process, the lawful arrest of someone, or the lawful duties of a peace officer, firefighter, ambulance crew, or certain other public officials.

Is Obstructing Legal Process always a felony in St. Paul?

No. It can be a misdemeanor, a gross misdemeanor, or a felony in St. Paul, depending on the circumstances. It’s a felony if your act created a known risk of (or caused) death, substantial bodily harm, or serious property damage. It’s a gross misdemeanor if it involved force or violence (or threats thereof) but didn’t meet the felony criteria. Otherwise, it’s a misdemeanor.

What kind of actions count as “resisting” a peace officer in Hennepin County?

Resisting a peace officer in Hennepin County typically involves active opposition to an officer’s lawful commands or actions, especially during an arrest. This can include physically pulling away, struggling, refusing to be handcuffed, or attempting to flee after being lawfully detained or told you are under arrest.

Can I be charged for just arguing with a police officer in Ramsey County?

Merely arguing with an officer, expressing disagreement, or being verbally uncooperative, without more, is generally not enough to sustain an obstruction charge in Ramsey County. However, if the argument becomes so disruptive that it physically prevents the officer from performing their duties, or if it incites others to interfere, it could cross the line into obstruction.

What if the officer was arresting me unlawfully in Dakota County?

If an arrest is unlawful (e.g., made without probable cause), your resistance to that specific unlawful act might be defensible. The statute requires obstruction of lawful execution of process or an officer performing official duties lawfully. This is a common defense area.

Does this Anoka County law apply to interfering with paramedics or EMTs?

Yes, Minnesota Statute § 609.50, subd. 1(4) specifically makes it a crime to interfere with or obstruct a member of an ambulance service personnel crew who is providing or attempting to provide emergency care in Anoka County or elsewhere.

What if I didn’t know the person trying to arrest someone was a plainclothes police officer?

While not explicitly stated as an element for all clauses, for an officer to be “engaged in the performance of official duties,” there usually needs to be some indication they are an officer. If a plainclothes officer doesn’t identify themselves or act in a way that makes their official status reasonably apparent, it could be a defense that you didn’t knowingly resist an “officer.”

Can I be charged for refusing to let a firefighter into my home in Washington County?

If firefighters are responding to an emergency (like a fire or gas leak) and have a lawful reason to enter your home to perform their official duties (e.g., to save lives or prevent further damage), intentionally obstructing their entry could lead to charges under § 609.50, subd. 1(3).

What if my actions didn’t actually stop the officer or prevent the arrest?

The statute often covers “obstructs, hinders, or prevents.” Even if your actions ultimately failed to stop the officer or prevent the arrest, if you intentionally tried to do so in a way that meets the statute’s definition of obstruction or resistance, you could still be charged. The degree of actual hindrance might affect sentencing or charging decisions.

Is it a felony if I push an officer but they aren’t seriously hurt?

Pushing an officer would likely be considered “force or violence.” Under § 609.50, subd. 2(2), if the act was accompanied by force or violence and didn’t cause/risk substantial bodily harm, it would typically be a gross misdemeanor. If the push created a known risk of substantial bodily harm (e.g., pushing them into traffic), it could be a felony.

What if I warned someone that the police were coming to arrest them?

Warning someone so they can evade lawful apprehension could be considered “preventing” or “hindering” their apprehension under § 609.50, subd. 1(1). This is different from, but related to, Aiding an Offender (§ 609.495).

Does this law cover interfering with federal officers in Minneapolis?

While § 609.50 is a Minnesota state law, federal officers (like FBI agents) are often also considered “peace officers” under state law definitions when enforcing state laws or acting in mutual aid. Additionally, separate federal laws cover obstruction of federal officers.

Can I get a felony conviction if I just yelled at a firefighter from a distance?

Yelling from a distance, without more, is unlikely to be charged as felony obstruction. To reach the felony level, your act would need to create a known risk of (or cause) death, substantial bodily harm, or serious property damage. Mere yelling would typically not meet this, though it could potentially be misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor interference if it truly obstructed their duties.

What if I was trying to help someone I thought was being hurt by an officer in St. Paul?

Intervening in an arrest can be risky. If you reasonably believed someone was in imminent danger of unlawful serious harm from an officer, a defense of “defense of others” might be explored, but it’s a very high bar and depends heavily on the specific facts and the reasonableness of your actions and perceptions.

If I’m charged with Obstruction in the Twin Cities, what’s the most important thing to do?

If you are charged with any form of Obstructing Legal Process, Arrest, or Firefighting in the Twin Cities, the most crucial step is to exercise your right to remain silent and immediately contact an experienced criminal defense attorney. Do not try to explain your actions to the police without legal counsel.

Beyond the Courtroom: The Enduring Impact of an Obstruction Conviction

A conviction for Obstructing Legal Process, Arrest, or Firefighting under Minnesota Statute § 609.50, particularly if it’s a felony or even a gross misdemeanor, can have significant and lasting negative consequences that extend far beyond any court-imposed sentence. For individuals in the Twin Cities metropolitan area, these collateral effects can impact many areas of life.

Creation of a Criminal Record and Its Implications

Any conviction under this statute, from misdemeanor to felony, results in a criminal record. This record is accessible through background checks conducted by employers, landlords, educational institutions, and licensing agencies across Minnesota. A conviction for obstructing or resisting authority can be viewed very negatively, suggesting a disregard for the law or an unwillingness to cooperate with officials. This can create difficulties when seeking employment, housing, or educational opportunities in Minneapolis, St. Paul, and surrounding communities.

Employment Challenges, Especially in Public Service or Regulated Fields

Securing and maintaining employment can become considerably more difficult with an obstruction conviction. Many employers may be hesitant to hire individuals with a record that indicates conflict with authority or interference with official duties. This can be particularly true for positions in public service, law enforcement, security, or any field requiring a high degree of trust and compliance. For residents in Hennepin and Ramsey counties, where many such jobs exist, this can significantly limit career options.

Impact on Future Interactions with Law Enforcement

Having a prior conviction for obstructing or resisting can unfortunately color future interactions with law enforcement. Officers may be more wary or approach situations with a heightened sense of caution if they are aware of such a history. While this shouldn’t legally prejudice an individual, it can sometimes contribute to more tense encounters. It underscores the importance of always interacting with officers respectfully and calmly, regardless of past experiences.

Potential Loss of Civil Rights (for Felony Convictions)

If the obstruction conviction is a felony (under § 609.50, subd. 2(1)), it will result in the loss of certain civil rights in Minnesota. This includes the loss of the right to vote until the sentence (including probation/parole) is fully discharged, and the permanent loss of the right to possess firearms under both state and federal law. This can be a significant and lifelong consequence for individuals in Anoka, Dakota, or Washington counties. Even gross misdemeanor convictions can sometimes have implications for firearm permits depending on the circumstances.

The Indispensable Role of Skilled Legal Counsel in Defending Obstruction Charges in the Twin Cities

When an individual is accused of Obstructing Legal Process, Arrest, or Firefighting under Minnesota Statute § 609.50, the decision to secure experienced and dedicated legal representation is paramount. These charges can range from misdemeanors to serious felonies, and the factual circumstances are often disputed and subject to interpretation. Navigating the complexities of this statute and the court systems in Minneapolis, St. Paul, and the greater Twin Cities area requires the skill and knowledge of a seasoned criminal defense attorney.

Analyzing the “Intent” Element and Lawfulness of Official Action

A cornerstone of any obstruction charge under § 609.50 is the requirement that the accused acted “intentionally.” Furthermore, the actions of the peace officer or other official being allegedly obstructed must have been lawful and within the scope of their official duties. An attorney can meticulously examine the evidence to determine if the prosecution can truly prove the necessary criminal intent, or if the accused’s actions were accidental, misunderstood, or a reaction to unlawful conduct by the official. This is often a critical battleground in Hennepin and Ramsey County obstruction cases.

Challenging the Classification of Conduct and Penalty Levels

The penalties for obstruction vary dramatically based on whether the conduct involved force or violence, or created a risk of serious harm. A skilled defense attorney will vigorously challenge the prosecution’s attempts to escalate the charge to a gross misdemeanor or felony if the evidence does not support such a classification. They will scrutinize the details of the alleged force, the nature of any threats, and the objective evidence of risk or harm caused, arguing for the lowest possible charge or a complete dismissal if the conduct doesn’t meet the statutory definitions for obstruction in Dakota or Anoka County courts.

Negotiating with Prosecutors and Protecting Client Rights

An experienced attorney understands the tendencies of local prosecutors in the Twin Cities and can engage in effective negotiations to potentially achieve a favorable plea agreement, such as a reduction in charges or a sentence that avoids incarceration. Throughout all proceedings, from the initial arrest to the final court date, the attorney acts as a steadfast advocate for the client’s constitutional rights, ensuring they are treated fairly and that their voice is heard. This includes challenging illegally obtained evidence and ensuring due process in Washington County or any Minnesota jurisdiction.

Presenting a Compelling Defense at Trial

If a case proceeds to trial, a defense attorney’s ability to present a clear, persuasive defense is crucial. This involves skillfully cross-examining prosecution witnesses (including police officers), presenting defense witnesses if appropriate, and making compelling legal arguments to the judge or jury. For charges like obstruction, where perceptions and interpretations of events can differ widely, the ability to effectively tell the client’s side of the story and highlight reasonable doubt is indispensable for achieving an acquittal or other positive outcome.