Twin Cities Criminal Lawyer

Warning Subject Of Surveillance Or Search

Strategic Defense Against Obstruction Charges: Warning Subject of Surveillance or Search in the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metro Area Under Minnesota Statute § 609.4975

An allegation of Warning Subject of Surveillance or Search under Minnesota Statute § 609.4975 constitutes a grave felony offense, carrying severe penalties for those found to have intentionally compromised sensitive law enforcement operations. This statute criminalizes the act of notifying any person about authorized (or applied for) electronic surveillance, pen registers, trap and trace devices, or search warrants, when done with the specific intent to obstruct, impede, or prevent such investigative actions. For individuals in the Twin Cities metropolitan area, including Minneapolis, St. Paul, Hennepin County, and Ramsey County, facing such a charge means confronting a serious legal challenge that threatens significant prison time, substantial fines, and a lasting criminal record.

The core purpose of Minnesota Statute § 609.4975 is to safeguard the integrity and effectiveness of covert law enforcement techniques by penalizing unauthorized disclosures that could alert targets, lead to the destruction of evidence, or otherwise undermine investigations. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge of the authorized (or applied for) surveillance or search mechanism covered by Chapter 626A or a search warrant, and that they gave or attempted to give notice with the specific intent to hinder the related law enforcement purpose. Given the serious implications of these obstruction-related charges, particularly within the diligent prosecutorial environments of Hennepin and Ramsey counties, a robust and strategically astute defense is absolutely critical.

Minnesota Statute § 609.4975: The Legal Foundation for Warning About Surveillance or Searches

Minnesota state law defines the felony offense of Warning Subject of Surveillance or Search under Minnesota Statute § 609.4975. This law is broken into three subdivisions, each addressing the unlawful notification regarding different types of investigative tools: electronic communication intercepts, pen registers/trap and trace devices, and search warrants, when such notification is made with obstructive intent.

609.4975 WARNING SUBJECT OF SURVEILLANCE OR SEARCH.

Subdivision 1.Electronic communication. Whoever, having knowledge that an investigative or law enforcement officer has been authorized or has applied for authorization under chapter 626A to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication, and with intent to obstruct, impede, or prevent interception, gives notice or attempts to give notice of the possible interception to 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.

Subd. 2.Pen register. Whoever, having knowledge that an investigative or law enforcement officer has been authorized or has applied for authorization under chapter 626A to install and use a pen register or a trap and trace device, and with intent to obstruct, impede, or prevent the purposes for which the installation and use is being made, gives notice or attempts to give notice of the installation or use to any 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.

Subd. 3.Search warrant. Whoever, having knowledge that a peace officer has been issued or has applied for the issuance of a search warrant, and with intent to obstruct, impede, or prevent the search, gives notice or attempts to give notice of the search or search warrant to any 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.

Proving the Crime in Hennepin and Ramsey County Courts: Essential Legal Elements of Warning Subject of Surveillance or Search

To secure a conviction for Warning Subject of Surveillance or Search under any subdivision of Minnesota Statute § 609.4975, the prosecution in Hennepin County, Ramsey County, or any other Minnesota court must prove each specific element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. A failure to establish any single element for the relevant subdivision will necessitate an acquittal. These elements consistently involve knowledge of a specific law enforcement investigative tool, an act of giving or attempting to give notice, and a specific intent to obstruct.

  • Warning About Electronic Communication Interception (Subd. 1):
    • Knowledge of Authorized/Applied-For Intercept: The accused must have had knowledge that an investigative or law enforcement officer had either been authorized, or had merely applied for authorization, under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 626A (governing wiretaps and electronic surveillance) to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication. This requires awareness of a specific, formal step towards or approval of eavesdropping.
    • Intent to Obstruct Interception: The accused must have acted with the specific intent to obstruct, impede, or prevent the authorized or potential interception. The motive must be to thwart the surveillance itself. Actions taken without this direct obstructive intent, even if they inadvertently reveal information, may not meet this element.
    • Gives or Attempts to Give Notice of Possible Interception: The accused must have given notice, or attempted to give notice, to “a person” (not necessarily the target of the surveillance) about the possible interception. The communication must convey the risk of such surveillance. This element covers both successful warnings and unsuccessful attempts within Minneapolis or St. Paul.
  • Warning About Pen Register or Trap and Trace Device (Subd. 2):
    • Knowledge of Authorized/Applied-For Device: The accused must have possessed knowledge that an officer was authorized, or had applied for authorization, under Chapter 626A to install and use a pen register (which records outgoing dialing, routing, addressing, or signaling information) or a trap and trace device (which captures incoming similar information). Awareness of these specific surveillance tools being sought or approved is key.
    • Intent to Obstruct Purposes of Device: The accused’s actions must have been driven by the specific intent to obstruct, impede, or prevent the purposes for which the pen register or trap and trace device was being installed or used (e.g., to identify co-conspirators, track communications patterns).
    • Gives or Attempts to Give Notice of Installation or Use: The accused must have given or attempted to give notice to “any person” regarding the installation or use of such a device. This warning about the presence or operation of these specific tools is the prohibited act.
  • Warning About a Search Warrant (Subd. 3):
    • Knowledge of Issued/Applied-For Search Warrant: The accused must have had knowledge that a peace officer had either been issued a search warrant or had applied for the issuance of a search warrant. This means awareness that law enforcement was formally seeking or had obtained judicial permission to conduct a search of a particular place or person.
    • Intent to Obstruct Search: The accused must have acted with the specific intent to obstruct, impede, or prevent the authorized or anticipated search. The goal must be to undermine the execution of the warrant and the discovery of evidence.
    • Gives or Attempts to Give Notice of Search or Warrant: The accused must have given or attempted to give notice to “any person” about the search itself or the existence of the search warrant. This could involve alerting an occupant of a Hennepin County home that a search is imminent or that a warrant exists.

Understanding the Stakes: Penalties for Warning Subject of Surveillance or Search Convictions in Minnesota

A conviction for Warning Subject of Surveillance or Search under any subdivision of Minnesota Statute § 609.4975 is a serious felony offense. The state imposes uniform and significant penalties across all three subdivisions, reflecting the gravity with which it views any intentional interference with authorized law enforcement surveillance or search activities. Individuals convicted of this crime in the Twin Cities or elsewhere in Minnesota face substantial prison time and hefty fines.

Felony Penalties for Violating Minn. Stat. § 609.4975 (Subdivisions 1, 2, or 3)

Whether the offense involves warning about electronic communication interception (Subd. 1), a pen register or trap and trace device (Subd. 2), or a search warrant (Subd. 3), Minnesota law provides for the same maximum penalties:

  • Imprisonment for not more than five years, or
  • Payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or
  • Both such imprisonment and a fine.

This consistent penalty structure underscores that any intentional act to obstruct these critical investigative tools is treated with equal severity. A judge in Hennepin County, Ramsey County, or any Minnesota court will determine the specific sentence within these statutory maximums. Factors influencing the sentence include the perceived damage to the investigation, the defendant’s motivations, their prior criminal history, and any other relevant aggravating or mitigating factors. The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines will also guide the court in determining the presumptive sentence.

How Charges of Warning Subject of Surveillance or Search Can Arise: Illustrative Examples in the Metro Area

Minnesota Statute § 609.4975 targets individuals who intentionally leak information about specific, authorized (or applied-for) law enforcement surveillance or search efforts to undermine them. Understanding how these serious felony charges might arise in practical scenarios within Minneapolis, St. Paul, or surrounding Minnesota communities can help illustrate the statute’s scope and the conduct it aims to prevent.

The core of this offense is the deliberate act of tipping someone off, with the specific intent to obstruct an ongoing or imminent investigative action that involves wiretaps, pen registers, or search warrants. Prosecutors in Hennepin County, Ramsey County, and other metro jurisdictions would pursue these charges when there is clear evidence that such a warning was given with obstructive intent, thereby compromising sensitive operations.

Example: Leaking Wiretap Information in a Minneapolis Drug Investigation (Subd. 1)

A confidential informant working with a Minneapolis drug task force learns that investigators have just received authorization under Chapter 626A to place a wiretap on a suspected major drug trafficker’s phone. Fearing exposure or seeking to curry favor with the trafficker, the informant secretly contacts an associate of the trafficker and warns them that “the cops are listening to [trafficker’s name]’s calls.” This act, done with knowledge of the authorized interception and intent to prevent its success, would violate § 609.4975, subd. 1.

Example: Alerting a Suspect About a Pen Register in a St. Paul Fraud Case (Subd. 2)

An employee at a telecommunications company in St. Paul processes a lawful court order (authorized under Chapter 626A) for the installation of a pen register on the phone line of an individual suspected of orchestrating a large-scale fraud scheme. The employee, who knows the suspect socially, discreetly informs the suspect that “they’re tracking who you call” with the intent that the suspect will alter their communication patterns and hinder the investigation. This warning about the pen register use would constitute a violation of § 609.4975, subd. 2.

Example: Tipping Off a Business Owner About an Imminent Search Warrant in Hennepin County (Subd. 3)

A disgruntled former employee of a Hennepin County business learns from a contact within a law enforcement agency that a search warrant has just been issued for their former employer’s premises as part of an investigation into financial irregularities. Seeking to cause trouble or perhaps still loyal to some individuals there, the former employee calls a current manager at the business and tells them, “The police have a warrant and are coming to search your office soon, you should hide the ‘special’ accounting books.” This warning, given with knowledge of the issued warrant and intent to impede the search, falls under § 609.4975, subd. 3.

Example: Informing a Family Member About a Pending Search Warrant Application in Anoka County (Subd. 3)

An individual in Anoka County learns through a source that local law enforcement is currently in the process of applying for a search warrant for their sibling’s residence in connection with a theft investigation. With the intent to allow their sibling time to dispose of stolen property, the individual immediately calls the sibling and says, “I heard the cops are trying to get a warrant to search your place for those missing items.” Even though the warrant hasn’t been issued yet, warning about an applied-for search warrant with obstructive intent violates subdivision 3.

Building a Strong Defense Against Allegations of Warning Subject of Surveillance or Search in Minneapolis

Facing a felony charge for Warning Subject of Surveillance or Search under Minnesota Statute § 609.4975 is an extremely serious situation, with the potential for a lengthy prison sentence and a damaging criminal record. However, an accusation is not a conviction. A robust and meticulously prepared defense is essential for any individual 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 subdivision charged beyond a reasonable doubt.

An effective defense strategy begins with a thorough investigation into the facts: what knowledge did the accused actually possess regarding the surveillance or search? What was the precise nature and content of the alleged communication? What was the accused’s true intent? Challenging the prosecution’s evidence on any of these elements—knowledge, notice, or intent—can create the reasonable doubt necessary for an acquittal or a more favorable resolution.

Lack of Knowledge of Authorized or Applied-For Surveillance/Search

A critical element for all subdivisions of § 609.4975 is that the accused had “knowledge” of the specific investigative tool (wiretap, pen register, search warrant) being authorized or applied for under the specified legal frameworks (Chapter 626A for Subd. 1 & 2).

  • No Awareness of Specific Authorization: The defense can argue that the accused was unaware that any formal authorization for surveillance had been granted or even applied for. Vague awareness of a general investigation is not the same as knowing about a specific Chapter 626A wiretap application or an issued search warrant.
  • Information Was Speculative or Rumor: If the accused’s information about potential surveillance or a search was based merely on rumor, speculation, or general paranoia, rather than concrete knowledge of an official authorization or application, this element may not be met. The state must prove actual knowledge of the formal process.
  • Misunderstanding of the Legal Instrument: The accused might have known about some form of legal paper or inquiry but did not understand it to be a Chapter 626A authorization or a search warrant as covered by the statute. For example, mistaking a civil subpoena for an investigative search warrant application.

No Intent to Obstruct, Impede, or Prevent

The prosecution must prove that the accused acted with the specific intent to obstruct, impede, or prevent the interception, the purposes of the pen register/trap and trace device, or the search. This is a subjective element focused on the accused’s state of mind.

  • Alternative, Non-Obstructive Intent: The accused may have communicated information for reasons other than obstruction. For instance, they might have mentioned something out of surprise, concern for someone’s general well-being without intending to derail the specific law enforcement action, or even as a misguided attempt to encourage compliance or legal counsel, rather than evasion.
  • Actions Not Reasonably Believed to Obstruct: The defense could argue that the accused did not believe their actions would actually hinder the investigation or search. Perhaps the warning was so vague or the recipient so unlikely to act upon it that the accused lacked the genuine intent to cause obstruction.
  • No Desire to Prevent Lawful Process: If the accused’s statements were made without a desire to see the lawful investigative process thwarted—for example, an offhand comment not directed at helping someone evade justice—the specific intent element might be missing.

Communication Did Not Constitute “Notice” or Was Not About the Specific Surveillance/Search

The statute requires that the accused “gives notice or attempts to give notice” about the possible interception, the installation or use of a pen register/trap device, or the search or search warrant.

  • Vague or Unrelated Communication: If the alleged communication was vague, did not mention the specific type of surveillance or search, or was about a different matter entirely, it may not constitute “notice” as required by the statute. For example, telling someone “be careful” is different from “your phone is tapped under court order.”
  • No Actual or Attempted Notice: The defense can factually dispute that the alleged communication ever took place or that any attempt was made to convey the prohibited information. This would involve challenging witness credibility or physical evidence of communication.
  • Information Already Public or Known to Recipient: If the information about the surveillance or search was already public knowledge, or if the recipient was already aware of it through other means, it could be argued that the accused’s communication did not constitute a “notice” that could further obstruct, or that the intent to obstruct by this specific notice was absent.

Authorization/Application Not Under Chapter 626A or Search Warrant Not Validly Sought/Issued

The statute is precise about the legal authority for the surveillance or search. For subdivisions 1 and 2, it must be under Chapter 626A. For subdivision 3, it involves a peace officer issued or applying for a search warrant.

  • Surveillance Not Under Chapter 626A: If the alleged interception or pen register use was authorized under a different state or federal law, or was perhaps an informal investigative technique not requiring Chapter 626A authorization, then subdivisions 1 and 2 would not apply. The defense would demand proof of the specific Chapter 626A authorization or application.
  • Invalid Search Warrant Process (Subd. 3): While challenging the validity of the warrant itself might be more relevant to suppressing evidence in the underlying case, if it can be shown that what the accused knew about was not a legitimate application or issuance of a search warrant by a peace officer (e.g., a completely fabricated rumor of a warrant), this could be a defense.
  • Person Signaled Not a “Peace Officer” (Subd. 3 context): While less likely to be a primary defense for the warning itself, the underlying authority for a search warrant (Subd. 3) involves a “peace officer.” Ambiguity about this, though rare, could be explored if relevant.

Answering Your Questions About Minnesota’s Law on Warning Subject of Surveillance or Search

Accusations of Warning Subject of Surveillance or Search are serious felonies. Here are answers to common questions regarding Minnesota Statute § 609.4975, particularly for those in the Twin Cities metro area.

What is Minnesota Statute § 609.4975?

This law makes it a felony to intentionally warn someone about authorized (or applied for) law enforcement surveillance (like wiretaps or pen registers under Chapter 626A) or search warrants, if your intent is to obstruct, impede, or prevent that surveillance or search.

What are the different types of warnings this Minneapolis law covers?

The statute has three parts:

  1. Warning about wire, oral, or electronic communication interception (Subd. 1).
  2. Warning about pen register or trap and trace device installation/use (Subd. 2).
  3. Warning about a search warrant being issued or applied for (Subd. 3).

Are all violations of this St. Paul statute considered felonies?

Yes, any conviction under Minnesota Statute § 609.4975 (subdivisions 1, 2, or 3) is a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison, a $10,000 fine, or both. This applies in St. Paul and statewide.

What does “knowledge” mean in this Hennepin County law?

For a Hennepin County conviction, the prosecution must prove you actually knew that law enforcement had been authorized (or had applied for authorization) for the specific type of surveillance (under Chapter 626A) or for the search warrant. Vague suspicion isn’t enough.

What if I didn’t intend to obstruct the investigation in Ramsey County?

Specific intent to “obstruct, impede, or prevent” the interception, the purposes of the device, or the search is a crucial element. If you communicated something without this obstructive intent, it could be a defense in a Ramsey County case. Your motive matters.

Can I be charged for merely attempting to warn someone in Dakota County?

Yes, the statute explicitly says “gives notice or attempts to give notice.” An unsuccessful attempt to deliver the warning, if done with the required knowledge and obstructive intent, can still lead to charges in Dakota County.

Does this law apply if I warn someone about a general police presence, not a specific warrant or wiretap, in Anoka County?

This particular statute (§ 609.4975) is very specific to warnings about Chapter 626A surveillance authorizations/applications or search warrant issuances/applications. A general warning about police activity in Anoka County, without knowledge and notice of these specific tools, would likely not fall under this statute, though other obstruction laws could potentially apply depending on the facts.

What if the search warrant I warned someone about in Washington County turned out to be invalid?

The statute refers to knowledge that an officer “has been issued or has applied for the issuance of a search warrant.” The crime focuses on your intent to obstruct that process. Whether the warrant is later found invalid might be a complex issue, but your knowledge of its (apparent) existence and your intent at the time of the warning are key. If you knew it was, for instance, a completely fabricated warrant, that might change the analysis of your knowledge.

Can I get in trouble for telling my spouse that I think our phones are tapped?

If you have no actual “knowledge that an investigative or law enforcement officer has been authorized or has applied for authorization under chapter 626A” for an intercept, and are merely speculating or concerned, you likely lack the required “knowledge” element. Furthermore, your “intent” would also be a factor. Sharing a fear is different from knowingly tipping someone off about an actual, authorized wiretap with intent to obstruct it.

What if the person I warned was not the actual target of the surveillance or search?

The statute says “gives notice… to a person” (Subd. 1 & 3) or “to any person” (Subd. 2). The recipient of the warning does not have to be the direct target of the investigation. If warning any third party is done with the intent to obstruct the overall investigation (e.g., hoping they will alert the target), it can still be a violation.

Is it a defense if the investigation wasn’t actually harmed by my warning?

The crime is often in the act of giving notice with obstructive intent, regardless of whether the obstruction was ultimately successful or if the investigation suffered measurable harm. The focus is on your conduct and intent.

How does this Minnesota law differ from federal obstruction of justice laws?

This is a Minnesota state statute. Federal law also has various obstruction of justice statutes, some of which might cover similar conduct, especially if the underlying investigation has a federal component. It’s possible for conduct to violate both state and federal law, leading to potential prosecution in either or both systems in the Twin Cities.

What kind of evidence does the prosecution use to prove these cases in Minneapolis?

Evidence in Minneapolis could include testimony from the person who received the warning, testimony from law enforcement about the authorized surveillance/search and the impact of the warning, records of communications (texts, emails, call logs), or statements from the accused. Proving knowledge and intent is often based on circumstantial evidence.

If I’m a lawyer and I advise my client about a search warrant served on them, is that a crime?

Attorneys have professional responsibilities to advise their clients about legal processes affecting them, including search warrants or subpoenas served on the client. This statute targets illicit, obstructive warnings, not legitimate legal counsel provided within the bounds of the law and ethical obligations. An attorney advising their own client about a warrant already served on that client is fundamentally different from a third party leaking information about a pending, secret application to obstruct it.

What should I do if I’m accused of Warning Subject of Surveillance or Search in the Twin Cities?

Given the felony nature and severe penalties, if you are accused of violating § 609.4975 in the Twin Cities, you must immediately exercise your right to remain silent and contact an experienced criminal defense attorney. Do not discuss the allegations with anyone, especially law enforcement, without your lawyer present.

Beyond the Courtroom: The Enduring Impact of a Conviction for Warning Subject of Surveillance or Search

A felony conviction under Minnesota Statute § 609.4975 for Warning Subject of Surveillance or Search carries profound and lasting consequences that resonate far beyond any prison sentence or fine. For individuals in the Twin Cities metropolitan area, such a conviction can irrevocably alter their future, severely limiting personal and professional opportunities.

A Permanent Felony Criminal Record with Severe Stigma

A conviction for this offense results in a serious felony appearing on an individual’s permanent criminal record. This record is readily accessible through background checks by employers, landlords, educational institutions, and licensing bodies across Minnesota. The specific nature of this crime—actively obstructing law enforcement investigations by tipping off subjects—carries a particularly negative stigma. It suggests a deliberate effort to undermine the justice system, leading to significant distrust and making it exceptionally difficult to pass background screenings for many roles and opportunities in Minneapolis, St. Paul, and surrounding communities.

Devastating Impact on Employment and Professional Prospects

Securing and maintaining meaningful employment becomes exceedingly challenging with a conviction for warning the subject of surveillance or a search. Employers, especially in fields requiring high levels of trust, security clearance, access to confidential information, or any government-related work, will likely view such a conviction as an absolute disqualifier. Careers in law, finance, technology (especially involving data security), and many other professional sectors could become entirely inaccessible. This can lead to chronic unemployment or underemployment for residents in Hennepin and Ramsey counties, severely impacting financial stability.

Loss of Fundamental Civil Rights and Professional Licenses

As with any felony conviction in Minnesota, an individual will lose certain civil rights. These include the right to vote (until the full sentence, including probation or parole, is completed) and, crucially, the permanent loss of the right to possess firearms. Furthermore, professionals holding licenses (e.g., private investigators, security personnel, attorneys, financial advisors) would almost certainly face severe disciplinary action from their respective licensing boards, likely resulting in suspension or revocation of their licenses, effectively ending their careers in those fields.

Lasting Damage to Personal Reputation and Trust

The act of intentionally interfering with a lawful investigation by warning a subject can cause irreparable damage to an individual’s personal reputation and erode trust among family, friends, and community members. Being labeled as someone who actively works against law enforcement can lead to social isolation and make it difficult to form or maintain relationships. This is a heavy burden, particularly in close-knit communities within Anoka, Dakota, or Washington counties, where personal integrity is highly valued. The perception of disloyalty to legal processes can be difficult to overcome.

The Critical Need for Assertive Legal Representation in § 609.4975 Cases in the Twin Cities

When an individual is charged with the serious felony of Warning Subject of Surveillance or Search under Minnesota Statute § 609.4975, the choice of legal counsel is of paramount importance. The intricate nature of this statute, with its specific requirements regarding knowledge of particular investigative tools (Chapter 626A authorizations, search warrants) and the crucial element of intent to obstruct, demands a defense attorney with significant experience and a sophisticated understanding of Minnesota criminal law and procedure. For those accused in Minneapolis, St. Paul, or the broader Twin Cities region, assertive and knowledgeable representation is indispensable.

Expertly Navigating Complex Statutory Language and Evidentiary Rules

Minnesota Statute § 609.4975 is not a straightforward offense; its application hinges on precise definitions and conditions related to specific types of law enforcement authorizations. An attorney well-versed in Chapter 626A and search warrant procedures can meticulously analyze whether the state’s allegations align with these strict statutory requirements. They will scrutinize the evidence purporting to show the accused’s “knowledge” of a qualifying authorization or application and challenge any ambiguities or deficiencies. Understanding the rules of evidence for admitting proof of such knowledge and the alleged “notice” is critical in Hennepin and Ramsey County courtrooms.

Forensically Examining and Challenging the Element of “Intent to Obstruct”

The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused acted with the “intent to obstruct, impede, or prevent” the specific law enforcement action. This subjective element is often the most contestable part of the state’s case. A skilled defense attorney will conduct a thorough investigation into the circumstances of the alleged communication, exploring alternative explanations for the accused’s words or actions that do not involve an intent to obstruct. They will work to build a compelling narrative that counters the prosecution’s assertion of criminal intent, a vital task in Dakota or Anoka County prosecutions.

Protecting Constitutional Rights Against Governmental Overreach

Allegations of obstructing justice can sometimes arise from aggressive investigative tactics or misinterpretations of an individual’s conduct. A dedicated defense attorney serves as a crucial bulwark, protecting the accused’s constitutional rights at every stage of the proceedings. This includes safeguarding against unlawful searches and seizures that might have yielded evidence of the alleged warning, ensuring the right to remain silent is honored, and challenging any due process violations. In Washington County or any Twin Cities jurisdiction, upholding these rights is fundamental to a fair outcome.

Striving for the Best Possible Resolution in High-Stakes Felony Cases

Given the severe potential penalties—up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine—the primary goal is to achieve the most favorable resolution possible. This might involve filing pre-trial motions to dismiss the charges if the evidence is legally insufficient or key elements cannot be proven. It could also involve negotiating with the prosecution for a reduction of charges or a more lenient sentencing recommendation if a conviction seems unavoidable. If the case proceeds to trial, the attorney must be prepared to vigorously litigate every factual and legal issue, aiming for an acquittal. The long-term consequences of a felony conviction make a relentless and strategic defense effort absolutely essential.