MN Possession of Burglary Tools Lawyer

Defending Against Charges of Possessing Burglary or Theft Tools in the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metro Area Under Minnesota Law

In Minnesota, the mere possession of certain devices, explosives, or other instrumentalities can lead to serious criminal charges if accompanied by the intent to use them to commit burglary or theft. This offense, known as Possession of Burglary or Theft Tools under Minnesota Statute § 609.59, underscores the state’s proactive stance against preparatory acts related to property crimes. An accusation of this nature can have significant repercussions, including potential imprisonment, substantial fines, and the creation of a lasting criminal record that can hinder future prospects. For individuals residing in the Twin Cities region, encompassing Minneapolis, St. Paul, Hennepin County, and Ramsey County, a thorough understanding of this statute and its implications is paramount when facing such allegations.

Successfully navigating charges for possessing burglary or theft tools requires a detailed comprehension of what the prosecution must prove, particularly the critical element of intent. The state bears the burden of demonstrating not only that an individual possessed a relevant item but also that they specifically intended to use that item, or allow its use, to facilitate a burglary or theft. This is a crucial distinction, as many tools or objects that could potentially be used for unlawful purposes also have legitimate, everyday uses. For those in surrounding Minnesota counties like Anoka, Dakota, or Washington, the legal principles are the same, and a confident, strategic defense is essential to challenge the prosecution’s narrative and protect one’s rights.

Minnesota Statute § 609.59: The Legal Basis for Possession of Burglary or Theft Tools Charges

Minnesota state law criminalizes the possession of tools or instrumentalities when coupled with the intent to commit burglary or theft. The specific statute governing this offense is Minnesota Statute § 609.59. This law outlines the prohibited conduct and the potential penalties an individual may face if convicted.

609.59 POSSESSION OF BURGLARY OR THEFT TOOLS.

Whoever has in possession any device, explosive, or other instrumentality with intent to use or permit the use of the same to commit burglary or theft may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than three years or to payment of a fine of not more than $5,000, or both.

Unpacking the Accusation: Essential Elements of Possessing Burglary or Theft Tools in Minnesota

In the Minnesota criminal justice system, including courts within Hennepin County and Ramsey County, the prosecution is tasked with the significant responsibility of proving every component of a charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt. For an individual to be convicted of Possession of Burglary or Theft Tools under Minnesota Statute § 609.59, the state must present compelling evidence to satisfy two core legal elements. A failure by the prosecution to adequately prove either of these elements can form a strong basis for a defense. Understanding these elements is therefore fundamental for anyone facing such allegations in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area or the surrounding Minnesota communities.

Possession of Any Device, Explosive, or Other Instrumentality: The prosecution must first establish that the accused was in actual or constructive possession of an item that falls under the category of a “device, explosive, or other instrumentality.” “Possession” means the individual had direct physical control over the item (actual possession) or had the power and intent to exercise dominion and control over it, even if it wasn’t on their person (constructive possession, e.g., in their car or home). The nature of the item itself is broad – it could range from common tools like crowbars, screwdrivers, or lock picks, to more specialized devices, or even explosives, if the requisite intent is also present. The item does not have to be inherently illegal to possess; its criminality in this context arises from the user’s intent.
Intent to Use or Permit the Use to Commit Burglary or Theft: This is often the most critical and contested element. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused possessed the device, explosive, or instrumentality with the specific intent to use it themselves, or to allow someone else to use it, for the purpose of committing a burglary or a theft. Merely possessing a tool that could be used for a burglary or theft is not enough. The state must demonstrate a direct link between the possession of the item and a contemporaneous, specific intent to facilitate one of these property crimes. This intent can be inferred from circumstantial evidence, such as the nature of the tools, the time and place of possession, statements made by the accused, or other accompanying actions.

Understanding the Stakes: Penalties for Possessing Burglary or Theft Tools in Minnesota

A conviction for possessing burglary or theft tools in Minnesota is a serious felony offense, carrying significant potential penalties that can impact an individual’s liberty, financial well-being, and future. Minnesota Statute § 609.59 clearly outlines the sentencing parameters for this crime. Individuals facing these charges in the Twin Cities area, including Minneapolis and St. Paul, must be aware of the potential for imprisonment and substantial fines, alongside the lasting consequences of a felony record.

Felony Penalties Under § 609.59

Possession of Burglary or Theft Tools is classified as a felony under Minnesota law. Upon conviction, an individual “may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than three years or to payment of a fine of not more than $5,000, or both.”

Imprisonment: The court has the discretion to impose a prison sentence up to a maximum of three years. The actual length of any sentence will depend on various factors, including the specifics of the offense, the defendant’s prior criminal history (as calculated under the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines), and any mitigating or aggravating circumstances presented at sentencing.
Fines: In addition to, or sometimes instead of, imprisonment, the court can impose a fine of up to $5,000. The amount of the fine will also be determined by the court based on the case circumstances and the defendant’s ability to pay.
Probation: In some instances, particularly for individuals with limited or no prior criminal record, the court might sentence an individual to probation instead of, or in addition to, a shorter period of incarceration. Probation would involve complying with various conditions, such as regular check-ins with a probation officer, maintaining employment, abstaining from criminal activity, and potentially undergoing counseling or treatment. Violation of probation terms can lead to the imposition of the original suspended prison sentence.
Felony Record: Beyond the immediate sentence, a conviction results in a felony criminal record, which carries numerous long-term collateral consequences, affecting employment, housing, civil rights, and more.

It is important to note that the phrase “may be sentenced” indicates judicial discretion within the statutory maximums. However, the seriousness of a felony charge means that the potential for a significant sentence, including incarceration, is very real.

How Charges for Possessing Burglary or Theft Tools Arise: Scenarios in the Metro Area

Understanding the abstract legal definition of possessing burglary or theft tools becomes clearer when examining how such charges might arise in real-world situations. Minnesota Statute § 609.59 focuses on the combination of possessing certain items and the specific intent to use them for burglary or theft. These charges often surface during police encounters, traffic stops, or investigations into other suspected activities in Minneapolis, St. Paul, and surrounding communities. The key is not just the nature of the tools, but the context and evidence suggesting their intended illicit use.

The nuances of proving “intent” are often central to these cases. Many items that could be labeled as “burglary tools” also have perfectly legitimate uses, making the surrounding circumstances critical for law enforcement and prosecutors in Hennepin County, Ramsey County, and beyond. The following examples illustrate hypothetical scenarios where charges for possessing burglary or theft tools might be brought, helping to contextualize the law.

Example: Tools Found During a Late-Night Traffic Stop in Minneapolis

Police pull over a vehicle in a Minneapolis commercial district late at night for a traffic violation. Upon approaching the vehicle, an officer observes a crowbar, a set of lock picks, and dark gloves on the passenger seat. The area has recently experienced a string of commercial burglaries. The driver offers a vague and unconvincing explanation for possessing these items at that time and location. Based on the combination of the tools (commonly associated with burglary), the time of night, the location near businesses, and the lack of a credible lawful reason for possession, the driver could be arrested and charged with Possession of Burglary Tools under § 609.59, if the prosecution believes they can prove the intent to use these items to commit a burglary.

Example: Suspicious Individual with “Slim Jim” Near Parked Cars in St. Paul

A security guard at a St. Paul parking ramp observes an individual acting suspiciously, looking into multiple car windows and trying door handles. The guard contacts the police. When officers arrive, they find the individual in possession of a “slim jim” (a tool often used to unlock car doors without a key) and a list of car makes and models. The individual has a prior record for auto theft. In this scenario, the possession of the slim jim, coupled with the suspicious behavior, the location, and potentially the prior record (which might be used to show knowledge or intent, though its admissibility can be contested), could lead to charges of Possession of Theft Tools, with the intent presumed to be for stealing cars or items from within them.

Example: Explosives and Blueprints Found in a Hennepin County Investigation

During an investigation into an unrelated matter, law enforcement executes a search warrant at a residence in Hennepin County. Inside, they discover a quantity of illegally possessed explosive materials, along with detailed blueprints of a local bank and notes that seem to outline a plan to access the bank’s vault. While other charges related to the explosives themselves would likely be filed, the combination of the explosives (an “instrumentality”) and the clear evidence suggesting a plan to commit burglary (of the bank) could also support a charge of Possession of Burglary Tools under § 609.59.

Example: Altered Device for Shoplifting Discovered in a Dakota County Retail Store

Store security at a large retail store in Dakota County detains an individual suspected of shoplifting. Upon searching the individual’s bag, they find a specially altered device designed to deactivate anti-theft sensors on merchandise. The individual admits they were planning to use the device to steal several high-value items. Here, the altered device is an “instrumentality,” and the admission of intent to use it to commit theft would provide strong evidence for a charge of Possession of Theft Tools. Even without an admission, the nature of the device itself strongly implies its intended illicit use.

Building a Strong Defense Against Possession of Burglary or Theft Tools Allegations in Minneapolis

An accusation of possessing burglary or theft tools in Minnesota is a serious felony charge that demands a robust and strategic defense. Under Minnesota Statute § 609.59, the prosecution must not only prove that an individual possessed certain items but, critically, that they did so with the specific intent to use those items to commit burglary or theft. This element of intent is often the most contestable aspect of the charge and provides a key avenue for defense. For individuals facing these allegations in the Twin Cities area, including Minneapolis, St. Paul, and counties like Hennepin or Ramsey, understanding that there are ways to challenge the prosecution’s case is the first step toward a favorable outcome.

Developing an effective defense strategy begins with a meticulous review of all evidence, including police reports, the circumstances of any search or seizure, the nature of the items possessed, and any statements made by the accused. It involves scrutinizing the prosecution’s theory of intent and identifying weaknesses or alternative explanations. Many tools that could be used for unlawful purposes also have legitimate, everyday applications. The presumption of innocence remains with the accused, and a dedicated defense works to ensure that the state is held to its high burden of proof on every element of the offense.

Challenging the Element of “Possession”

The prosecution must prove that the accused knowingly possessed the alleged tools. If possession cannot be established, the charge fails.

Lack of Knowledge or Control: The defense can argue that the accused was unaware of the presence of the tools (e.g., if found in a shared vehicle or residence and belonging to someone else) or did not have the ability to exercise control over them. Simply being near an item does not automatically equate to legal possession.
Items Belonged to Another Individual: If the tools were found in a place with multiple occupants or users, evidence might show they belonged to and were controlled by another person, and the accused had no connection to them or their intended use.
Constructive Possession Not Proven: If the items were not on the accused’s person, the state must prove constructive possession. This requires showing the accused had both the power and the intent to exercise dominion and control over the items. This can be difficult for the prosecution to prove if evidence of such control is weak.

Negating the “Intent to Commit Burglary or Theft”

This is often the cornerstone of the defense. Without proof of specific criminal intent, possession of otherwise legal tools is not a crime under this statute.

Lawful Purpose for Possession: The most common defense is that the items were possessed for a legitimate, lawful purpose. Many “tools” (screwdrivers, hammers, pry bars, flashlights) are common household or work items. Providing a credible explanation for why these items were possessed can negate criminal intent. For example, a contractor might have tools in their vehicle for work.
No Evidence of Planning or Attempting Burglary/Theft: The defense can argue that there is no independent evidence (e.g., surveillance, witness testimony, admissions) linking the possession of the tools to any actual plan, attempt, or reconnaissance for a burglary or theft. Mere possession, without more, is often insufficient to prove intent.
Circumstantial Evidence Too Weak: The prosecution often relies on circumstantial evidence to prove intent. The defense can argue that the circumstances are ambiguous, open to innocent interpretation, or do not logically lead to the sole conclusion of criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt.

Instrumentality Not a “Burglary or Theft Tool”

While the statute is broad (“any device, explosive, or other instrumentality”), the defense can argue that the item in question does not reasonably qualify as a tool for committing burglary or theft, or that its primary purpose is clearly legitimate.

Common Everyday Item with No Illicit Modification: If the item is a standard, unaltered tool or object with widespread lawful uses, it becomes harder for the prosecution to characterize it as specifically a “burglary or theft tool” without strong evidence of criminal intent.
Item’s Nature Does Not Suggest Illicit Use: Some items, by their very nature, are less likely to be considered burglary or theft tools. The defense can highlight the innocuous character of the possessed item if applicable.

Challenging a Search and Seizure

The evidence of the alleged tools is often obtained through a search of a person, vehicle, or property. If this search was conducted illegally, without probable cause or a valid warrant, or in violation of constitutional rights, the evidence obtained may be suppressed.

Unlawful Traffic Stop or Detention: If the initial stop or detention of the individual was not legally justified, any evidence found as a result of that stop (including the alleged tools) could be deemed inadmissible.
Search Exceeded Scope of Consent or Warrant: If consent was given for a search, or if a warrant was issued, but the law enforcement officers searched areas beyond what was permitted, evidence found in those unauthorized areas might be suppressed.
Lack of Probable Cause for Search: Warrantless searches are generally presumed unreasonable. If police conducted a warrantless search without probable cause and exigent circumstances, the evidence discovered could be thrown out.

Answering Your Questions About Possession of Burglary or Theft Tools Charges in Minnesota

Facing an accusation of possessing burglary or theft tools can raise many questions and concerns. Understanding the specifics of Minnesota Statute § 609.59 and your rights is crucial. Below are answers to some frequently asked questions relevant to these charges, particularly for individuals in Minneapolis, St. Paul, Hennepin County, and Ramsey County.

What exactly does Minnesota Statute § 609.59 prohibit?

This statute makes it a felony to possess any device, explosive, or other instrumentality with the specific intent to use that item (or allow someone else to use it) to commit a burglary or a theft. Both possession and criminal intent must be proven.

Can I be charged just for having a crowbar in my car in Minneapolis?

Possessing a crowbar in your car is not, by itself, illegal. For a charge under § 609.59, the prosecution must also prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you possessed that crowbar with the specific intent to use it to commit a burglary or theft. The circumstances surrounding the possession (time, location, other items present, your statements) would be key.

What is the main difference between this crime and actual burglary or theft in St. Paul?

Possession of burglary/theft tools is a preparatory crime. It criminalizes possessing the means to commit burglary or theft, with the intent to do so, even if the actual burglary or theft never occurs. Actual burglary involves unlawfully entering a building with criminal intent (or committing a crime inside), and theft involves unlawfully taking property. This charge can be filed even if no property was entered or taken.

Is “intent” hard for the prosecution to prove in these Hennepin County cases?

Proving specific intent can be challenging for the prosecution as it involves inferring someone’s state of mind. They typically rely on circumstantial evidence. However, if the circumstances strongly suggest an illicit purpose (e.g., possessing lock picks and a window punch outside a closed business at 3 AM), intent can be inferred. A strong defense often focuses on demonstrating a lack of criminal intent or a plausible lawful reason for possession.

What kind of items are considered “burglary or theft tools” under Minnesota law?

The statute is broad, referring to “any device, explosive, or other instrumentality.” This can include common tools like screwdrivers, pry bars, hammers, wrenches, and flashlights, as well as more specialized items like lock-picking sets, slim jims, spark plug porcelain chips (for breaking windows), or any device modified or designed to facilitate burglary or theft. Even explosives could qualify if possessed with the requisite intent.

What are the penalties if convicted of possessing burglary or theft tools in Ramsey County?

A conviction under § 609.59 is a felony. The potential sentence is imprisonment for not more than three years, or payment of a fine of not more than $5,000, or both. The actual sentence depends on factors like prior criminal history and the specifics of the case.

Can I be charged with this crime if the tools belonged to someone else but were in my apartment?

This depends on whether the prosecution can prove you were in “possession” of the tools. If the tools were in a common area of an apartment you share, and you were unaware of them or had no control over them, you might have a defense against the “possession” element. The state would need to show you knowingly exercised dominion and control over the items.

What if I use my tools for my job as a handyman in the Twin Cities?

This is a common and valid defense. If you possess tools because they are necessary for your legitimate profession (e.g., as a contractor, mechanic, or handyman), this demonstrates a lawful purpose for possession, which directly counters the element of criminal intent required for a conviction under § 609.59.

Does it matter if the intended burglary or theft was never actually attempted or completed?

No, it does not matter for this specific charge. Minnesota Statute § 609.59 criminalizes the possession of tools with the intent to commit burglary or theft. The crime is complete with the possession and the illicit intent, even if the intended burglary or theft is never carried out or even attempted.

Can this charge be added on top of a burglary or theft charge if those crimes were completed?

Yes, it is legally possible, though less common if the actual burglary or theft is charged and proven. Prosecutors have discretion. However, if someone is caught with tools and commits a burglary, they could theoretically face charges for both, though often the focus would be on the completed burglary or theft.

What if the police found the tools during what I believe was an illegal search in Minneapolis?

If the tools were discovered as a result of an unconstitutional search and seizure (e.g., a traffic stop without legal basis, a warrantless search of your car or home without probable cause or consent), your attorney can file a motion to suppress that evidence. If the motion is successful, the illegally obtained evidence cannot be used against you, which could lead to the dismissal of the charges.

Is possessing a lock pick set illegal in Minnesota?

Simply possessing a lock pick set is not inherently illegal for the general public in Minnesota, unlike in some states. However, possessing it under circumstances that demonstrate an intent to use it to commit burglary or theft (e.g., trying to pick a lock on someone else’s property without permission) would make its possession illegal under § 609.59.

Can a conviction for possessing burglary tools affect my immigration status?

Yes, a felony conviction, including for possession of burglary or theft tools, can have serious negative consequences for non-citizens, potentially leading to deportation, denial of re-entry, or inability to obtain or renew visas or green cards. It is crucial for non-citizens to consult with an immigration attorney as well as a criminal defense attorney.

Are there diversion programs available for a first-time offense of possessing burglary tools in Hennepin or Ramsey County?

Eligibility for diversion programs for a felony like this varies and is often limited. Diversion typically involves completing certain conditions in exchange for a dismissal of charges. While less common for felonies than for misdemeanors, an attorney can explore all possibilities, especially if there are strong mitigating factors or weaknesses in the state’s case.

How important is it to hire an attorney if I’m charged under § 609.59?

It is extremely important. This is a felony charge with potentially severe consequences. An experienced criminal defense attorney can evaluate the evidence, identify defenses (especially regarding the crucial element of intent), protect your constitutional rights, negotiate with the prosecutor, and represent you effectively in court.

Beyond the Courtroom: Long-Term Effects of a Minnesota Possession of Burglary or Theft Tools Conviction

A conviction for Possession of Burglary or Theft Tools under Minnesota Statute § 609.59 is a felony, and as such, it carries significant long-term consequences that extend far beyond any court-imposed sentence of jail time or fines. These collateral consequences can create enduring barriers in many aspects of an individual’s life, profoundly affecting their future opportunities and quality of life. For residents in the Twin Cities metropolitan area and across Minnesota, understanding these potential long-term impacts is crucial when facing such serious allegations.

Impact on Your Criminal Record and Future Background Checks

A felony conviction for possessing burglary or theft tools creates a permanent criminal record that is easily accessible through background checks. This record can be a major obstacle when applying for jobs, seeking housing, pursuing educational opportunities, or obtaining professional licenses. Many employers in Minneapolis, St. Paul, and surrounding Hennepin and Ramsey counties conduct thorough background screenings, and a felony conviction, particularly one related to intent to commit property crimes, is often a significant disqualifying factor. This public record can follow an individual for life, impacting social and professional interactions.

Employment Challenges and Professional Licensing Hurdles in the Twin Cities Market

Securing and maintaining stable employment can become exceptionally difficult with a felony conviction for possessing burglary or theft tools. Beyond the initial hurdle of background checks, the nature of the crime—implying premeditation for property offenses—can make employers hesitant. Certain professions may be entirely off-limits, especially those requiring state licensing (e.g., security, finance, education, healthcare), as a felony conviction can lead to denial or revocation of such licenses. The competitive job market in the Twin Cities can make it even harder for individuals with serious felony records to find meaningful work, potentially leading to long-term financial instability and underemployment.

Loss or Restriction of Firearm Rights Under State and Federal Law

A felony conviction in Minnesota, including for Possession of Burglary or Theft Tools, results in the loss of firearm rights under both state and federal law. This means the individual is prohibited from possessing, shipping, transporting, or receiving firearms or ammunition. Restoring these rights is a complex and often unsuccessful legal process, typically requiring a pardon or specific restoration procedures that are not easily granted. For individuals who value their Second Amendment rights for sport, hunting, or personal protection, this is a significant and often permanent consequence of such a felony conviction.

Difficulties Securing Housing and Financial Implications

Landlords and property management companies in areas like Hennepin County and Ramsey County frequently run background checks on prospective tenants. A felony conviction, especially one that suggests a risk to property, can lead to application denials, making it challenging to find safe and stable housing. This can force individuals into less desirable living situations or create housing insecurity. Furthermore, the financial strain from fines, legal fees, and diminished employment prospects associated with a felony conviction can lead to long-term financial instability, affecting credit scores and the ability to secure loans or other financial products.

Why Knowledgeable Legal Representation is Crucial for Possession of Burglary Tools Defense in the Twin Cities

When confronted with a felony charge of Possession of Burglary or Theft Tools in Minnesota, the importance of securing knowledgeable and dedicated criminal defense representation cannot be overstated. The complexities of proving specific intent, the broad definition of “instrumentality,” and the potentially severe consequences of a conviction under § 609.59 demand a robust and strategic defense. For individuals facing these charges in Minneapolis, St. Paul, or the broader Twin Cities metropolitan area, including Hennepin, Ramsey, Anoka, and Dakota counties, having legal counsel familiar with these specific statutes and local court systems is vital for navigating the challenging legal landscape and protecting one’s future.

Navigating the Nuances of “Intent” in Minnesota Possession Statutes

The element of “intent to use or permit the use…to commit burglary or theft” is the linchpin of a § 609.59 prosecution. An attorney with a deep understanding of how Minnesota courts interpret and apply this intent requirement can meticulously dissect the prosecution’s evidence. They can identify weaknesses in circumstantial arguments, challenge assumptions made by law enforcement, and effectively present alternative, lawful explanations for the possession of the alleged tools. This focus on the subjective element of intent is often the most critical aspect of defending against these charges in Twin Cities courtrooms.

Developing Tailored Defense Strategies Based on the Specific “Tools” and Circumstances

No two cases involving alleged possession of burglary or theft tools are identical. The nature of the “device, explosive, or other instrumentality,” the context in which it was found, the defendant’s statements, and any other surrounding circumstances will vary significantly. Effective legal representation involves a thorough independent investigation into these specifics. This includes scrutinizing how the items were discovered, whether they have legitimate uses, and if there is any credible evidence directly linking them to a plan to commit burglary or theft. Based on this comprehensive review, a skilled attorney can develop a defense strategy tailored to the unique facts, focusing on the most viable avenues to challenge the prosecution’s narrative in Minneapolis or St. Paul courts.

Protecting Constitutional Rights Against Unlawful Searches and Seizures

Often, evidence in § 609.59 cases is obtained through searches of a person, vehicle, or residence. A crucial role of defense counsel is to ensure that the defendant’s constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures were not violated. If law enforcement conducted a stop without reasonable suspicion, a search without probable cause or a valid warrant, or exceeded the scope of any consent given, the evidence obtained (the alleged tools) may be subject to a suppression motion. Successfully arguing such a motion in Hennepin or Ramsey County courts can lead to the exclusion of critical evidence, potentially resulting in the dismissal of the charges.

Advocating for Favorable Outcomes and Mitigating Long-Term Consequences

Beyond challenging the elements of the charge, dedicated legal counsel works to achieve the best possible outcome for the client. This may involve negotiating with prosecutors for a dismissal, a reduction to a less serious offense (such as a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor if applicable), or an agreement for a more lenient sentence if a conviction is unavoidable. An attorney familiar with the local legal landscape can effectively present mitigating factors, argue for alternatives to incarceration like probation or treatment programs, and strive to minimize the severe long-term collateral consequences that a felony conviction for possessing burglary or theft tools can have on an individual’s life and future in the Twin Cities area.