Twin Cities Criminal Lawyer

Concealing Identity

Understanding Minnesota’s Concealing Identity Law in Minneapolis-St. Paul: Defending Your Rights Under § 609.735

An accusation of Concealing Identity in Minnesota, while a misdemeanor offense, can lead to legal complications and a criminal record for individuals in the Twin Cities metropolitan area, including Minneapolis, St. Paul, Hennepin County, and Ramsey County. Governed by Minnesota Statute § 609.735, this law prohibits individuals from concealing their identity in a public place using a robe, mask, or other disguise, unless the concealment falls under specific exceptions such as religious beliefs, amusement, entertainment, weather protection, or medical treatment. Understanding the precise elements of this offense, its exceptions, and potential defense strategies is crucial for anyone facing such allegations.

Even though it’s a misdemeanor, a conviction for Concealing Identity can result in fines, potential jail time, and a lasting mark on one’s record, which can affect various aspects of life. For residents throughout the greater Twin Cities region, from Washington County to Carver County, it is important to approach any criminal charge with a clear understanding of the law and one’s rights. The prosecution is required to prove each component of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, and individuals accused have the right to present a vigorous defense, particularly by demonstrating that their actions fell within one of the statutory exceptions or did not meet the core definition of the crime.

Minnesota Statute § 609.735: The Legal Framework for Concealing Identity Charges

Minnesota state law defines the offense of Concealing Identity under Minnesota Statutes § 609.735. This statute specifies the conditions under which hiding one’s identity in public becomes a criminal act, while also carving out important exceptions. It serves as the legal basis for such charges throughout Minneapolis, St. Paul, and the state of Minnesota.

609.735 CONCEALING IDENTITY.

A person whose identity is concealed by the person in a public place by means of a robe, mask, or other disguise, unless based on religious beliefs, or incidental to amusement, entertainment, protection from weather, or medical treatment, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Deconstructing the Charge: Essential Elements of Concealing Identity in Minnesota

For an individual to be convicted of Concealing Identity under Minnesota Statute § 609.735 in any Minnesota court, including those in Hennepin County or Ramsey County, the prosecution carries the burden of proving each specific element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. This misdemeanor charge, while seemingly straightforward, has several distinct components that must be established by the state. A failure to prove any one of these elements should lead to an acquittal. A thorough understanding of these elements is vital for anyone accused, as it forms the basis for any effective defense strategy.

The essential legal elements that the prosecution must prove are:

  • Concealment of Identity by the Person: The prosecution must first demonstrate that the accused individual’s identity was actually concealed. This means their physical features, particularly the face, were obscured to the extent that recognition by an ordinary observer would be difficult or impossible. The act of concealment must be performed “by the person” themselves, implying a deliberate action on their part to hide their identity, rather than their identity being obscured by external factors not of their own doing.
  • In a Public Place: The act of concealing identity must occur “in a public place.” A public place is generally understood as any location to which the public or a substantial group of people has access. This can include streets, sidewalks, parks, public buildings, stores, public transportation, and other areas open to general public use within Minneapolis, St. Paul, or any other Minnesota locale. The specific characteristics of the location and its accessibility to the public will be key in establishing this element. Conduct in a truly private setting, not accessible to the public, would not fall under this statute.
  • By Means of a Robe, Mask, or Other Disguise: The statute specifies the methods of concealment. The identity must be hidden “by means of a robe, mask, or other disguise.” A “mask” directly covers the face. A “robe” might obscure the form and potentially the face if a hood is used. “Other disguise” is a broader term that could include items like heavy makeup, wigs, or clothing specifically worn in a manner to significantly alter or hide one’s recognizable features. The item used must effectively function as a disguise to obscure identity.
  • Absence of a Statutory Exception: Crucially, the prosecution must also effectively prove that the concealment was not due to one of the exceptions listed in the statute. The law provides several legitimate reasons for concealing one’s identity:
    • Religious Beliefs: If the concealment is a genuine tenet or practice of an established religious belief (e.g., a nun’s habit, a Muslim woman’s niqab or burqa).
    • Incidental to Amusement or Entertainment: This covers situations like wearing a costume for a Halloween party, a theatrical performance, or being a mascot at a sporting event.
    • Protection from Weather: Using a scarf, ski mask, or hooded jacket to protect oneself from cold, wind, or other inclement weather conditions.
    • Medical Treatment: Wearing a surgical mask for health reasons (e.g., to prevent the spread of infection or protect a compromised immune system) or other medically necessary coverings.If the defense presents evidence that the concealment falls under one of these exceptions, the burden is on the prosecution to disprove this beyond a reasonable doubt or show the exception does not apply.

Understanding the Consequences: Potential Penalties for a Concealing Identity Conviction in Minnesota

A conviction for Concealing Identity under Minnesota Statute § 609.735 is classified as a misdemeanor. While misdemeanors are less severe than gross misdemeanors or felonies, they still carry potential legal penalties that can impact an individual’s life in Minneapolis, St. Paul, or anywhere in Minnesota. It is important for anyone charged with this offense to understand these potential outcomes, which can include fines, a possible jail sentence, and the creation of a criminal record.

Misdemeanor Penalties in Minnesota

Under Minnesota law, the general penalties for a misdemeanor offense are as follows:

  • Imprisonment: A sentence of up to 90 days in jail. While it’s not guaranteed that an individual convicted of Concealing Identity will serve jail time, especially for a first offense without aggravating circumstances, the court has the discretion to impose such a sentence.
  • Fine: A fine of up to $1,000. The specific amount of the fine can vary based on the judge’s assessment of the offense, any prior record, and other relevant factors. Court costs and administrative fees may also be added to this amount.
  • Both Jail and Fine: The court has the authority to impose both a period of incarceration and a monetary fine.
  • Probation: In many misdemeanor cases, including those heard in Hennepin or Ramsey County courts, a judge may opt to place the individual on probation. Probation can be an alternative to jail or can be imposed in conjunction with a fine or a partially suspended jail sentence. Probation typically involves conditions such as remaining law-abiding, reporting to a probation officer, and potentially completing community service or other court-ordered programs. Violating the terms of probation can lead to the imposition of the original or suspended jail sentence.

While the direct statutory penalties for this misdemeanor might seem manageable to some, the conviction itself becomes a part of an individual’s public criminal record. This can lead to various collateral consequences, which are often more impactful in the long term than the immediate court-imposed sentence.

Real-World Context: How Concealing Identity Charges Can Manifest in the Twin Cities

Understanding how Minnesota Statute § 609.735, the law against concealing identity, applies in everyday situations can be helpful. This offense often comes into play during public events, protests, or when individuals are perceived to be acting suspiciously while their faces are obscured. The key is always whether the concealment occurs in a public place, is achieved by a robe, mask, or other disguise, and, crucially, whether one of the statutory exceptions applies. The following scenarios, which could occur in Minneapolis, St. Paul, or surrounding Minnesota communities, illustrate the nuances of this law.

The intent behind the concealment is not explicitly an element of the crime itself, but the reason for concealment is central to determining if an exception applies. Law enforcement officers in Hennepin or Ramsey County might investigate why someone is masked in public to ascertain if their actions are permissible under the statute or if they warrant a charge. Often, these situations can involve misunderstandings or misinterpretations of an individual’s motives or the applicability of an exception.

Example: Wearing a Non-Religious Full-Face Mask During a Public Protest

An individual participates in a protest in downtown Minneapolis wearing a full-face mask (like a Guy Fawkes mask or a plain black mask) that is not related to any religious belief, amusement (like a themed protest where costumes are expected), weather protection (on a warm day), or medical treatment. If law enforcement determines the mask’s primary purpose is to obscure identity during the public gathering, and no other exception clearly applies, the individual could be cited or arrested for Concealing Identity under § 609.735. The public nature of the street or plaza and the use of a mask to hide facial features would be key.

Example: Halloween Costume Worn Outside of a Specific Event Context

A person decides to wear a full Halloween monster costume, complete with a detailed mask, while walking through a shopping mall in St. Paul a week before Halloween, not as part of any specific mall-sponsored event or party. While Halloween costumes are generally “incidental to amusement or entertainment,” if the context suggests the individual is simply wearing it to obscure their identity in a public place for no apparent amusement-related reason at that specific time and location, law enforcement might question them. If no clear amusement or entertainment purpose is evident for that particular setting, a charge could theoretically be considered, though prosecutorial discretion would likely play a role.

Example: Using a Scarf to Cover Face on a Mild Day Without Apparent Medical Need

On a relatively mild autumn day in a Twin Cities suburb, an individual is observed in a public park with a scarf wrapped entirely around their face, obscuring all features except their eyes. They are not engaged in any activity that would suggest it’s for “amusement or entertainment,” it’s not cold enough for “protection from weather” to be an obvious reason, and they don’t indicate it’s for “religious beliefs” or “medical treatment.” If their behavior otherwise draws attention and their identity is concealed, they could be questioned, and potentially charged if no valid exception is established. The ambiguity of “other disguise” could be relevant if the scarf is used in a manner specifically to hide identity.

Example: Medical Mask Worn Appropriately During Flu Season

An individual is consistently wearing a standard surgical mask in all public places they visit in Hennepin County, including grocery stores, on buses, and in government buildings, during peak flu season or due to personal health concerns. This act of covering the lower face is for “medical treatment” or protection (either for themselves or others). This falls squarely within a statutory exception, and therefore, the individual would not be guilty of Concealing Identity under Minnesota law, even though their identity is partially obscured. The clear medical or health-related purpose is protective.

Crafting a Defense: Strategic Approaches to Concealing Identity Allegations in Minnesota

An allegation of unlawfully Concealing Identity in Minnesota, while a misdemeanor under § 609.735, should be met with a thoughtful and strategic defense. For individuals in Dakota, Anoka, Washington counties, or anywhere in the Twin Cities region, understanding that the prosecution must prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt is the first step. More importantly, this statute contains several explicit exceptions that can serve as a complete defense if applicable. A confident defense focuses on demonstrating that the accused’s conduct either did not meet the core requirements of the offense or fell squarely within one of these protected categories.

The nature of this charge means that the context of the concealment is paramount. Why was the person’s identity concealed? Was it truly in a “public place”? Was the item used genuinely a “robe, mask, or other disguise” in the pejorative sense implied by the statute, or was it something innocuous? Most significantly, was the concealment based on religious beliefs, incidental to amusement or entertainment, for protection from weather, or for medical treatment? An effective defense will meticulously explore these avenues to challenge the prosecution’s case or establish the applicability of an exception.

Asserting a Statutory Exception

The most direct defense is often to prove that the concealment falls under one of the specific exceptions outlined in Minnesota Statute § 609.735.

  • Religious Beliefs: If the individual was wearing an item (e.g., a hijab, niqab, turban, yarmulke with face covering for specific sects, or other religious headwear/face coverings) as a manifestation of their sincerely held religious beliefs, this is a complete defense. Evidence might include testimony about their faith and its practices, or the commonly understood tenets of that religion. This is a constitutionally sensitive area, and courts in Minneapolis would treat such claims seriously.
  • Incidental to Amusement or Entertainment: This exception covers a wide range of activities. If the mask or disguise was part of a costume for a party (like Halloween), a theatrical performance, a sporting event (e.g., a team mascot), a parade, or any other form of legitimate amusement or entertainment, the charge should not stand. The key is that the concealment is “incidental” to such an activity.
  • Protection from Weather: Wearing a ski mask, face scarf, balaclava, or hooded jacket in cold, windy, or otherwise inclement Minnesota weather is a clear exception. Evidence of the weather conditions at the time of the alleged offense in St. Paul, for example, would be crucial.
  • Medical Treatment: This includes wearing a surgical mask to prevent the spread of illness, an N95 respirator for health protection, or other coverings necessitated by a medical condition or treatment. Given recent public health concerns, this exception is broadly understood and accepted.

Challenging the “Public Place” Element

The statute applies only to concealment “in a public place.” If the location does not meet the legal definition of a public place, the charge is invalid.

  • Truly Private Location: If the accused was on genuinely private property not open to the public (e.g., inside their own home or a private office not accessible to the public), their conduct would not fall under this statute, regardless of whether their identity was concealed. The defense would focus on the nature and accessibility of the location in question.
  • Ambiguous Location: In some instances, the characterization of a location as “public” versus “private” can be ambiguous. The defense could argue that the specific area where the concealment occurred did not have the requisite public access to trigger the statute.

Disputing the Means of Concealment (“Robe, Mask, or Other Disguise”)

The method of concealment must be a “robe, mask, or other disguise.” Not every item that partially obscures the face necessarily qualifies, especially if it’s not used with the intent or effect of being a “disguise.”

  • Item Not a “Disguise”: The defense might argue that the item worn (e.g., a baseball cap pulled low, sunglasses, a regular scarf not fully obscuring the face) did not rise to the level of a “disguise” intended to conceal identity in the manner contemplated by the statute. The item’s common usage and the degree of actual concealment would be relevant.
  • Identity Not Actually Concealed: If the item worn did not effectively hide the individual’s identity to the extent that they were unrecognizable, the defense can argue that a core element of the crime – actual concealment – is missing.

Lack of Intent to Conceal (Though Intent is Not an Explicit Element for the Act Itself)

While the statute doesn’t explicitly require an “intent to conceal for an unlawful purpose” (unlike some other states’ laws), the reason for concealment is central to the exceptions. If the concealment was accidental, incidental to a lawful activity not covered by a specific exception but clearly not nefarious, or if the item was worn for a practical, non-disguising purpose, this could be argued.

  • Accidental or Incidental Obscuring: For example, if a hood blew up in the wind momentarily obscuring the face, or if someone was carrying an item that briefly hid their features without any deliberate act of disguise, this would not meet the spirit or letter of the law.
  • Practical Purpose Not Amounting to Disguise: Wearing safety goggles and a dust mask for a messy home renovation project, even if briefly stepping outside, might be argued as not being a “disguise” in the criminal sense if the context is clear.

Addressing Common Queries: FAQs on Minnesota’s Concealing Identity Law

Facing a charge for Concealing Identity under Minnesota Statute § 609.735 can be confusing. Residents of Minneapolis, St. Paul, and the surrounding areas often have questions about what this law means and how it’s applied. Here are answers to some frequently asked questions.

What exactly does Minnesota Statute § 609.735 prohibit?

The law makes it a misdemeanor to conceal your identity in a public place using a robe, mask, or other disguise, unless the concealment is for religious beliefs, amusement/entertainment, weather protection, or medical treatment.

What is considered a “public place” under this Minnesota law?

A public place is generally any location where the public or a substantial group of people has access. This includes streets, sidewalks, parks, public buildings, stores, public transit, and similar areas in communities like Hennepin County. It does not typically include the inside of a private home.

Does wearing a COVID-19 face mask violate this law?

No. Wearing a surgical mask or other face covering for health reasons, such as preventing the spread of COVID-19 or other illnesses, clearly falls under the “medical treatment” exception (which also includes preventative health measures). This has been widely understood and accepted, especially in recent years.

What if I wear a mask for a Halloween party in St. Paul?

Wearing a mask as part of a costume for a Halloween party or similar event is generally covered by the “incidental to amusement or entertainment” exception. The key is that the mask is genuinely part of that amusement or entertainment context.

Can I wear a ski mask in Minneapolis during winter?

Yes, wearing a ski mask, balaclava, or other face covering for “protection from weather” is an explicit exception to the law. Given Minnesota’s cold winters, this is a common and permissible reason for covering one’s face in public.

What about religious headwear or face coverings?

The statute explicitly exempts concealment “based on religious beliefs.” This means individuals are permitted to wear items like hijabs, niqabs, turbans, or other religious coverings that may obscure part or all of the face, if it is a sincere practice of their faith.

Is the intent behind concealing my identity important?

While the statute doesn’t explicitly state you must have a “bad” intent for the act of concealment itself to be illegal (unlike some anti-mask laws aimed at preventing crime), the reason for your concealment is critical because it determines if an exception applies. If your reason aligns with one of the exceptions, you are not guilty.

What counts as “other disguise” besides a robe or mask?

“Other disguise” is a somewhat broad term. It could potentially include things like heavy, identity-altering makeup, a wig combined with other features to obscure identity, or clothing worn in an unusual way specifically to make recognition difficult, provided it effectively conceals identity and no exception applies.

Can I be charged if my face is only partially covered?

The law refers to identity being “concealed.” If your identity is still reasonably ascertainable despite a partial covering (e.g., wearing sunglasses and a hat but your lower face is visible), it might be argued that your identity isn’t truly “concealed” in the manner the statute contemplates. This would be a fact-specific determination.

What are the penalties for violating Minnesota Statute § 609.735?

Concealing Identity under this statute is a misdemeanor. This means it is punishable by up to 90 days in jail, a fine of up to $1,000, or both. Probation is also a possibility.

Does this Minnesota law apply to protests or demonstrations?

Yes, it can. If individuals at a protest in the Twin Cities conceal their identities with masks or disguises that do not fall under one of the statutory exceptions (e.g., not for religious, amusement, weather, or medical reasons), they could potentially be charged under this law if the authorities choose to enforce it.

Can a Concealing Identity conviction affect my ability to find a job?

Yes, any misdemeanor conviction, including for Concealing Identity, results in a criminal record. This can appear on background checks conducted by employers in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area and may negatively impact job prospects, depending on the employer’s policies.

Is it possible to get a Concealing Identity charge expunged from my record?

Misdemeanor convictions are generally eligible for expungement in Minnesota after a certain waiting period (typically two years after the sentence is completed) and if other statutory conditions are met. An attorney can advise on eligibility for expungement.

What if a police officer tells me to remove my mask, but I believe an exception applies?

This can be a tricky situation. It’s generally advisable to comply with lawful police orders if safe to do so, and then address the legality of the order or your conduct later through legal channels. Arguing with an officer on the street can sometimes escalate a situation. If you believe an exception applied and you were wrongly charged, that would be a matter for your defense attorney to raise in court.

Why would I need a lawyer for a “simple” Concealing Identity misdemeanor?

Even seemingly simple misdemeanors can have complex legal elements and exceptions. A lawyer can analyze whether the state can prove its case, whether an exception clearly applies, negotiate with the prosecutor (perhaps for a dismissal or reduced charge), and represent you in court to protect your rights and minimize any potential negative impact on your record and future.

The Enduring Mark: Long-Term Consequences of a Minnesota Concealing Identity Conviction

A conviction for Concealing Identity under Minnesota Statute § 609.735, while classified as a misdemeanor, is not a trivial matter and can have lasting repercussions for individuals in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Beyond any immediate court-imposed fine or potential jail sentence, the creation of a criminal record can cast a long shadow over various aspects of an individual’s future.

Impact on Criminal Record and Future Background Checks

Any criminal conviction, including a misdemeanor for Concealing Identity, becomes a part of an individual’s permanent criminal record in Minnesota. This record is accessible through background checks, which are routinely conducted by prospective employers, landlords, volunteer organizations, and educational institutions. In a competitive environment like Minneapolis or St. Paul, the presence of any criminal history, even for an offense that seems minor, can be a disadvantage. Employers, for instance, may have policies that screen out applicants with any convictions, regardless of the nature of the offense, potentially limiting job opportunities.

Employment and Professional Considerations

While a single misdemeanor for Concealing Identity might not automatically disqualify someone from all employment, it can create complications. Certain professions, particularly those involving public trust, security, or working with vulnerable populations, may have stricter scrutiny of an applicant’s background. If the circumstances of the Concealing Identity charge suggest an attempt to evade responsibility or engage in furtive behavior, it could raise concerns for employers in Hennepin, Ramsey, or surrounding counties. It may also need to be disclosed on applications for certain professional licenses, potentially affecting eligibility or leading to further inquiry.

Potential Difficulties with Housing and Educational Applications

Landlords in the Twin Cities area often perform background checks as part of their tenant screening process. A criminal conviction, even for a misdemeanor, could be a factor in a landlord’s decision to approve or deny a rental application. Similarly, some colleges, universities, or specialized vocational programs may inquire about an applicant’s criminal history. While a Concealing Identity conviction is unlikely to be an absolute bar to education, it might require explanation and could be a consideration in admissions, especially for programs that are highly competitive or involve placements in sensitive environments.

Immigration Consequences for Non-U.S. Citizens

For individuals who are not United States citizens, any criminal conviction can have potential immigration consequences. While a single, minor misdemeanor like Concealing Identity might not always trigger severe actions such as deportation, it could complicate applications for visas, permanent residency (a “green card”), or naturalization. The specific details of the offense and the individual’s immigration status would be critical. Non-citizens facing any criminal charge in Minnesota should always seek advice from an attorney who is knowledgeable about both criminal law and immigration law to understand the potential risks to their status.

The Vital Role of Legal Counsel in Minneapolis-St. Paul Concealing Identity Cases

When confronted with a charge of Concealing Identity under Minnesota Statute § 609.735, securing the assistance of capable legal counsel is a wise and often essential step. Although a misdemeanor, this offense involves specific legal elements and statutory exceptions that require careful interpretation. For individuals in Minneapolis, St. Paul, and the broader Hennepin and Ramsey County areas, an attorney can provide crucial guidance, protect their rights, and work towards the most favorable resolution possible.

Expertly Navigating Statutory Exceptions and Definitions

The Concealing Identity statute is unique in that its exceptions—religious beliefs, amusement/entertainment, weather protection, medical treatment—are central to its application. A knowledgeable criminal defense attorney will thoroughly investigate whether the client’s actions clearly fall within one of these protected categories. They understand how courts in Minneapolis and St. Paul interpret these exceptions and can gather the necessary evidence (e.g., proof of religious practice, context of an event, weather reports, medical documentation) to build a strong defense. Furthermore, counsel can effectively argue whether the item used truly constituted a “robe, mask, or other disguise” or if the location was genuinely a “public place” as defined by law.

Challenging the Prosecution’s Evidence and Asserting Rights

The prosecution bears the burden of proving every element of § 609.735 beyond a reasonable doubt. An attorney will meticulously review all evidence presented by the state, including police reports, officer testimony, and any physical evidence. They will identify weaknesses, inconsistencies, or procedural errors, such as an unlawful stop or arrest, or insufficient evidence to support the charge. In cases where the application of the law may seem ambiguous or overzealous, particularly in the context of public gatherings or protests in the Twin Cities, legal counsel can ensure that the client’s constitutional rights, including freedom of expression and religion, are vigorously defended.

Negotiating for Favorable Outcomes and Minimizing Penalties

Often, an attorney can negotiate with the prosecutor for a more favorable outcome than an unrepresented individual might achieve. This could involve seeking a dismissal of the charge if a valid exception clearly applies or if the evidence is weak. In other situations, it might mean negotiating for a continuance for dismissal (where the charge is dropped after a period of law-abiding behavior), a plea to a less impactful offense, or an agreement for a sentence that avoids jail time and minimizes fines. Familiarity with local court practices in Anoka, Dakota, or Washington counties can be advantageous in these negotiations, helping to mitigate the immediate penalties and long-term consequences of the charge.

Protecting Your Record and Future Opportunities

The ultimate goal of legal representation in a Concealing Identity case is to protect the client’s record and preserve their future opportunities. A criminal conviction, even for a misdemeanor, can have lasting negative effects. An attorney works to prevent a conviction where possible or to minimize its impact if a conviction is unavoidable. This includes advising on potential eligibility for expungement in the future, which can seal the record from public view. For residents of the Twin Cities facing any criminal charge, having a dedicated advocate focused on achieving the best legal result and safeguarding their future is an invaluable asset.