Driver’s License for All in Minnesota

Driver’s License for All in Minnesota

The Driver’s License for All Bill was passed by the Minnesota Legislature in early 2023. Governor Walz went on to sign the bill on March 7, 2023. The law is set to be implemented in October of 2023. This law will directly reverse the 2003 law that was passed barring those without legal citizenship from obtaining a driver’s license in the state of Minnesota. This was a result of the security concerns stemming from September 11th. The pending law will result in changing the policy that was enacted 20 years ago.

This law will allow Minnesota residents without immigration status the ability to obtain a Minnesota Driver’s license without being a citizen. This can be accomplished by passing a written test and a driving test. This law is meant to ensure all drivers are certified to drive by passing the Minnesota driver’s license requirements. In addition, those who pass the written and driving test will be required to purchase auto insurance. There are a significant number of undocumented immigrants in Minnesota.

There are an estimated 81,000 undocumented immigrants in Minnesota. Roughly six percent of undocumented immigrants in Minnesota are under the age of 16, and who are legally unable to obtain a driver’s license. However, this means that ninety-four percent of the undocumented immigrants in Minnesota are at the legal driving age or older. This is a significant number of people who cannot legally obtain a driver’s license within the state.

This law allows undocumented immigrants more opportunities to succeed. The potential benefits this law will result in annual income would increase from $2,000 to $6,000 for those undocumented immigrants who are unable to have a full-time job due to the lack of transportation. Providing undocumented immigrants with driver’s licenses will result in a boost to Minnesota’s economy. This helps undocumented immigrants significantly by providing them with means of transportation other than public transit. In addition to being helpful to for undocumented immigrants, it also makes Minnesota roads safer.

A similar law has been passed in other states such as Connecticut, California, Utah, and New Mexico. Issuing undocumented immigrants licenses within those states has resulted in lower hit-and-run numbers and lower rates of uninsured drivers. These results are another reason that Minnesota has passed the law. In addition, law enforcement supports this bill due to undocumented immigrants being able to identify themselves and have their identity verified which affords even greater public safety for other citizens and police. Other supporters of the law believe that this will result in greater trust between immigrant communities and law enforcement because of the ability to identify themselves. The hope is that this will lead to greater cooperation and collaboration between the two groups.

Overall, this pending law seems to have a significant benefit to both undocumented immigrants and Minnesota as a whole. It has the potential to better the relationships with different communities, create safer driving conditions, provide the state with more annual income, and result in identification for those who are undocumented.

Robert H. Ambrose is a criminal defense attorney and DWI lawyer in Minnesota. Super Lawyers named him Super Lawyer for the past two years and a Rising Star the previous six years. He is an adjunct professor at the University of Minnesota Law School. DWI Attorney Woodbury MN, Criminal Defense Lawyer Minneapolis MN, Criminal Attorney Minnesota.

Accidentally Carrying Firearm through MSP Airport Security

Accidentally Carrying Firearm through MSP Airport Security

Have you ever been to the airport and forgot you had a bottle of water in your bag? TSA normally just requests for the bottle to be thrown away, and you can continue through the security checkpoint to your gate without incident. If you forgot your firearm was in your bag, it will not be treated the same at the security checkpoint, however.

The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) passed ordinance no. 117 in 2013. This ordinance prohibits a person from presenting a firearm at a security screening area at the airport without first notifying the screening personnel. (MAC 177) The first part of the ordinance states “No Person shall place a firearm, explosive device, or other TSA prohibited item that could be used as a weapon onto inspection equipment at a Security Screening Area without first declaring such item to the Screening Personnel at the Security Screening Area.” (MAC 117.6.5) The next section states this ordinance is for the public safety and welfare of Airport travelers, so this provision of this ordinance is to be a strict liability offense. (Mac 117.6.5)

Who can be Charged with This Crime and What is a Security Screening Area?

“Person” is defined under this ordinance under section 1.20 as “Every natural Person, firm, partnership, association, corporation, or other entity.” A Security Screening Area is defined as an area where persons or baggage are inspected. (MAC 177.1.26) As a result, any person who presents a firearm at a security checkpoint in an airport without first informing the staff working the security area will be cited for Presenting Prohibited Item at Security, and this ordinance results in a misdemeanor criminal charge. This means the ordinance is not limited only to customers using the airport to travel but all employees of the airport as well.

What does Strict Liability Mean?

Criminal laws or ordinances require either mens rea also known as intent or do not require intent also known as a strict liability crime. The MAC ordinance no. 177 does not have an intent requirement the Minnesota Court of Appeals has found this to be a strict liability crime. State v. Eide. This means that a person does not need to know that they had a firearm in their bag at the time of presenting it at a security checkpoint rather it only matters that a firearm was presented at the security checkpoint. Strict liability crimes hold people accountable despite their lack of intent in committing a crime.

What are the Consequences?

The person can received a citation for a misdemeanor, which has maximum punishment of up to 90 days in jail and a fine of no more than $1,000.

This strict liability restriction on firearms at an airport checkpoint security serves as a friendly reminder to triple-check all your bags or luggage before walking up at a security checkpoint because you are not required to have the intent to conceal a firearm for this citation and misdemeanor charge to be issued. You can also lose your firearm as the state will look to forfeit the weapon; and face potential civil penalties.

Robert H. Ambrose is a criminal defense attorney and DWI lawyer in Minnesota. Super Lawyers named him Super Lawyer the past two years and a Rising Star the previous six years. He is an adjunct professor at the University of Minnesota Law School. DWI Attorney Woodbury MN, Criminal Defense Lawyer Minneapolis MN, Criminal Appeals Lawyer Minnesota.

Does Testifying Over Zoom Violate a Defendant’s Right to Confrontation: State v. Tate

Does Testifying Over Zoom Violate a Defendant’s Right to Confrontation: State v. Tate

Recently, in State v. Tate, the Minnesota Supreme Court considered whether a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right under the U.S. Constitution is violated by allowing a prosecution’s witness to testify via Zoom rather than in person due to COVID-19 exposure. A criminal defendant accused of a crime and set to stand trial is afforded the right to confront their accusers. However, this right is not absolute for the confrontation to be in person.

Here, the defendant was charged with third-degree sale of a sale-controlled substance after a controlled buy was conducted with a confidential information (CI). Three investigators were listening to the controlled buy while it occurred due to the listening and recording device getting to the CI. As a result, all three investigators were set to testify at the trial of Tate; until the lead investigator was exposed to COVID-19. The State requested that the lead investigator be allowed to testify via Zoom a two-way remote video conferencing.

The Court considered whether this was necessary under the given circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic for a witness to be allowed to testify via Zoom rather than in-person. The Court considered the facts surrounding the number of cases, the number of hospitalizations, the number of deaths, the emergency executive order, the lack of places open, and the danger to the people in the courtroom. The Court emphasized that the decision was made to ensure the safety of the other people involved in the trial; however, Tate was not asking for the lead investigator to testify in court during his quarantining period rather she asked for a two-week continuance.

The Court stated that the continuance was not a valid option considering the uncertainty of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court was worried about the lead investigator becoming more ill and needing to be hospitalized or other witnesses being exposed or testing positive resulting in their inability to testify. Also, the Court did point out in the reasoning that this case had already had four continuances granted in this matter and that the jurors were ready to proceed. Despite this available alternative the Court stated it was necessary for the case to proceed to trial on the set date with the witness appearing and testifying via zoom.

Defense counsel had valid concerns about the jury’s ability to view the witness’s body language and to be able to judge the creditability of the witness’s testimony. Tate also had concerns about the witness’s availability to have impermissible material and the court could not monitor the witness. Despite these concerns, the Court found that the circumstances of the case were enough to meet the necessity of not needing to testify in person. The trial court’s actions of requiring the witness to swear he would not use impermissible materials and was under oath was enough of a safeguard for the court. The other concern of Tate was addressed by the Judge giving a cautionary instruction to inform the jury that although the witness was on Zoom the members of the jury were to evaluate the person’s body language as if they were in person.

This ruling possibly opens the door for the court to allow a person to testify on zoom for other medical issues that cause a person to be unavailable to appear in person for a trial. The court has only found this necessary in cases of child abuse victims not having to testify in front of their abuser. This addition to not having a right to confront an accuser under this circumstance could open the door to move expectations for in-person testimony.

Robert H. Ambrose is a criminal defense attorney and DWI lawyer in Minnesota. Minnesota. Super Lawyers named him Super Lawyer the past two years and a Rising Star in the six years prior. He is an adjunct professor at the University of Minnesota Law School and has been for the past six years. Criminal Defense Attorney Woodbury MN, Criminal Lawyer St. Paul MN, and Criminal Appeals Attorney Minnesota.

Defining Enterprise in RICO: State v. Paulson

Defining Enterprise in RICO: State v. Paulson

Recently, the Minnesota Court of Appeals looked at the definition of enterprise within the meaning of racketeering statute in State v. Paulson. The RICO Act (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) includes a definition of “enterprise”. It is defined as “a group of persons collectively participating in or authorizing a pattern of criminal activity and deriving proceeds from the activity.” In this case, the district court ruled that no enterprise involvement within the RICO Act resulted in the state not having probable cause to charge under this act.

Factually in this case, Paulson worked as a district manager at an Outsourced Sales Leadership (OSL) which was a corporation that sold cell phones in retail stores. Paulson and seven other employees were charged with making fraudulent purchases. The scheme of the fraudulent purchases was that an employee would bring in a person or use another person’s information to purchase expensive phones on an installment plan. Once the first payment was made and the phones were in their possession, they would then resell them at or near retail value. This benefited all employees who conducted the scheme, the team leaders, and the district manager Paulson.

Paulson’s former employees testified to his knowledge surrounding the fraudulent purchases. One former employee testified that he became aware of the significant increase in sales by a specific sales representative. He not only was aware of it, but he also investigated and found that the sales representative had been selling the same person multiple high-end phones. This employee then informed Paulson about the multiple high-end sales to the same person as a possible credit mule. Paulson told the employee that they could not tell if sales involved a credit mule or not. However, this seemed odd to the employee because their store normally for the most part had sales for inexpensive phones rather than high-end ones. This employee also noticed this pattern in another sales representative and again informed Paulson. Paulson replied by saying that he should proceed with the sales even if he thought credit mules were involved.

The Court of Appeals distinguished that OSL did not need to be engaged in, involved with, or aware of the criminal activity for there to be a racketeering charge against their employees. An enterprise under the RICO Act only requires that a group of people is collectively participating in criminal activity it does not need to meet the definition of a physical enterprise. A physical enterprise is defined under a different statute and is not the correct definition to be applied here which is a sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation, etc. because Paulson was charged under the RICO Act which defines an enterprise differently.

Also, the court found that there was probable cause to charge under the RICO Act based on the statements of the former employees which showed a probability that criminal activity was occurring, and Paulson was involved and aware. The need to charge under probable cause is a lower burden than proving a crime occurred. Probable cause only requires a probability or a substantial chance of criminal activity not an actual showing of the activity. The court was able to find this because of the statements at a prior hearing. As a result, the Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal finding there was probable cause because of the statements made on the record and Paulson fitting under the enterprise meaning of the RICO Act.

Robert H. Ambrose is a criminal defense lawyer and DWI lawyer in Minnesota. Minnesota. Super Lawyers named him Super Lawyer the past two years and a Rising Star the six years prior. He has been an adjunct professor at the University of Minnesota Law School for the past six years. Criminal Defense Lawyer Woodbury MN; Fraud Attorney St. Paul MN; and Criminal Appeals Lawyer Minnesota.

Recreational Legalization of Marijuana in Minnesota and What It Means for Prior Convictions

Recreational Legalization of Marijuana in Minnesota and What It Means for Prior Convictions

The Minnesota House passed a recreational use of marijuana bill for those ages 21 and older. Because the Democrats have a slim majority in the Senate, the Minnesota Senate is also likely to pass it with some possible amendments.

The major takeaway from the bill is the ability to possess and recreationally use marijuana if a person is 21 years or older. The bill as it currently stands will allow the possession of two ounces of marijuana flower in public places and up to five pounds of marijuana flower in a private dwelling or residence. The bill also allows the growth of up to eight plants with four being mature if the plants are in a locked room and only can be accessed by those 21 years or older. The bill also establishes the licensing and regulations for the sale of marijuana by retail stores, by local municipalities through dispensaries, or by other individuals seeking licenses to grow, sell, or transport marijuana.

The bill discusses the taxing of marijuana too. The current draft of the bill states at the point of sale of the cannabis product will be taxed at an eight percent rate. The funding will go to multiple areas; however, the bill specifically highlights two areas. The first is funding going toward substance misuse treatment programs in Minnesota. The second is funding going to provide grants to support farmers of cannabis.

This bill has future implications for possession charges of marijuana which would eliminate criminal penalties. The current criminal penalties for possession of marijuana range anywhere from a felony up to 30 years to a petty misdemeanor with no jail time depending on the amount a person is possessing. The bill intends to not only decriminalize possession but eliminate it with the passing of recreational use in Minnesota. It is unclear if there will be criminal penalties for not following the restrictions the bill places on marijuana possession, marijuana sales, and marijuana transportation.

The bill not only affects the future of recreational use it also benefits those with prior convictions related to cannabis. The bill pending would automatically expunge convictions for those with low-level offenses for marijuana. This process would be conducted by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension which would be responsible for finding those who are eligible for this relief. Normally, expungement does not occur automatically as the individual with the conviction needs to petition for expungement. This is a major concern with the passing of legalization in other states where there have been prior convictions for cannabis. This bill addresses this concern of many with legalization and what will happen with prior convictions because most people believe it is important to expunge those convictions since possession and use are now being allowed.

If this bill passes, it will provide benefits both for those who want to use and sell marijuana not having to worry about facing jail or prison time, and those who have been affected by prior convictions getting them removed from their record.

Robert H. Ambrose is a criminal defense attorney and DWI attorney in Minnesota. Minnesota. Super Lawyers named him Super Lawyer the past two years and a Rising Star the six years prior. He has been an adjunct professor at the University of Minnesota Law School for the past six years. Drug Crimes Lawyer Woodbury MN; Criminal Defense Attorney St. Paul MN; and Drug Crimes Lawyer Minnesota.

Why Should I Hire a Criminal Defense Lawyer in Minneapolis?

A criminal defense lawyer should not be hired only by those who have been charged or convicted of a crime. An experienced, dedicated defense lawyer can help protect your rights if a crime has been committed. However, there are many other situations where you might want to hire a lawyer.

Here are some examples of how defense attorneys in Minneapolis can help you navigate difficult situations.

 A crime has been committed  

This is the most obvious reason people think of when they consider hiring a criminal defense lawyer. It’s a good thing. You can have your defense lawyer help you with minor offenses like cyberstalking and retail theft, as well as more serious charges like sexual assault or manslaughter. The legal system can be complicated, and it doesn’t matter what charges you are facing. Without the guidance and support of an experienced criminal defense attorney, things could get worse.

 Your child is having trouble with the law  

The juvenile legal system works differently from the adult system. Minnesota’s juvenile courts have many rules and quirks that can make it difficult to navigate without an experienced defense attorney.

 You are being questioned by federal or police investigators  

The police might try to convince you to give a statement, similar to what you saw on TV or in movies. They may attempt to convince you to talk if they suspect that you are guilty of a crime, but they don’t have sufficient evidence to arrest. While being questioned, you have the right to have a criminal defense attorney present.

 You have received a search warrant for your home

A warrant means that a judge has probable cause to believe there is evidence of a crime at your house. You should speak with an experienced defense attorney to discuss what happened.

Your property is seized 

Minnesota law allows law enforcement to seize property at traffic stops or other instances, often without any hard evidence or legitimate reasons. It can be difficult to get your stuff back if you have your property seized during a traffic stop. A defense lawyer can help you to get your property back.

You are wrongly accused of a crime  

When law enforcement, a judge, or a prosecutor believes you have committed a crime that you didn’t, it can be extremely difficult to prove your innocence–especially if you have been in trouble in the past. Your rights shouldn’t be overlooked just because you have made mistakes in the past. A defense lawyer will help you to defend your innocence and give you the best chance of being exonerated.

 To expunge your criminal record  

There are many ways to get rid of criminal records from your past. Even if you are not convicted in court, criminal charges or accusations can still tarnish your record and your reputation.I f you are eligible for expungement, a skilled criminal defense lawyer will help you navigate the complex process. While it won’t always go smoothly, a criminal defense attorney can help you have a better chance of success.

 To appeal a sentence  

No matter if your sentence is for a minor offense or a serious crime, it’s possible to appeal the sentence. A criminal defense lawyer can help to determine if there are legal avenues to appeal and reduce your sentence.

Ambrose Law is available to help you if you have a case and would like to discuss your options.

MN Supreme Court Allows Withdrawal of Guilty Plea on Felony Murder

MN Supreme Court Allows Withdrawal of Guilty Plea on Felony Murder

Recently, to “correct a manifest injustice”, the Minnesota Supreme Court allowed a withdrawal of a guilty on a felony murder case. How can that be, you say? Withdraw, take back, your guilty plea? Here, the record made in court when the defendant plead guilty did not establish the necessary facts for felony murder.

In Minnesota, felony murder occurs when someone causes the death of another with the intent to do so while committing or attempting to commit various felonies, such as burglary, aggravated robbery, kidnapping, arson, drive-by-shooting, etc. The punishment is life in prison with the possibility of parole after thirty years. If someone pleads guilty to felony murder, then they need to provide an adequate factual basis for the record. That is, say they intended to kill someone while committing one of the requisite felonies.

In this case, the defendant did not admit to adequate facts to find him guilty of murder while committing an aggravated robbery. The key facts in dispute were “while committing aggravated robbery.” The record showed the aggravated robbery occurred in Hibbing and the murder on the Mesabi Trail. The court reasoned that “[i]f anything, the fact that two events happened in two distinct places suggests that the killing did not occur while Bonnell was committing aggravated robbery.” The court further explained that it has “never affirmed a felony murder conviction when the aggravated robbery is the predicate offense and the aggravated robbery and the killing occurred in distinct locations.” The prosecution argued that the defendant and his accomplices transported the victim from Hibbing to the Mesabi Trail, but the supreme court said it did not prove that the killing occurred while the victim was being robbed. The court reasoned that it does not need a precise time the two acts occurred as it has upheld a prior felony murder case when there was a time range provided.

The Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that to be valid, a guilty plea must be accurate, voluntary, and intelligent. In this case, the Minnesota Supreme Court reversed because it stated the factual basis for the plea was not accurate. The court remanded the case to the district court where the defendant can now have a trial on his pending charges. It will be interesting to see if another plea deal is struck, even though agreeing to a life sentence is not much of a plea deal, or if the case actually concludes with a trial. I am guessing it will be the latter. Often, defendants regret pleading guilty when they are sitting in prison. They will try any avenue to get their cases opened up and take another crack at staying out of the clink. Here, because of an inadequate factual basis, the defendant will get another shot.

To make sure your constitutional rights are being protected, and for case review at no charge, contact us by phone or text at: 612-547-3199. You can also reach us by email at: ambroselegal@icloud.com.

Robert H. Ambrose is a criminal defense lawyer and DWI attorney in Minnesota. Super Lawyers named him Super Lawyer this year and a Rising Star the previous six years. He is an adjunct professor at the University of Minnesota Law School. DWI Attorney Woodbury MN, Criminal Defense Lawyer Minneapolis MN, Criminal Appeals Lawyer Minnesota.