The Minnesota Supreme Court has decided to modify the uniform citations of the past.  (I would note that the "Uniform Citation" was anything but uniform).  The new citation can be found here.

There are probably numerous reasons why the police would claim that they need to have this power, but they don't.  And in my humble opinion, they shouldn't have that power.  Under Illinois v. Caballes, the use of the dog around a car is not a “search” and therefore outside the Fourth Amendment. The question is, does the Caballes rule apply when the dog is brought to the front door of a home rather than a car? A divided Florida Supreme Court ruled in Jardines v. State that Caballes does not apply and that probable cause is required to bring the dog up to the home for a sniff.

Hopefully the Supreme Court agrees, but it should be an interesting discussion.

It's not just Minnesota. Laws targeting individuals with STDs are on the rise.  Many of these laws may have a noble purpose.  The vast majority of these laws are easily abused and can be twisted by the State when desired.

Here is the latest article from David Crary on Centredaily.com

However, they failed to remove simple unconstitutional laws like adultery and fornication. Also, a mere $300 theft results in felony charges.

Overall, a good step, but there was so much more that could be done.

DECEMBER 22 -- A 13-year-old boy was arrested Friday for using a permanent marker while in class at his Oklahoma City middle school, a violation of an obscure city ordinance. According to an Oklahoma City Police Department report, the boy was spotted “in possession of a permanent marker” by Roosevelt Middle School teacher DeLynn Woodside. The marker ban--which apparently is aimed at curbing graffiti--stems from a city ordinance making it illegal to possess permanent marker on private property.

Having a warrant is a dangerous life to lead.  You never know when the law is going to catch up to you.  You could be pulled over for speeding, or having a tail light out, and find yourself back in jail with little chance of making bail.

Often the warrants will arise over failure to appear at court.  Sometimes people don't even know that they are required to appear because they never get the paperwork.  Other times the person hasn't been charged yet, and the officers are trying to person up for the first time.  And in other cases, the person has a warrant because they failed to keep in contact with probation.

No matter what the reason for having a warrant, the best course of action is to talk to an attorney and have them contact the State to try and get things cleared up and back on the right track.  Waiting until your caught only increases the trouble you will be facing.

If you're having problems with a warrant, or any other criminal matter, call us today and we will help get you back on the right track.  612-217-0077

Five possible answers:

Yes, anytime, anywhere, for any reason.

Yes, but only if you're driving or committing a crime.

Yes, but only if you're committing a crime.

Yes, but only if they think you did something wrong.

No

There was a high turn out for the voting.  Unfortunately, the vast majority of answers were wrong.  It's important that people know what their rights are, and that they exercise their rights.  Before we get into the answers I feel that we should give some reasoning for the answers. The primary two cases relied upon for this answer are:

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nevada, Humboldt County 542 U.S. 177: Mr. Hiibel was arrested for failing to offer identification. The arrest was held to be constitutional because the request for identification was “reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified” the stop. The officer's request was a commonsense inquiry, not an effort to obtain an arrest for failure to identify after a Terry stop yielded insufficient evidence. The stop, the request, and the State's requirement of a response did not contravene the guarantees of the Fourth Amendment, nor did it violate Mr. Hiibel's Fifth Amendment rights. (Keep in mind that while this was Nevada law, it was a US Constitutional interpretation by the Supreme Court, Minnesota Constitution may grant us more protection - but probably not)

Kedzior v. County of Hennepin 1991 WL 53972: This was an older case, but here Mr. Kedzior was suspected of staking a place out for a "smash & grab" over in Richfield. The officer had a valid reason to stop him, and asked for identification under a city identification ordinance. Failure to provide the identification got him charged.

Now for the good stuff - the analysis. To my knowledge and based on all research at this time - Minnesota does not have a "stop and identify" statute. But many cities in Minnesota do. Therefore, unless you know for sure, it's best to assume that the city you are in has such an ordinance. In order for the officer to demand identification and be entitled to identification, they must (according to case law) have a reasonable and articulable basis for such a demand. Here is where one of the problems comes in. Officers don't need to tell you that they have a reason to demand your identification.

So...

1) Yes, anytime, anywhere, for any reason: is incorrect because they do have to have a reason - but they don't have to tell you (if someone was charged without knowing that the officer had a reason, they have a pretty good defense - but that's another issue)

2) Yes, but only if you're driving or committing a crime: is incorrect, officers cannot ask for your identification simply because you are driving a vehicle - they have to have a reason.

3) Yes, but only if you are committing a crime: is incorrect, because you don't have to have committed a crime, the officer simply has to have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that you committed a crime (or are attempting to do so)

5) No: is wrong, because most cities have a "stop and identify" city ordinance, and if the officer has a reason, they can demand identification - in most applications a good attorney can probably convince the judge this is the right answer, but that's not what we asked.

4) Yes, but only if they think you did something wrong: Is the technical and correct answer. The officer has to have a reasonable articulable suspicion.

Please keep in mind - as with all legal arguments that there are always exceptions and exemptions to every rule.

We are thankful for having the chance to represent our clients and get successful resolutions to their cases.

We are thankful for the dismissal of theft charges against clients.
We are thankful that DUI charges against clients have resulted in no conviction.
We are thankful that clients charged with criminal sexual conduct will have a chance to live their lives without the label.
We are thankful for every chance to prove our clients innocent.

We are thankful for the chance to serve our clients.

If you find yourself, or a loved one, in need of our legal services.  Please don't hesitate to call.  We understand that talking to an attorney can sometimes be a scary prospect.  We don't want it to be.  We want to help.  That's why we offer our free initial consultations.  It's why we will listen to the details of your case.  And why we walk you through the process before we even discuss legal costs.  We want you to know what's going on.  We want you to understand what is going to happen.  And we want to help.

Next Thursday at 8:30, Landon and Grant will be presenting a CLE on the status of expungements in Minnesota.  We will begin by walking through the very basic process, and follow it up with some of the more complicated issues and arguments.  Including Grant's (semi-)famous "absurd results" argument that has managed to convince the courts (on many occasions) to exercise their power and expunge the executive records.

Event Details

Solo Small Firm Breakfast CLE - Criminal Expungements: Helping Courts Forget the Past

Oct 27, 2011 08:30am - Oct 27, 2011 09:30am
(GMT-06:00) Central Time (US & Canada)

Event Type: Solo/Small Firm Section
Category: CLE

Description
Solo Small Firm Breakfast CLE: Criminal Expungements: Helping Courts Forget the Past

Thursday, October 27

Presented by: Landon Ascheman Ascheman & Smith and Grant Smith Ascheman & Smith

An examination of the current Expungment process, in relation to current Statutes and Case Law.  Followed by a discussion of the current problems and pitfalls with Expungments.

Time: 8:30 to 9:30 a.m.
Registration: 8:00 to 8:30 a.m.
Location: Joseph's Grill, 140 South Wabasha, St. Paul
Cost (includes breakfast): $20 for RCBA members; $30 for non-members
Credit: 1 Standard credit approved; Code #159787

However, a few things have changed our minds regarding this case.  One problem is that many reporters have decided that our client's life is news.  They have also sought information regarding the case.  The information many of them were given was incorrect. As representatives of our client, and as officers of the court, we feel that is our responsibility to take action and ensure that the true and accurate facts are reported.  Therefor, with the consent of our client...

Our client was convict under an interpretation of Minn. Stat. 609.2241 (2)(2). Under this interpretation an individual that has been told by a medical professional that they have an STD and have been counseled on methods of transmission and how to prevent transmission can be convicted for attempting to transfer blood, organs, sperm, or tissue except as deemed necessary for medical research or as disclosed on donor forms.

The simple fact is that our client was found to have told the other person of his HIV+ status, and that the person choose to engage in unprotected sexual relations despite this knowledge.  But under the interpretation given to the jury of Minn. Stat. 609.2241 (2)(2), consent is not a defense. 

We obviously disagree with the overbreadth and direct constitutionality of such an interpretation.  We could cite many examples of how such a statute could be a problem, but we will leave that to you, our congressmen, and the Court of Appeals.

However, our client was also charged under Minn. Stat. 609.2241 (2)(1) - and was found Innocent.  That means that the Jury believed that our client fully informed the other person of his status.

- That is all the information we intend to provide at this point.  We are only providing this information to clarify misconceptions and erroneous facts that have already been publicized.

I wish that I was able to play that story to each and every juror that relies on witness testimony for the purpose of identification.  Eyewitness identification is flawed.  We rely on it, we trust it, because we have to.  We have to trust what we remember seeing every day.  But that doesn't make it the truth, and it's not what we should rely on when deciding to sentence an individual to prison.

I wish that I was able to play that story to each and every juror that relies on witness testimony for the purpose of identification.  Eyewitness identification is flawed.  We rely on it, we trust it, because we have to.  We have to trust what we remember seeing every day.  But that doesn't make it the truth, and it's not what we should rely on when deciding to sentence an individual to prison.

In State v. Heiges, it is likely Ms. Samantha Heiges never would have even seen the inside of a courtroom let alone face any charges if she had just kept her mouth shut. Instead, now she has been convicted of second-degree murder for drowning her baby in a bathtub just after it was born. She was sentenced to 299 months (almost 25 years) in prison.

The case, decided almost two weeks ago by the Minnesota Supreme Court, decided a few different issues. However, the most interest one here is whether statements Ms. Heiges made to two friends after the offense constituted confessions.

Back in mid-2004, Ms. Heiges was living in Burnsville, Minnesota with her boyfriend, Erik Matlock, when she realized she was pregnant. The 19-year-old said she had been in an abusive relationship with Matlock, and said at one point Matlock had started punching her in the stomach in an attempt to abort the baby. Even though she said she wanted to keep the baby, Ms. Heiges also made attempts to end her pregnancy by drinking large amounts of alcohol and taking drugs.

The baby was born alive on May 6, 2005 in a bathtub at Ms. Heiges apartment. At the end of the birth, Ms. Heiges said Matlock to her to hold the baby under water and threatened to kill Ms. Heiges and the baby is she refused. She held the baby under water for two minutes until it stopped trying to breathe. She put the baby in a shoe box and said that a couple days later Matlock threw the shoe box down the trash chute in their apartment building. Several days later, Ms. Heiges was so upset she cut her wrists and wrote Sydney (the name she had given the baby) on the walls with blood. Ms. Heiges did not receive medical help for this depression. The couple broke up less than a year later.

Matlock disputed these facts saying Ms. Heiges was the one who was violent toward him, and that he did not know the baby had even been born till after she told him she had killed it. He also said he did not throw the box down the trash chute, saying he did not even know the apartment had a trash chute.

During November 2006, Ms. Heiges moved out of the apartment and began dating A.B. One night, A.B. showed up to Ms. Heiges apartment to find her extremely upset and intoxicated. She told him that she had given birth to a baby, but had drowned it in a bathtub right after it was born. Later, after getting advice from his parents about what he should do, A.B. went to the Burnsville Police Department with her story.

Detective Jeffrey Pfaff took over the case and later contacted Ms. Heiges, who agreed to speak with him at her new apartment. During the interview, Pfaff pretended to sympathize with her and told her he considered her a victim in this case. (This is an excellent example of why you should never speak to the police without a lawyer. They can lie to you to get a confession.) She related the entire story to Pfaff almost exactly as she had to A.B.

Pfaff continued to investigate after speaking with Ms. Heiges three different times. He spoke with several of her friends and colleagues during this investigation, all of whom she has discussed her pregnancy and/or the baby with. She told her colleague that she had given birth, but that Matlock had caused the baby’s death. Ms. Heiges had told another classmate that she had miscarried and the classmate said she had seen bruises on Ms. Heiges body. Another friend testified that she saw Matlock throwing things at her.

She told another friend, R.C., about her efforts to abort the pregnancy and said if those efforts did not work, she was going to deliver the baby at a cabin in northern Minnesota, kill it and bury it in the woods. R.C. also testified that Ms. Heiges called him after she had given birth to tell him that she had drowned the baby and put it in a shoebox.

On appeal, the Minnesota Supreme Court had to decide whether Ms. Heiges’ postoffense, preinvestigation statements to A.B. and R.B. constituted confessions under Minnesota Statute Section 634.03. First, the court defined a confession as “a statement made after the commission of the offense in which the defendant implicitly or explicitly acknowledges guilt.”

The court held that because the statute says a person may confess to a private person and because the term confession has been interpreted to mean any statement where the defendant confesses guilt, the statements Ms. Heiges made to A.B. and R.B. were confessions because they were after she committed the act.

The laws may protect certain privacies between relationships such as conversations between husband and wife or attorney and client, but does not acknowledge any sort of privacy among friendships. Ms. Heiges was clearly in an abusive relationship and a difficult situation. Even though she merely wanted to confide in friends and was tricked into a confession by a police officer who she thought was on her side, she could have avoided this entire situation by exercising her right to remain silent and contacting a defense attorney instead.

By Kari Wilberg
Supervised by,
Landon J. Ascheman, Esq.
Landon@AschemanSmith.com
(B) 612.217.0077 (C) 651.280.9533 (F) 651.344.0700
Contact Me

P.S. Have an attorney in your phone? Add us now 612-217-0077 - While we hope you never need us, we're here if you do.

By: Kari Wilberg
Supervised by,
Landon J. Ascheman, Esq.
Landon@AschemanSmith.com
(B) 612.217.0077 (C) 651.280.9533 (F) 651.344.0700
Contact Me

P.S. Have an attorney in your phone? Add us now 612-217-0077 - While we hope you never need us, we're here if you do.

This entire process started with a stroke of bad luck for our defendant, Mr. Hanson in State v. Hanson. The police showed up looking for his buddy, J.G., for whom they had an arrest warrant. Mr. Hanson told the police that J.G. wasn’t home, but agreed to allow them to search the house to confirm J.G. was not actually there.

During their search, one of the officers spotted a bag of “crystal-like material” on top of a dresser in one of the bedrooms. Near the bag were two glass pipes and a glass bowl. When questioned by the officers as to what was in the bag, Mr. Hanson was unable to give a definitive answer, first saying it was riboflavin, then garbage, then rat poison, later changing his story to say it belonged to one of J.G.’s friends. (Note: if you find yourself having to change your story, your already in trouble, This is when you need to exercise your Right to Remain Silent – and shut up.)

An investigation confirmed the “crystal-like material” was in fact methamphetamines. Mr. Hanson was placed under arrest, and police later seized a small digital scale from Mr. Hanson’s person. Such scales are typically used in narcotics transactions.

With a search warrant of Mr. Hanson’s home, the police seized 23 more items, including 100 plastic bags, a razor blade, the paraphernalia the officer saw earlier, and eight pipes. In total, 12.6 grams of methamphetamines were seized.

Mr. Hanson was charged with controlled substance crime in the first degree in violation of section 152.021, which is possession of 10 or more grams of a mixture containing methamphetamine with intent to sell; controlled substance crime in the second degree in violation of section 152.022, which is possession of six or more grams of a mixture containing methamphetamine; and possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of section 152.092.

The district court found him guilty of all three charges and sentenced him to 100 months for the first-degree controlled substance crime. But the court of appeals reversed this conviction, saying “the evidence supports the reasonable inference that Hanson possessed the methamphetamine only for personal use,” and said that as a result, there was a reasonable doubt as to whether Mr. Hanson had any intent to sell the methamphetamines. The Minnesota Supreme Court disagreed.

In its decision the Minnesota Supreme Court quoted section 152.01 to define the term “sell” to mean “(1) to sell, give away, barter, deliver, exchange, distribute or dispose of to another, or to manufacture; or… (3) to possess with intent to perform an act listed in clause (1).” It continued on to say that evidence of intent to sell or distribute includes a large quantity of drugs possessed and the manner of the packaging.

Mr. Hanson possessed 12.6 grams of methamphetamines total, tools used for cutting the methamphetamines as well as 100 unused plastic bags that were found in the same drawer as the tools. In Mr. Hanson’s bathroom was 23.6 grams of a white powdery substance that police believed to be a cutting agent. These possessions, in addition to the digital scale and other items found in Mr. Hanson’s home, led the Minnesota Supreme Court to decide that all of these items could be used in preparation of selling methamphetamines.

A big factor for the court in this case was the 100 plastic bags. They found it convincing that these bags were intended to be used to sell the methamphetamines not only because they were in the same drawer as other methamphetamine products, but also they were the bags typically used in the distribution of methamphetamines. There was also nothing in the record to suggest the bags served any other purpose.

Lastly, the court decided that from the number of pipes Mr. Hanson had, it was clear he intended to share these methamphetamines with others.

The court said all of these individual pieces of evidence form a complete chain that lead directly to Mr. Hanson’s guilt of possessing more than 10 grams of methamphetamines and intending to sell it. It upheld the jury’s verdict that Mr. Hanson was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Like last week’s case, this case can be used as one to dispel another notion – the notion that the consequence of sharing meth with your buddies is different than intending to sell it. As we saw here, if you possess a sufficient amount of methamphetamines and products that could give the impression you were intending to sell or share those drugs with anyone, you can be found guilty of a controlled substance crime in the first degree. All a jury needs to do is decide that beyond a reasonable doubt, the drugs and possessions seized create enough of a chain to prove that you possessed these drugs with intent to share or sell.

The silver lining to this case, not all of us have roommates with warrants out for their arrest leading to the likelihood that the police are going to come knocking. That’s something at least.

By: Kari Wilberg
Supervised by,
Landon J. Ascheman, Esq.
Landon@AschemanSmith.com
(B) 612.217.0077 (C) 651.280.9533 (F) 651.344.0700
Contact Me

P.S. Have an attorney in your phone? Add us now 612-217-0077 - While we hope you never need us, we're here if you do.

As a wise man once said, knee jerk laws written after one person got away with something they shouldn’t have rarely achieve the intended results and often crate even more problems as a result.  Missouri’s new social media law is just such a mistake.

Rather than rehash all of the details, take a look at this piece today from Huffington Post.  It’s really rather infuriating that the law so clearly ignores all of the benefits from social media and other communication between teachers and students.  And, stop me if I’m wrong, but isn’t communicating on a Facebook wall publicly available?  I guess if they are sending private messages, but then just make sure the administrators have the account password.  Is a law really necessary?  Can’t schools regulate this themselves?

About Justin Kwong
An attorney in the Twin Cities and adjunct professor at William Mitchell College of Law where I teach a seminar on the law of virtual worlds.
View all posts by Justin Kwong →

Note by Landon Ascheman: Justin writes one of my favorite blogs.  It may not be criminal law, but the Virtual Law holds nearly as much fascination, and far more unexplored wonder.  Many times these laws get passed through in regards to individual situations.  We expect prosecutors to exercise discretion.  They don't - and when they don't - someone life is ruined.  I would add the following sentences that cause me the most concern.

"No teacher shall establish, maintain, or use a work-related internet site unless such site is available to school administrators and the child's legal custodian, physical custodian, or legal guardian."

"No teacher shall establish, maintain, or use a nonwork-related internet site which allows exclusive access with a current or former student."

In State v. Leathers, the Minnesota Supreme Court had to determine whether the phrase “full term of imprisonment,” did in fact mean that a defendant convicted of first-degree assault would be required to serve the entire sentenced term or whether it meant he would have to serve just two-thirds of the executed sentence in prison.

The phrase “full term of imprisonment,” of course, caused some problems in this case. For those that deal with sentences, plea negotiations, and “good time” we expect that those being sentenced will typically serve two thirds (2/3) of the sentence. The remaining “good time” would be monitored by probation.

In this case, Steven Leathers was convicted of five counts of first-degree assault against a peace officer arising from an incident involving five law enforcement officers. He was sentenced to a total of 189 months in prison with eligibility for supervised release after 126 months.

Supervised release is when the offender is released from prison, but is still supervised by a probation officers. The offender must report regularly to his or her officer and will sometimes require permission to leave a certain geographic area.
Both sides appealed, with the State claiming that the district court erred when it ruled Mr. Leathers would be eligible for release after serving just two-thirds of his sentence. Mr. Leathers appealed the conviction altogether (obviously).

The Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld the conviction, but also held that Mr. Leathers would not be eligible for supervised release and would in fact have to serve the entire 189 months. This is because section 609.221 specifies that the defendant must serve the “full term of imprisonment.” However, upon review, the Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals’ sentencing verdict, holding that Mr. Leathers would in fact be eligible for supervised release after he served two-thirds of his prison sentence (as many Criminal Defense Attorney’s would expect).

So why doesn’t he have to serve all 189 months despite the “full term of imprisonment” language? This case falls completely to statutory interpretation. Because the court is dealing with an ambiguous criminal statute, the ambiguity should be resolved in the defendant’s favor. But to do so, the court has to use statutes to define “full term of imprisonment.”

At first glance, the court says that the statute governing first-degree assault, § 609.221, makes Mr. Leathers ineligible for supervised release. However, the statute does not directly define the key phrase “full term of imprisonment,” and in fact states that Mr. Leathers would not be eligible for release until after his “full term of imprisonment”. Therefore, it is essential that the court define this term to decide at what point is his full term of imprisonment complete.

The court looks to section 244.01 because chapter 244 deals with criminal sentences, whereas chapter 609 deals more with the actual criminal offense itself. The court concludes that because these statutes share a common purpose and subject matter, they may be interpreted together. Section 244.01 states that Mr. Leathers’ executed sentence must contain two parts: “a specified minimum term of imprisonment that is equal to two-thirds of the executed sentence, and a specified maximum supervised release term that is equal to one-third of the executed sentence.” In Mr. Leathers’ case, this means he would be eligible for supervised release after 126 months, assuming he had no disciplinary violations.

Because of section 244.01 and the ambiguity of section 609.221, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that Mr. Leathers is eligible for supervised release after he has served two-thirds of his sentence, just 126 of the total 189 months.

In our opinion, a main concern of the court’s when making their decision was that the legislature wrote the laws so that convicted defendants were given a chance to diminish their sentence a little if they just behaved themselves. The court here wrote that interpreting the term “full term of imprisonment” to mean that an offender must actually serve his entire prison sentence would directly contradict the meaning of section 244.101. As a rule, courts tend to shy away from holdings that contradict statutes (avoiding contradictions tends to make life easier for all of us).

In our humble opinion, we think the court got it right. This case shows us that even when given a long prison sentence for doing something stupid, there’s hope of getting out early if you just behave.

Please remember that the interpretation and analysis presented here is not intended to be legal advice. If you are seeking legal advice please contact us for a free consultation and actual examination of the issues that your case may present.

By: Kari Wilberg
Supervised by,
Landon J. Ascheman, Esq.
Landon@AschemanSmith.com
(B) 612.217.0077 (C) 651.280.9533 (F) 651.344.0700
Contact Me

"[Ascheman & Smith] was very down-to-earth and straight forward."  

According to our client, we kept him informed of case, explained the situation, and he was happy with the results.

We wish him luck in the future and are confident that he will not need our services again.

A misdemeanor is any charge punishable by up to 90 days in jail and/or a $1,000 fine. (i.e. Careless Driving, Simple Assault, Prostitution, Theft, DUI, etc.) Unlike petty misdemeanors a misdemeanor is a crime.  A misdemeanor conviction can follow you for life.  

Many people walk into our office facing misdemeanor charges.  The vast majority of them have no experience with the legal system.  When they walk into our office, they are often confused and afraid.  We take the time to sit down with them and walk them through the process.  We discuss the offense that's being charged.  We explain how the legal system works.  And we help them understand their options.

If you are facing criminal charges for a misdemeanor, don't stumble blindly through the complex legal system.  Call our office today for a free consultation.  612-217-0077

When you are charged with burglary, the State is claiming that you entered into a building without consent and that you intended to commit a crime when you entered.

There are several different degrees of burglary:

Burglary in the first degree:
If convicted of burglary in the first degree there may be a sentence of imprisonment for up to 20 years or a fine up to $35,000, or both if:

• You are in the building when there is a person in the building; 
• You possesses: 
  • A dangerous weapon; 
  • Anything to lead a victim to reasonably believe an item is a dangerous weapon; 
  • Or explosive; 
• You assaults a person while in the building or on the buildings property.

Burglary in the second degree:
If convicted of burglary in the second degree there may be a sentence of imprisonment for up to 10 years or a fine up to $20,000, or both if:

• The building is a dwelling meaning a residence; 
• The portion of the building entered contains a banking business or other business that receives securities or other valuable papers for deposit or safekeeping and the entry is forced or there is threat of force; 
• The portion of the building entered contains a pharmacy or other lawful business or practice in which controlled substance are routinely held or stored, and the entry is forcible; 
• You possess a tool to gain access to money or property.

• You enter into a building with the indents to steal or commit any felony or gross misdemeanor.

If convicted of burglary in the first degree there may be a sentence of imprisonment for up to 1 years or a fine up to $3,000, or both if:

• You enter into a building with the indents to steal or commit any misdemeanor.

If you or someone you know is facing burglary, or any other criminal charges - do not wait any longer. It is important and vital to your case that you receive legal help. Let us help you today at 612-217-0077

Call us today to set up a free consultation.
You will be happy you did!

While many people see drug use as a "victimless crime," the State and Federal governments do not.  If you are facing drug charges it is important to contact an attorney who can help you with your case.  At Ascheman & Smithwe deal with all areas related to drug offenses.  We can help you understand the charges, and the legal system.

Many people view drug crimes as minor offenses due to the popularity of drugs, leading them to underestimate the seriousness of drug charges. But don’t be fooled. The "War on Drugs" is real, and the government is working hard to lock people up for these offenses.  Possession of drugs can quickly increase to felony level charges.  Minnesota and Wisconsin have strict sentencing guidelines – including prison time for drug trafficking, drug possession, drug distribution and drug manufacturing.

Most drug crimes can be classified into the following:

• First degree controlled substance abuse
• Second degree controlled substance abuse
• Third degree controlled substance abuse
• Fourth degree controlled substance abuse
• Fifth degree controlled substance abuse
• Importing controlled substance
• Prescription fraud
• Possession and sale of prescription drugs
• Drug manufacturing, trafficking and transportation

And if you are facing drug charges and the federal government is involved, the matter is very serious. Even if the charges are originally handled by your state, they can ultimately be handed to federal authorities.

If you or someone you know are facing criminal charges, don’t wait any longer. Call us today at 612-217-0077 to speak to a drug crimes defense lawyer for a free, initial case consultation. You’ll be glad you did.

We were able to show the court the violations of his rights, get the illegally seized evidence suppressed.  All charges were dismissed and our client was free to go.

We wish our client success with clean record.

In the words of our client, we provided "simple & efficient, direct & defined representation which focused all efforts towards case resolution."

We wish our client luck in the future.

At Ascheman & Smith, our primary focus is on criminal defense.  As criminal defense attorneys we assist those that are facing prosecution by the State.  We defend people in counties all over Minnesota and Wisconsin facing criminal charges, from felony to gross misdemeanor and misdemeanor charges.

Common Offenses:

• DWI/DUI and drivers license revocation
• Drug offenses, controlled substance offenses
• Assault and criminal sexual conduct
• Burglary, theft & stolen property

Our initial consultation is free.  It's an opportunity for you to meet us, and see if we can help you.  There are cases where you may not need a lawyer, if that's the case we can ensure that you know your rights and answer a few of your questions.  Contacting us does not create an obligation to hire us.

The First Step:

When representing people facing criminal charges, the first thing we do is set up a meeting.  To set up the initial meeting, simply call our office 612-217-0077 or send us an e-mail (Law@AschemanSmith.com).

At the first meeting we listen carefully to your side of the story, understanding your circumstances and needs.  From there we review the charges made against you and the claims made by the State.  The more information you have available at our first meeting, the better we can assist you in defending yourself against these criminal charges.

At our first meeting, we also take the time to explain the basics of the legal system.  It's vital that you have an understanding of the legal system to understand what you're facing, and how we can help you.

The cost:

At the free consultation we will explain the cost for our services based upon the details of your case.  The vast majority of our criminal cases are done by flat fee basis. Each case is different, so after reviewing your case and developing a good legal strategy, we will tell you up front what it will cost.

After discovering our firm through an internet search, he chose to have us resolve his legal challenges.

From our client:

"Attorney Grant Smith went above and beyond to provide outstanding legal representation at very short notice.  His expertise and professional management resulted in the case being dismissed versus being faced with incarceration.

"Grant was calm, responsive and credible.  He clearly outlined a solid defense strategy and then executed it, which made the difference between guaranteed jail time and freedom.

"We can never thank him enough - Outstanding Job!"

Thank you,
Landon J. Ascheman, Esq.
Landon@AschemanSmith.com
(B) 612.217.0077 (C) 651.280.9533 (F) 651.344.0700

Contact Me

After discovering our firm through an internet search, she took the time to sit down with us and learn about us, the legal system, the challenges she was facing, and what we can do about them.  

In her own words, "I felt confident in our chances from the start and feel I got great representation throughout the process."

The only praise we can receive greater than a client testimonial is when they choose to recommend us to their friends and loved ones.  She's already done that as well.

Thank you,
Landon J. Ascheman, Esq.
Landon@AschemanSmith.com
(B) 612.217.0077 (C) 651.280.9533 (F) 651.344.0700

Contact Me

Recording officials doing their job has been an ongoing problem.  And when I say "ongoing problem" I mean: "they don't like it."  I thought I would take a little bit of time and discuss some of the news stories that I have seen recently.

We have a few good links to issues that have popped up in the past couple years.  There are reports of the Mississippi case - where the cops found out the defendant was recording the incident, deleted the recording and returned the camera.  The video was recovered, and the statements of the officers were shown to be lies.

Another case in Illinois - This one depicts how these laws can extend to the courtroom.  It should be noted that courtrooms in Minnesota are routinely recorded, so the steps that Mr. Allison had to take would be unnecessary, for the most part, in Minnesota. But the article goes on to discuss several other cases.  

Finally, another case in Chicago - a city unfortunately known for its questionable law enforcement.  Here, a 60 year old artist and teacher faces a possible sentence of 15 years in prison for taping an officer.

Those are just some examples, luckily I have yet to find any over zealous prosecutors attempting to charge citizens for recording police encounters.  In addition, Minnesotans (within the State of Minnesota) have a strong argument that such recordings should be legal under Minnesota Statute 626A.13.

Please remember that the interpretation and analysis presented here is not intended to be legal advice. If you are seeking legal advice please contact us for a free consultation and actual examination the issues that your case may present.

By:
Landon J. Ascheman, Esq.
Landon@AschemanSmith.com
(B) 612.217.0077 (C) 651.280.9533 (F) 651.344.0700
Contact Me

As always, if you have any questions or concerns, please contact us directly and we will do what we can to help.

Landon J. Ascheman, Esq.
Landon@AschemanSmith.com
(B) 612.217.0077 (C) 651.280.9533 (F) 651.344.0700
Contact Me

By,
Landon J. Ascheman, Esq.
Landon@AschemanSmith.com
(B) 612.217.0077 (C) 651.280.9533 (F) 651.344.0700

Disorderly conduct is the crime of engaging in a brawl or fight; disturbing an assembly or meeting; or engaging in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous or noisy conduct or in offensive, obscene or abusive language that arouses alarm, anger or resentment in others.

The crime of disorderly conduct is often viewed as a catch-all type of crime to prosecutors. Many different actions by individuals can be viewed by overzealous prosecutors as being criminal. Common examples include: yelling at someone in bar; throwing a snowball at a neighbor kid; and giving someone the “bird” in public.

While it may seem that many actions appear criminal to a prosecutor, but trivial to you and I, the crime of disorderly conduct can carry serious penalties.

Examples of disorderly conduct can include public drunkenness, inciting a riot, disturbance of the peace, loitering in certain areas, fighting, physical altercations, obstructing traffic, use of extremely obscene or abusive language, loud or unreasonable noise.

Penalties: Consequences for a person convicted of a disorderly conduct crime include, but are not limited to: local jail time, fines, probation, restitution, and community service.

Additional consequences can befall people working in human services industries. Many employers have specific policies prohibited their employees from engaging in disorderly conduct both at work and away from the job. Violations of such policies can be grounds for termination.

Contact Me