Publish Judicial Info | Duluth Attorney

Fighting a Publishing Personal Information of Judicial Official Accusation in St. Louis County with a Dedicated Defense Attorney

The moment you are accused of publishing the personal information of a judicial official, it feels as though your digital footprint has become a weapon used against you. For anyone in Northern Minnesota, from the bustling city of Duluth to the quiet communities of Two Harbors or Proctor, such an accusation can instantly ignite public scrutiny and professional fallout. This isn’t just about what you posted online; it’s a profound assault on your right to express yourself, your reputation, and your very standing in a society that increasingly scrutinizes online behavior. The chilling fear of facing a criminal charge, the potential loss of your job, and the devastating impact on your family can be overwhelming, leaving you feeling isolated and vulnerable against the immense power of the state that now seems to target your every click and keystroke.

This is not the end of your life; it is the beginning of a fight, a battle that demands immediate, assertive, and strategic action. When you face an accusation as serious as publishing personal information of a judicial official, the state will bring its full resources to bear, viewing it as a direct threat to the justice system. You cannot afford to face them alone, hoping that the context of your actions will somehow be understood. This is not the time for passive observation; it is the moment for a relentless counter-offensive. You need an attorney who embodies the spirit of a fighter, who understands the intricate nuances of free speech and criminal intent, and who is prepared to challenge every facet of the state’s allegations. Your clear path forward, forged by strength, strategy, and an unwavering commitment to your defense, begins now, with a dedicated advocate ready to stand with you in St. Louis County.

The Stakes: What a Conviction Truly Costs

A conviction for publishing personal information of a judicial official is not a minor legal inconvenience; depending on the circumstances, it can be a misdemeanor or a felony that can shatter your future and irrevocably damage your standing in society. The fight against this accusation is essential because the consequences extend far beyond any immediate penalties, fundamentally reshaping every aspect of your existence.

Your Permanent Criminal Record

A conviction for publishing personal information of a judicial official will brand you with a permanent criminal record, an indelible mark that will follow you for the remainder of your life. Whether a misdemeanor or a felony, any criminal record is a public mark, accessible to future employers, licensing boards, and anyone conducting a background check. In a close-knit community like Duluth, or even smaller towns such as Bemidji or Cloquet, a conviction for such a breach of privacy, particularly involving a judicial figure, can irrevocably damage your reputation. It signals to the world that you were found guilty of actions that could intimidate or harm a public servant, a label that carries immense social and professional stigma. This record will constantly resurface, severely limiting opportunities and making it incredibly difficult to ever truly move past the accusation, even after your sentence is served.

Loss of Second Amendment Rights

The charge of publishing personal information of a judicial official can be either a misdemeanor or, if it causes bodily harm, a felony. If your conviction is for the felony version of this crime (Subdivision 3), it will lead to the permanent loss of your Second Amendment rights. This means you will be legally prohibited from owning, possessing, or carrying firearms, a fundamental right for many law-abiding citizens. For individuals in rural communities like Cloquet or Two Harbors, where hunting, sport shooting, or personal protection are often integral to their lifestyle, this loss can be particularly devastating. Even for the misdemeanor offense (Subdivision 2), while it doesn’t automatically strip these rights, any criminal conviction can still complicate firearm ownership in other ways. This potential for permanent prohibition serves as a constant and painful reminder of the conviction’s far-reaching impact.

Barriers to Employment and Housing

The devastating impact of a conviction for publishing personal information of a judicial official extends directly into your ability to secure gainful employment and stable housing. Many employers, particularly those in fields requiring trust, ethical conduct, or any position where background checks are common (which is almost all of them today), will view such a conviction as a serious red flag, potentially leading to immediate disqualification. This is especially true given the sensitive nature of the crime, which could be perceived as a threat or an act of harassment. Similarly, landlords are increasingly scrutinizing applicants, and a criminal record, whether a misdemeanor or felony, can often lead to immediate disqualification from desirable housing options, potentially forcing you into precarious or undesirable living situations. This creates a relentless cycle of hardship, making it incredibly difficult to rebuild your life and provide for yourself and your family in communities across St. Louis County and beyond.

Impact on Professional Licenses and Reputation

For those who hold professional licenses—whether in law, journalism, social media, or any field that requires public trust or ethical conduct—a conviction for publishing personal information of a judicial official could directly impact your ability to maintain those credentials. While not always an automatic revocation, licensing boards may view such a conviction as a serious breach of professional ethics, privacy standards, or a failure to adhere to laws protecting public officials, triggering disciplinary action or even suspension. Beyond professional licenses, the damage to your personal and public reputation in communities like Two Harbors or Proctor is undeniable. Your name will be associated with actions potentially seen as threatening or intimidating, leading to a significant loss of trust and potentially public condemnation. Your standing in the community, once built on reliability and integrity, can be severely eroded under the weight of such an accusation and subsequent conviction.

The Accusation: Understanding the State’s Case

When facing a charge of Publishing Personal Information of a Judicial Official, it is absolutely critical to understand the precise legal definitions, particularly of “personal information” and “judicial official,” and what the state must prove regarding your intent. This isn’t about general online sharing; it’s about specific information, specific targets, and a specific harmful purpose.

What Does the State Allege? Publishing Personal Information of Judicial Official Explained in Plain English

When the state alleges you published personal information of a judicial official, they are claiming that you knowingly made public certain private details about a specific type of public servant, with a harmful intent. This crime is highly specific. “Personal information” is defined as the home address, home telephone number, and places of employment of the judicial official and their immediate family. A “judicial official” is broadly defined and includes judges (active and retired from Supreme, Appeals, and District Courts), judicial officers, referees, court commissioners, prosecutors (active and retired), public defenders (active and retired), and court administrators.

The prosecution must prove two crucial things: first, that you knowingly published this specific personal information in a publicly available way (like on a website, social media, or in media). Second, and most importantly, they must prove you did so with a specific intent to threaten, intimidate, harass, or physically injure the judicial official. This is not about accidental leaks or general criticism; it’s about deliberate actions aimed at causing harm or fear to someone in the justice system. If your actions also resulted in actual bodily harm, the charge escalates to a felony, reflecting the state’s severe view of such harmful intent. This law is designed to protect those who serve in the judiciary from targeted harassment or violence in places like Duluth and across St. Louis County.

The Law on the Books: Minnesota Statute 609.476

Minnesota Statute 609.476, specifically addressing “Publishing Personal Information of Judicial Official,” is a new and critical piece of legislation designed to protect the privacy and safety of those serving in Minnesota’s judicial system. It criminalizes the targeted dissemination of private information with malicious intent, and it carries escalating penalties based on the resulting harm.

609.476 PUBLISHING PERSONAL INFORMATION OF JUDICIAL OFFICIAL.

Subdivision 1.Definitions. For the purposes of this section, the terms “personal information” and “judicial official” have the meanings given in section 480.40, subdivision 1.

Subd. 2.Misdemeanor. It is unlawful to knowingly publish the personal information of any judicial official in any publicly available publication, website, or media with the intent to threaten, intimidate, harass, or physically injure. A person convicted of violating this subdivision is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Subd. 3.Felony. If a person’s violation of subdivision 2 also causes bodily harm as defined in section 609.02, subdivision 7, the person is guilty of a felony.

History: 2024 c 123 art 12 s 4

The Prosecution’s Burden: Elements of Publishing Personal Information of Judicial Official

To secure a conviction for Publishing Personal Information of a Judicial Official under Minnesota Statute 609.476, the prosecution bears the immense burden of proving every single element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The statute outlines distinct tiers of severity (misdemeanor and felony), each with specific elements. If they fail to establish even one of these elements with sufficient evidence, their entire case against you collapses. This rigorous standard of proof is your constitutional safeguard and where a skilled defense attorney focuses their efforts, meticulously dissecting the state’s allegations.

Judicial Official and Personal Information: The prosecution must first prove that the individual whose information was published was indeed a judicial official as defined in Minnesota Statute 480.40, subdivision 1 (e.g., judge, prosecutor, public defender). They must also prove that the information published was specifically “personal information” as defined (home address, home telephone number, places of employment of the official and their immediate family). This establishes the subject and object of the crime.
Knowingly Publish: The state must prove that you knowingly published the personal information. This means you were aware that you were making this information available to the public. This distinguishes deliberate action from accidental leaks or unauthorized third-party postings. “Publicly available publication, website, or media” specifies the forum of publication.
With the Intent to Threaten, Intimidate, Harass, or Physically Injure: This is the most critical mental state element and a primary battleground for defense. The prosecution must prove that you published the information with a specific intent to threaten, intimidate, harass, or physically injure the judicial official. Mere public dissemination is not enough; a specific malicious purpose to cause harm or fear is required. This is a high bar for the prosecution to meet.
Causes Bodily Harm (for Felony Charge – Subd. 3): If the state is pursuing the felony charge under Subdivision 3, they must additionally prove that your violation of Subdivision 2 (the knowing publication with harmful intent) also caused bodily harm to the judicial official (as defined in section 609.02, subdivision 7). This direct causal link between your actions and physical injury is essential for the higher felony penalty.

The Potential Outcome: Penalties for a Publishing Personal Information of Judicial Official Conviction

A conviction for Publishing Personal Information of a Judicial Official under Minnesota Statute 609.476 carries severe legal consequences, with penalties escalating from a misdemeanor to a felony depending on the harm caused. These outcomes can profoundly impact your freedom, finances, and ability to lead a normal life.

Misdemeanor Offense (Subdivision 2)

If convicted of violating Subdivision 2 (knowingly publishing personal information with intent to threaten, intimidate, harass, or physically injure, but without causing bodily harm), you are guilty of a misdemeanor. This means you could face a potential sentence of imprisonment for not more than 90 days or to payment of a fine of not more than $1,000, or both. While a misdemeanor, this conviction still results in a permanent criminal record, which can significantly damage your reputation, impact future employment prospects, and lead to social ostracization in communities like Duluth or Bemidji.

Felony Offense (Subdivision 3)

If your violation of Subdivision 2 also causes bodily harm (as defined in Minnesota Statute 609.02, subdivision 7, which includes physical pain, illness, or any impairment of physical condition), then you are guilty of a felony. While Subdivision 3 does not explicitly state the specific prison sentence or fine, it indicates that a person “is guilty of a felony,” meaning the sentencing would fall under Minnesota’s general felony sentencing guidelines, which can range from probation to several years in prison and much higher fines, depending on the severity of the bodily harm and your criminal history score. A felony conviction brings all the devastating collateral consequences, including the permanent loss of Second Amendment rights, significant barriers to employment and housing, and long-lasting damage to your reputation.

The Battle Plan: Building Your Strategic Defense

An accusation of publishing personal information of a judicial official feels like a direct threat to your freedom of expression and your future. But an accusation is not a conviction. This is the moment to unleash a powerful, strategic defense, understanding that a criminal charge is the beginning of a fight, not the end of your life.

An Accusation is Not a Conviction: The Fight Starts Now

Let’s be absolutely clear: an accusation of Publishing Personal Information of a Judicial Official is not a conviction. When the state levels a charge as profound and potentially reputation-destroying as this, especially given the sensitive nature of protecting judicial figures, the weight of their allegations can feel suffocating. It’s easy to feel as if your guilt is a foregone conclusion. But the truth is, the state bears the immense and unyielding burden of proving every single element of their case against you beyond a reasonable doubt. In the American justice system, you are presumed innocent, and it is my relentless mission to ensure that presumption is upheld with every fiber of my being. This is not a time for passive acceptance, for hoping the situation will simply fade away, or for succumbing to the pressure. When facing a charge that can damage your reputation, restrict your freedom, and impact your ability to communicate online, you must meet the state’s power with an equally formidable, proactive, and strategic counter-offensive.

Your defense must be meticulously designed to dismantle the prosecution’s case from every conceivable angle. This means rigorously testing every piece of digital evidence they claim to possess, challenging their interpretations of your online activity and intent, exposing any flaws in their investigation, and asserting your constitutional rights at every turn. We will demand full discovery, meticulously review all online postings, metadata, and communications, and, if necessary, bring in independent digital forensics experts to uncover the full truth that the state may be overlooking, misinterpreting, or even deliberately ignoring. The state’s case crucially relies on proving your knowing publication and your specific intent to threaten, intimidate, harass, or physically injure; a robust defense will rip apart those assumptions and present the full, complex picture, forcing them to genuinely prove their claims rather than just present them. This is your fight, and it starts now, with an unwavering commitment to challenge everything.

How a Publishing Personal Information of Judicial Official Charge Can Be Challenged in Court

A charge of Publishing Personal Information of a Judicial Official, while dealing with sensitive subject matter, is not insurmountable. The most critical elements the prosecution must prove are your knowing publication and, especially, your specific intent to cause harm. Every element they must prove presents a potential point of attack for a strategic defense. Identifying and relentlessly pursuing these avenues is critical to casting doubt on the state’s claims and asserting your innocence.

Lack of Specific Intent to Threaten, Intimidate, Harass, or Injure

The statute requires a very specific, malicious intent. If this intent cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the case fails.

Protected Free Speech/General Criticism: Your publication may constitute protected free speech/general criticism under the First Amendment. If your intent was to express political opinion, critique judicial decisions, or engage in general public discourse, and not to specifically threaten, intimidate, harass, or injure, then the crucial element of intent is missing. This is a high bar for the state to overcome.
Lack of Malicious Intent: The alleged publication might have been a careless act or even an attempt to share publicly available information, but done with lack of malicious intent to cause harm. You cannot be convicted if you didn’t have the specific purpose of threatening, intimidating, harassing, or physically injuring the judicial official.
Publication for Legitimate Purpose: There may have been a publication for legitimate purpose, such as informing the public about a matter of public record, discussing a legal case, or for journalistic purposes, without any intent to cause harm to the individual. The context and purpose of the publication are vital.
Not Targeting the Individual: If the publication was aimed at the system, a decision, or a broader issue, and not targeting the individual personally for harm, then the specific intent element may not be met. The focus of the statute is on actions directed at the official.

Lack of “Knowing Publication” or “Personal Information”

The state must prove you knew you were publishing the specific type of information defined by law, and that it was truly “personal.”

Information Was Already Publicly Available: If the alleged “personal information” was information was already publicly available through other legitimate means (e.g., publicly accessible court records, news articles, property records) and you were unaware it was not supposed to be published, then you may not have “knowingly” published restricted personal information.
Accidental Posting/Unauthorized Access: The publication might have been an accidental posting/unauthorized access (e.g., a wrong link, a social media account hack, or an employee posting without authorization). If you did not knowingly or intentionally publish the information, then a key element is absent.
Not “Personal Information” as Defined: The information published may not “personal information” as defined by the statute (home address, home phone, places of employment of the official or immediate family). Public office addresses, court phone numbers, or general biographical details are often not considered “personal information” under this law.
No “Publicly Available Publication”: If the information was shared only in a private group, a secure messaging app, or a non-public forum, it may not meet the criteria of a “no “publicly available publication”, website, or media.” The scope of public dissemination is crucial.

No Bodily Harm Caused (for Felony Charge)

If the state attempts to elevate the charge to a felony, they must prove actual bodily harm directly caused by your actions.

No Physical Injury/Bodily Harm: For the felony charge, the state must prove no physical injury/bodily harm occurred to the judicial official as a direct result of your publication. If there’s no physical injury, the felony charge cannot stand.
Intervening Cause: If bodily harm occurred, but there was an intervening cause unrelated to your publication (e.g., a pre-existing medical condition, an accident, or actions by a third party not influenced by your publication), then the direct causal link required for the felony is broken.
Bodily Harm Not Directly Caused: Even if a judicial official experienced distress, if the bodily harm not directly caused by your action (e.g., it was due to stress from their job in general, or unrelated threats), then the element connecting your publication to the bodily harm is not met.

Constitutional Violations

Even in cases involving sensitive public figures, your constitutional rights are paramount. Any violation by law enforcement or prosecutors can lead to the suppression of critical evidence or even the dismissal of your case.

First Amendment Overbreadth/Vagueness: The statute’s application may be challenged as First Amendment overbreadth/vagueness if it’s argued that it chills legitimate speech or is too vague in defining “threaten, intimidate, harass.” This can be a powerful defense in free speech cases.
Illegal Search and Seizure: Evidence (e.g., computer data, phone records, IP addresses) obtained through an illegal search and seizure, conducted without a valid warrant or probable cause, is generally inadmissible in court. Challenging how evidence was collected can severely weaken the prosecution’s case.
Miranda Rights Violations: If you were questioned while in custody regarding the alleged publication without being properly advised of your Miranda rights (right to remain silent, right to an attorney), any statements you made could be suppressed. This is crucial if the prosecution relies heavily on your alleged admissions.
Due Process Violations: Any fundamental unfairness in the legal process, such as the deliberate destruction of exculpatory evidence, prosecutorial misconduct (e.g., withholding favorable evidence), or significant delays that prejudice your ability to defend yourself, could constitute a due process violation, potentially leading to dismissal of charges.

Defense in Action: Scenarios in Northern Minnesota

Applying legal defenses to real-world scenarios helps illuminate their effectiveness. These examples demonstrate how a strategic defense can be mounted against a Publishing Personal Information of Judicial Official charge in communities across Northern Minnesota.

Duluth Scenario: Online Critique Misinterpreted as Harassment

A resident of Duluth, frustrated with a particular judge’s ruling in a civil case that garnered public attention, posts a scathing critique on a local online forum, referencing the judge’s publicly known name and the city where they live (information widely available). The post is critical of the ruling, but the state interprets the inclusion of the city name and the passionate tone as an intent to “harass” or “intimidate” the judge, leading to charges.

In this scenario, the defense would focus heavily on lack of specific intent to threaten, intimidate, harass, or injure and protected free speech/general criticism. The attorney would argue that the individual’s intent was to express political opinion and critique a public decision, not to personally target the judge for harassment. They would demonstrate that the city of residence is not “personal information” as defined by the statute (which specifies home address, phone, employment). The defense would emphasize that the post falls squarely within First Amendment protections for speech on matters of public concern, even if it is strongly worded or critical.

Bemidji Scenario: Accidental Sharing of Publicly Available Information

A social media user in Bemidji, sharing news articles about a local prosecutor’s recent high-profile case, inadvertently includes a link to an old, archived online news article that, years ago, briefly mentioned the prosecutor’s street address when they first took office. The user did not notice the address and had no intent to cause harm. The state charges them, alleging knowing publication of personal information.

Here, the defense would center on lack of “knowing publication” or “personal information”, specifically arguing that the information was already publicly available and there was accidental posting/unauthorized access (unintentional inclusion). The attorney would show that the address was already in the public domain, even if obscure, and that the user did not “knowingly” publish restricted personal information with malicious intent. The accidental nature of including the old link, and the user’s lack of intent to threaten, intimidate, harass, or injure the prosecutor, would be critical in refuting the criminal elements of the charge.

Cloquet Scenario: Vague Online Threats Without Direct Targeting

During a heated online discussion about legal reforms in Cloquet, an anonymous user makes a vague comment like, “Judges who oppose this reform should watch their backs.” This statement is widely circulated. While concerning, there is no direct link to a specific judicial official’s personal information, nor is there evidence that this particular user possessed such information or intended to publish it. A prosecutor, feeling threatened by the general sentiment, pushes for a charge of publishing personal information.

This defense would rely on lack of specific intent to threaten, intimidate, harass, or injure and not targeting the individual. The attorney would argue that the statement, while potentially threatening in tone, lacks the specific elements required by the statute. There is no publication of personal information, and the statement is too vague to be construed as targeting a specific judicial official with the intent to threaten, intimidate, harass, or physically injure them. The defense would highlight the absence of a direct link between the online comment and the elements of the crime.

Proctor Scenario: Private Discussion Not “Publicly Available”

A person in Proctor, upset about a court decision, discusses the perceived bias of a specific judge with a close friend via a private, encrypted messaging app. In the conversation, they lament that the judge lives “just down the street” from a mutual acquaintance, without specifying the exact address. This private message is later accessed by authorities (perhaps through a search warrant for another investigation) and used as evidence of publishing personal information.

The defense here would focus intensely on no “publicly available publication” and not “personal information” as defined. The attorney would argue that a private, encrypted messaging app conversation does not constitute a “publicly available publication, website, or media” as required by the statute. Furthermore, mentioning a judge lives “just down the street” from an acquaintance is not the specific “home address, home telephone number, and places of employment” defined as personal information. The defense would contend that the conversation was private, not a public act, and the information shared did not meet the statutory definition for a criminal charge.

The Advocate: Why a Dedicated Duluth Defense Attorney is Essential

When facing an accusation of Publishing Personal Information of a Judicial Official, you are not simply dealing with an online post; you are confronting a criminal charge that questions your intent, challenges your right to free speech, and could severely impact your future. This is a moment that demands immediate, assertive, and uncompromising advocacy.

Countering the Resources of the State

The state of Minnesota, through its law enforcement agencies, cybercrime units, and prosecutors, possesses formidable resources to investigate and prosecute charges like Publishing Personal Information of a Judicial Official. They will meticulously analyze digital forensics, trace IP addresses, review online accounts, and scrutinize your communications to build a case against you. Their objective is to protect judicial figures and prevent perceived threats, and they will leverage their tools to achieve it. As an individual, you cannot possibly match this power alone. A dedicated defense attorney is your essential equalizer, your unyielding shield against this formidable adversary. This attorney possesses the knowledge and strategic acumen to meticulously dissect every piece of digital evidence the state presents, to identify and exploit weaknesses in their investigation, and to relentlessly challenge every assertion they make about your intent and actions. They will scrutinize warrants for digital data, examine the context of your online activity, and relentlessly push back against the state’s narrative, ensuring that your rights are vigorously protected and that the state is truly forced to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt in St. Louis County.

Strategic Command of the St. Louis County Courts

Navigating the intricate and often intimidating legal landscape of the St. Louis County court system, particularly with a charge like publishing personal information of a judicial official which involves complex digital evidence and First Amendment considerations, requires more than just a basic understanding of criminal law. It demands a profound, intimate knowledge of the local rules, the specific procedural nuances, and the unwritten customs that can significantly influence the trajectory and outcome of your case. Each judge, each prosecutor, and even the administrative staff in Duluth, Two Harbors, or Cloquet, operates within a unique framework that only an attorney with extensive local experience truly commands. This means knowing precisely which motions to file (e.g., motions to suppress illegally obtained data), when to challenge the interpretation of online statements, and how to effectively present your defense in a way that resonates with local judges and juries. A dedicated defense attorney understands the intricacies of the local legal community, anticipates the prosecution’s strategies, and leverages every procedural advantage available to you, ensuring that your case is presented with the strongest possible strategic foundation within the specific context of Northern Minnesota’s judicial system.

Fighting for Your Story, Not Just the Online Post

When an accusation of Publishing Personal Information of a Judicial Official is leveled against you, your online posts, comments, or shared content often become the dominant narrative. These snippets, however, are mere snapshots, frequently stripped of context, incomplete, and inherently biased, failing to capture the full truth of your situation, the nuances of your intentions, or the broader discussion in which they appeared. Investigating bodies and law enforcement are focused on identifying apparent threats or harmful intent, not on understanding the complexities of online communication or your actual purpose. A dedicated defense attorney recognizes that your reputation and freedom hinge on your story being heard, understood, and believed, not simply dismissed as a convenient act of harassment or intimidation. They will tirelessly investigate every aspect of the alleged publication, interview relevant witnesses, analyze digital footprints, and uncover evidence that corroborates your version of events, working to construct a comprehensive, compelling narrative that goes far beyond the narrow, often misleading, scope of an isolated post or official report. This is about humanizing you to the court and to a potential jury, ensuring that your life, your motivations, and your character are not reduced to a few lines in a prosecutor’s file.

An Unwavering Commitment to a Winning Result

Facing an accusation of Publishing Personal Information of a Judicial Official is a deeply stressful, emotionally charged, and potentially publicly devastating experience. What you need most in this moment is an unwavering commitment from your legal advocate – a commitment not just to provide a defense, but to relentlessly fight for a winning result. This means exploring every possible avenue for dismissal, pursuing an acquittal, or securing the most favorable outcome possible given the unique and often complex facts of your case, including the constitutional implications for free speech. It goes far beyond simply appearing for court dates; it involves countless hours of meticulous preparation, aggressive negotiation with prosecutors who will be under pressure to secure a conviction in cases involving judicial officials, and a profound willingness to take your case to trial if that is what it takes to protect your freedom and your future. An attorney dedicated to your cause understands that your world has been violently disrupted, and they will pour their expertise, their strategic acumen, and their relentless energy into ensuring that this accusation does not become the defining event of your life in Northern Minnesota, but rather a battle you bravely fought and ultimately overcame.

Your Questions Answered

What is “personal information” under this law?

“Personal information” is specifically defined in Minnesota Statute 480.40, subdivision 1, to mean the home address, home telephone number, and places of employment of the judicial official and their immediate family. It does not include public office addresses or general professional contact information.

Who is considered a “judicial official” under this statute?

A “judicial official” is broadly defined to include judges (active and retired from Supreme, Appeals, and District Courts), judicial officers, referees, court commissioners, prosecutors (active and retired), public defenders (active and retired), and court administrators.

Is this charge a felony?

It depends. It is a misdemeanor if you knowingly publish personal information with harmful intent. However, it becomes a felony if your violation also causes bodily harm to the judicial official. The penalties are significantly more severe for the felony version.

What does “knowingly publish” mean?

“Knowingly publish” means you were aware that you were making the personal information publicly available through a publication, website, or other media. It implies a deliberate act of dissemination, not an accidental leak or someone else posting it without your knowledge.

What kind of “intent” is required for this crime?

The state must prove you acted with the specific intent to threaten, intimidate, harass, or physically injure the judicial official. Simply sharing information, even if it’s personal, without this malicious intent is not enough for a conviction under this statute.

Can I be charged if the information was already public elsewhere?

This can be a complex defense. If the information was genuinely already publicly available through other legitimate means and you were unaware it was restricted, your attorney could argue you lacked the “knowing” element for criminal intent to illegally publish.

What are the maximum penalties for the misdemeanor version?

For the misdemeanor offense, you could face up to 90 days in jail, a fine of up to $1,000, or both. This also results in a permanent criminal record, impacting future employment and social standing.

What are the potential penalties for the felony version?

If the crime causes bodily harm, it becomes a felony. While the statute doesn’t specify an exact sentence for the felony version, it would fall under Minnesota’s general felony sentencing guidelines, which can include years in prison and much higher fines depending on the circumstances.

Does this law restrict my First Amendment right to criticize judges?

No, this law does not restrict legitimate criticism or protected free speech. It specifically targets the knowing publication of defined personal information with a malicious intent to threaten, intimidate, harass, or physically injure. It is designed to protect individuals, not to silence dissenting opinions on public matters.

Will a conviction affect my social media use?

A conviction, particularly if it involves online activity, can significantly impact your future social media use. Courts may impose restrictions as part of probation, and the criminal record itself can affect employment that involves online presence or public communication.

What if someone else posted the information from my account without my knowledge?

If someone else accessed your account and posted the information without your knowledge or consent, and you had no intent to publish it, it is a strong defense. You cannot be held criminally liable for actions you did not knowingly commit.

Is “harass” defined specifically in this context?

While “harass” is a general term, in this criminal statute, it refers to an intent to cause substantial emotional distress or to cause fear of injury by publishing specific personal information. It goes beyond general annoyance.

Does this statute apply to all public figures, or just judicial officials?

This specific statute (609.476) is narrowly tailored to protect judicial officials as defined in Minnesota Statute 480.40, subdivision 1. It does not apply to other public figures or officials outside of this defined group.

How does “bodily harm” relate to the felony charge?

For the charge to become a felony, your violation of knowingly publishing personal information with harmful intent must cause bodily harm to the judicial official. This harm is defined in Minnesota Statute 609.02, subdivision 7, and includes physical pain, illness, or impairment.

Why is a defense attorney necessary for a charge related to an online post?

An attorney is crucial because these cases involve complex issues of digital evidence, online anonymity, constitutional free speech rights, and proving specific criminal intent. An attorney can challenge the state’s technical evidence, argue the context of your actions, and ensure your rights are protected against overreaching accusations.