Duluth Refrigerator Exposure Attorney

Fighting an Exposure of Unused Refrigerator or Container to Children Accusation in St. Louis County with a Dedicated Defense Attorney

The sudden accusation that you, as an owner or someone in control, allowed an unused refrigerator or container to be exposed and accessible to children without proper safety measures, can be a horrifying experience. In the close-knit communities of Duluth, St. Louis County, or towns like Two Harbors and Proctor, such a charge under Minnesota Statute 609.675 isn’t just a legal matter; it’s an immediate threat to your reputation and well-being. The thought of your name being associated with potential harm to a child, even if unintentional, can send your world spiraling into chaos. The fear of public judgment, the whispers among neighbors, and the deep concern for your standing in the community are overwhelming. You might be questioning how a simple oversight could lead to such a serious accusation.

This kind of charge strikes at the heart of public safety and the perception of your responsibility within your community. Your good name, painstakingly built over years in places like Cloquet or Bemidji, feels instantly jeopardized. You may be facing the pressure of law enforcement and a public eager to see someone held accountable. But I want you to understand that an accusation is not a conviction. It is the beginning of a fight, not the end of your life. This situation demands a fierce advocate, someone who will dissect the facts, challenge the assumptions, and ensure your side of the story is heard. You are facing the power of the state, and I am here to forge a clear path forward, built on strength, strategic defense, and an unwavering commitment to protecting you.

The Stakes: What a Conviction Truly Costs

While a charge under Minnesota Statute 609.675, Exposure of Unused Refrigerator or Container to Children, is classified as a misdemeanor, the consequences of a conviction extend far beyond any immediate fine or minor penalty. The true cost of such a conviction is the lasting damage it inflicts on your reputation, your future opportunities, and your standing within the community. This isn’t just about a legal record; it’s about the permanent shadow it casts on your character, especially in tightly knit Northern Minnesota towns where trust and community safety are paramount.

Your Permanent Criminal Record

Even a misdemeanor conviction for Exposure of Unused Refrigerator or Container to Children under Minnesota Statute 609.675 results in a permanent criminal record. While it may not be a felony, this record will still appear on background checks for employment, housing, and various other applications. In a community like Duluth or any town across St. Louis County, where personal reputation holds significant weight, having a public record that suggests negligence regarding child safety can be incredibly damaging. It can create a lasting stigma, causing others to view you with suspicion or distrust, regardless of the full circumstances of the incident. This record can be a constant reminder of a mistake, impacting your ability to move forward unburdened.

Loss of Second Amendment Rights

While this specific misdemeanor conviction for Exposure of Unused Refrigerator or Container to Children typically does not, on its own, lead to the loss of your Second Amendment rights to own or possess firearms, it’s crucial to understand the broader context of criminal convictions. If this charge were to somehow be linked to other, more serious offenses, or if it were part of a pattern of behavior that resulted in subsequent felony convictions, your firearm rights could certainly be at risk. For many in Northern Minnesota, where hunting and responsible firearm ownership are important parts of life, even the slightest risk to these rights is a serious concern. It is essential to mount a vigorous defense to prevent any conviction from creating a pathway to such a fundamental loss.

Barriers to Employment and Housing

A conviction for Exposure of Unused Refrigerator or Container to Children can create unexpected barriers to employment and housing. Many employers, particularly those involving positions of trust or interaction with children, conduct thorough background checks that will reveal this misdemeanor. Even if it’s not an immediate disqualifier, it can raise concerns and lead to a preference for other candidates. In smaller communities like Proctor or Two Harbors, where personal reputation is closely tied to professional opportunities, this can be particularly challenging. Similarly, landlords often review criminal records, and a conviction related to safety concerns, even for a non-violent misdemeanor, might cause them to hesitate in offering you housing, potentially limiting your options and adding stress to an already difficult situation.

Impact on Professional Licenses and Reputation

For those holding professional licenses, even a misdemeanor conviction can trigger reviews by licensing boards. While not directly related to a particular profession, a conviction for a crime involving public safety, especially concerning children, can lead to questions about your judgment and responsibility. This could prompt investigations or require you to explain the circumstances, potentially jeopardizing your ability to maintain your license. Beyond formal licensing, the impact on your reputation within your community, whether in Cloquet, Bemidji, or across St. Louis County, can be severe. This type of charge, regardless of the details, can lead to negative perceptions that are difficult to overcome, affecting social standing, community involvement, and the overall trust others place in you. The long-term damage to your good name can be the most significant and lasting consequence.

The Accusation: Understanding the State’s Case

When you are accused of Exposure of Unused Refrigerator or Container to Children under Minnesota Statute 609.675, it’s essential to understand exactly what the state must prove to secure a conviction. This isn’t about mere suspicion; it’s about the prosecution demonstrating every element of the law, beyond a reasonable doubt, to the court. Knowing what they must allege and prove is the first step in formulating a strong defense.

What Does the State Allege? Exposure of Unused Refrigerator or Container to Children Explained in Plain English

Being accused under Minnesota Statute 609.675 means the state alleges that you, as the owner or someone in possession or control of a property, permitted an unused refrigerator or other similar container to be exposed and accessible to children without taking necessary safety precautions. The core of the accusation is that this container was “sufficiently large to retain any child” and had “doors which fasten automatically when closed.” To violate this law, you must have failed to remove the doors, lids, hinges, or latches from such a container, thereby creating a potential hazard for curious children. This statute is designed to prevent tragic accidents where children become trapped inside old appliances.

The prosecution will attempt to prove that you had knowledge of the container’s presence, its dangerous nature (specifically its size and self-latching doors), and that you failed to take the legally mandated steps to make it safe. They will focus on establishing your ownership or control over the property where the container was located, and that the container met the specific criteria outlined in the statute. This is not about intent to harm, but about failing to act responsibly to prevent a foreseeable danger. My defense will challenge whether every one of these elements can be proven by the state.

The Law on the Books: Minnesota Statute 609.675

Minnesota Statute 609.675 addresses the serious public safety concern of children becoming trapped in discarded appliances. The law aims to prevent such tragedies by placing a clear responsibility on individuals who own, possess, or control unused refrigerators or other containers that could pose a danger to children. It specifies the type of container (sufficiently large to retain a child with automatically fastening doors) and the required safety measures (removing doors, lids, hinges, or latches). Failure to comply is classified as a misdemeanor.

609.675 EXPOSURE OF UNUSED REFRIGERATOR OR CONTAINER TO CHILDREN.

Whoever, being the owner or in possession or control, permits an unused refrigerator or other container, sufficiently large to retain any child and with doors which fasten automatically when closed, to be exposed and accessible to children, without removing the doors, lids, hinges, or latches, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

The Prosecution’s Burden: Elements of Exposure of Unused Refrigerator or Container to Children

For the state to secure a conviction for Exposure of Unused Refrigerator or Container to Children under Minnesota Statute 609.675, they must prove every single one of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is a failure to prove even one element, the case against you must fail. This is the bedrock of your defense, and I will rigorously challenge each element.

Ownership, Possession, or Control: The prosecution must prove that you were the owner or in possession or control of the unused refrigerator or other container at the time of the alleged violation. This means they need to demonstrate a direct link between you and the container’s location and responsibility. My defense will scrutinize the evidence to determine if your relationship to the property or container truly meets this legal definition. For example, if the container was on property you don’t own or control, or if its presence was unknown to you, this element could be challenged.
Unused Refrigerator or Other Container: The state must prove that the item in question was an unused refrigerator or other container falling within the scope of the statute. This isn’t just any discarded item; it must be a type of container that poses the specific entrapment risk the law seeks to prevent. My defense will examine the specific item to ensure it meets this definition. For example, if it was a storage shed that wasn’t designed to automatically fasten, it may not apply.
Sufficiently Large to Retain Any Child: A critical element is that the container must be sufficiently large to retain any child. This means it must be big enough for a child to enter and become trapped inside. The prosecution will likely present evidence of the container’s dimensions. My defense will challenge this if the size is debatable or if there’s evidence that, due to its design or condition, it wouldn’t realistically be able to trap a child.
Doors Fasten Automatically When Closed: The container must have doors which fasten automatically when closed. This is a key safety feature that makes old refrigerators particularly dangerous. If the doors did not fasten automatically, or if they were already removed or damaged in a way that prevented them from fastening, then this element is not met. My defense will seek evidence regarding the functional state of the doors or latches.
Exposed and Accessible to Children: The prosecution must demonstrate that the container was exposed and accessible to children. This means it was not properly secured, hidden, or located in an area where children would typically not have access. This element often relates to the physical location of the container on the property in Duluth, St. Louis County, or surrounding areas. My defense will investigate the surrounding environment and any measures taken to prevent access.
Failure to Remove Doors, Lids, Hinges, or Latches: Finally, the state must prove that you failed to take the specific remedial action required by law: without removing the doors, lids, hinges, or latches. This is the core of the alleged negligence. If any of these components were, in fact, removed or rendered ineffective, then this element cannot be proven, and the charge fails. My defense will prioritize gathering evidence related to the state of the container’s entry points.

The Potential Outcome: Penalties for a Exposure of Unused Refrigerator or Container to Children Conviction

A conviction for Exposure of Unused Refrigerator or Container to Children under Minnesota Statute 609.675, while a misdemeanor, still carries significant legal consequences. The law is designed to prevent tragic accidents, and even though the penalties are less severe than for a felony, they are not to be taken lightly.

A person convicted under Minnesota Statute 609.675 is guilty of a misdemeanor. In Minnesota, a misdemeanor typically carries a maximum penalty of not more than 90 days imprisonment, or a fine of not more than $1,000, or both. While 90 days in jail may not sound like a long time compared to felony sentences, any amount of time in jail can be a devastating disruption to your life, job, and family, particularly in smaller communities like Bemidji or Cloquet. The financial penalty, while not crippling for some, is still a burden that could have been avoided with a strong defense. Beyond these statutory penalties, the true cost lies in the collateral consequences, particularly the lasting damage to your reputation and the potential barriers it creates for future opportunities in communities across Northern Minnesota.

The Battle Plan: Building Your Strategic Defense

When facing a charge like Exposure of Unused Refrigerator or Container to Children, it’s easy to feel a sense of dread, as if the accusation has already sealed your fate. But let me be absolutely clear: an accusation is not a conviction. It is the beginning of a relentless fight, and the battle for your reputation, your peace of mind, and your future begins the moment you are charged. Your defense is not a passive reaction; it is a proactive, strategic counter-offensive designed to meticulously dismantle every aspect of the state’s case against you.

The prosecution will present their version of events, likely relying on police reports and potentially witness statements. My role is to challenge that narrative, expose its weaknesses, and present your truth with unwavering conviction. This means leaving no stone unturned in examining the evidence, questioning every assumption, and scrutinizing every procedure followed by the authorities. I will not merely respond to the prosecution’s moves; I will dictate the terms of engagement whenever possible. From challenging the physical characteristics of the container to questioning the accessibility of the area, every detail will be rigorously examined. This is about building a defense that is strong, intelligent, and precisely tailored to the unique circumstances of your case in Duluth or wherever the accusation arose, ensuring that the power of the state is met with an equally powerful and tenacious advocate on your side.

How an Exposure of Unused Refrigerator or Container to Children Charge Can Be Challenged in Court

Even seemingly straightforward misdemeanor charges like Exposure of Unused Refrigerator or Container to Children have specific legal elements that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. My defense will focus on undermining their ability to prove each of these elements, leveraging strategies tailored to the specifics of Minnesota Statute 609.675 and the facts of your individual case.

Lack of Ownership, Possession, or Control

A fundamental element of this charge is that you must be the owner or in possession or control of the container. If the state cannot definitively prove this link, their case crumbles.

Third-Party Ownership: My defense will investigate whether the container actually belonged to a third-party owner who had primary responsibility for it. For example, if it was left by a previous tenant or an unauthorized dumping, it may not fall under your control.
No Direct Possession: If the container was located on property that you do not directly own or lease, or if it was merely on a shared public space adjacent to your property in St. Louis County, a no direct possession argument can be made. The prosecution must establish clear dominion and control over the specific item.
Limited Access Property: If the container was located on limited access property to which children would not normally have free access (e.g., a secured industrial yard, a fenced-off area not easily breached by children), this can challenge the “control” aspect and the “accessible to children” element.
Recent Acquisition: If you only recently acquired the property or the container, and therefore had recent acquisition and insufficient time to become aware of or rectify the situation, this can be presented to negate the “permits” aspect of the statute. You cannot permit something you are not yet reasonably aware of.
Transfer of Responsibility: If you had a clear agreement or evidence of transfer of responsibility for the container’s disposal or safety to another individual or company, that can shift the legal burden away from you.

Container Does Not Meet Statutory Definition

The statute specifies the exact characteristics of the container that make it illegal. If the item in question does not precisely match this definition, the charge fails.

Not Unused: The statute specifically refers to an not unused refrigerator or container. If the item was, in fact, still in use for its intended purpose, or undergoing active repair, it may not fall under the scope of the law.
Not Sufficiently Large: A key element is that the container must be not sufficiently large to retain any child. My defense will present evidence of the actual dimensions of the container and argue if it was too small to pose a realistic entrapment risk for a child of typical size.
Doors Do Not Fasten Automatically: The most crucial characteristic is that the doors do not fasten automatically. Many older refrigerators have broken latches, or the doors may have been removed or left ajar intentionally. If the doors could not automatically close and latch, then the specific danger the law targets is not present.
Lids, Hinges, or Latches Removed: If the lids, hinges, or latches were already removed or disabled, either by you or by others, then the required preventative action has already been taken, and the statute has not been violated. Physical inspection and photographic evidence will be vital here.
Not a “Container”: If the item, while large, is clearly not a “container” designed for enclosure (e.g., a large open box, a broken-down appliance frame with no internal space), then it may not fall under the scope of the statute’s intent.

Not Exposed or Accessible to Children

The state must prove the container was exposed and accessible. If it was secured or children couldn’t reasonably get to it, this defense is strong.

Secured Location: If the container was kept in a secured location, such as a locked shed, a fenced yard with a locked gate, or inside a building inaccessible to the public, then it was not “exposed and accessible” as the statute requires. Evidence of security measures will be crucial.
Unsupervised Access: The statute targets situations where the container is accessible. If children gained unsupervised access to your property without your permission or reasonable foresight (e.g., trespassing through a secure area), this can weaken the “accessible to children” argument.
Temporary Exposure: If the exposure was temporary exposure for immediate disposal, and reasonable steps were being taken to remove it swiftly, this can be argued as not meeting the persistent “exposed and accessible” standard implied by the statute.
Lack of Proximity to Children: If the location was in an area where children are not typically found or cannot easily reach, such as a remote part of a large property in Bemidji or a private industrial zone, this demonstrates a lack of proximity to children, making the “accessible” element harder to prove.
Visible Safety Measures: Even if exposed, if visible safety measures were taken (e.g., the door was conspicuously propped open, or a warning sign was posted, even if the primary means of safety wasn’t yet complete), this can demonstrate intent to comply and undermine the prosecution’s claim.

Defense in Action: Scenarios in Northern Minnesota

These hypothetical scenarios illustrate how a strategic defense can be applied to real-world situations involving charges under Minnesota Statute 609.675 across Northern Minnesota.

Scenario 1: Yard Sale Refrigerator in Duluth

A resident in Duluth is charged under Minnesota Statute 609.675 after an unused refrigerator, placed outside for a weekend yard sale, is discovered by a police officer with its door still attached and able to latch. The resident intended to sell it and believed the “unused” clause didn’t apply since it was temporarily for sale, and they had plans to remove the door if it didn’t sell by Monday.

In this scenario, the defense would focus on the argument that the container was not “unused” in the context of the statute’s intent to prevent abandonment, as it was actively part of a sale. Furthermore, I would argue that the exposure was temporary exposure with a clear intent for prompt resolution (either sale or immediate door removal), rather than a permanent or indefinite exposure. I would present evidence of the yard sale advertisement, any communication with potential buyers, and the timeline for its intended removal or modification. The defense would contend that the spirit of the law, preventing long-term hazards, was not violated, and that the owner was taking reasonable steps for its disposition.

Scenario 2: Old Freezer on Remote Property in St. Louis County

An individual living on a large, rural property in St. Louis County, several miles from the nearest town, is charged when an old chest freezer, left outside a barn, is discovered by a county inspector. The freezer’s lid still latches, and the inspector notes it’s accessible. The owner states the property is heavily wooded and fenced, far from any public access or common routes for children.

Here, the defense would primarily challenge the “exposed and accessible to children” element, arguing that the container was located on limited access property with a lack of proximity to children. I would present photographic evidence of the property’s size, fencing, and remoteness from public roads or residential areas in St. Louis County. While the lid might latch, the argument would be that the physical environment itself provided a de facto barrier, making it unreasonable to consider the container “accessible” to curious children in the manner the statute intends to prevent. The defense would highlight that the spirit of the law is to protect children from readily accessible dangers, not those in isolated, private settings.

Scenario 3: Appliance Disposal Error in Cloquet

A contractor in Cloquet, clearing out an old shed for a client, temporarily places an old, large appliance with a self-latching door by the curb for immediate bulk trash pickup, scheduled for the following morning. A neighbor, seeing the appliance, reports it. The contractor is charged under 609.675, despite having removal services scheduled.

The defense here would center on the temporary exposure aspect and the transfer of responsibility for disposal. I would argue that the contractor was actively taking steps for the container’s safe and legal disposition, not “permitting” its exposure as a long-term hazard. Evidence would include the scheduled pickup confirmation, any communication with the trash service, and the short duration of the exposure. The defense would assert that the contractor exercised due diligence in arranging for proper disposal and that the brief placement for pickup, pending scheduled removal, does not constitute a knowing violation of the statute’s intent to prevent abandonment.

Scenario 4: Garage Freezer in Bemidji with Broken Latch

A homeowner in Bemidji is charged after an officer, responding to a different call, notices an old freezer in an open garage with its door seemingly intact. The homeowner explains that the freezer stopped working months ago and the latch is actually broken, requiring force to stay shut, and has been in the process of getting a new one. The door, while appearing normal, does not automatically latch.

The defense would focus directly on the element that the doors do not fasten automatically. I would arrange for a demonstration or provide a sworn statement from a repair person or mechanic confirming the broken latch mechanism. The visual appearance of the door is irrelevant if the functional requirement of “fasten automatically when closed” is not met. The defense would also provide evidence that the freezer was not unused as a storage unit, but rather a broken appliance awaiting removal, further distinguishing it from the statute’s intent to prevent hazards from readily usable but discarded items.

The Advocate: Why a Dedicated Duluth Defense Attorney is Essential

When you are facing a charge of Exposure of Unused Refrigerator or Container to Children, it may seem like a minor issue, but the implications for your reputation and future can be anything but. This is a moment when you need more than just legal advice; you need a relentless fighter by your side, someone who understands the nuances of the law and the deep impact such an accusation can have on your life in Northern Minnesota.

Countering the Resources of the State

Even for a misdemeanor, the state of Minnesota, through local law enforcement and prosecutors in St. Louis County, has resources of the state at their disposal. They have trained investigators, access to forensic analysis (if needed), and the full machinery of the justice system. Trying to navigate this alone is a precarious path. I stand as your dedicated defense attorney, ready to counter their every move. I will meticulously review every piece of their evidence, challenge the officer’s observations, question the circumstances of any alleged “exposure” or “accessibility,” and ensure that your rights are vigorously protected. You will not face their power unprotected; I will be your strategic shield, ensuring that their arguments are met with a strong, informed, and unyielding defense.

Strategic Command of the St. Louis County Courts

Success in the local legal system, especially within the strategic command of the St. Louis County Courts and the wider Northern Minnesota judicial landscape, depends on more than just knowing the law. It requires an intimate understanding of the specific procedures, the tendencies of local judges, and the negotiation styles of prosecutors in Duluth, Cloquet, Two Harbors, and Bemidji. My extensive experience in these courtrooms means I know how to present your case effectively within this unique environment. I understand the unwritten rules and the most persuasive arguments that resonate with local legal professionals. I will leverage this deep familiarity to your distinct advantage, crafting a defense strategy that is finely tuned to the local context, whether through assertive negotiation for a favorable resolution or a determined fight at trial to clear your name.

Fighting for Your Story, Not Just the Police Report

When an accusation of exposing a dangerous container to children surfaces, the prosecution will often reduce the incident to a simplified narrative based on a police report. This report captures only a fraction of the truth, often omitting crucial context, your intentions, and the full circumstances surrounding the container. My role is to fight for your story, to ensure that your perspective, any safety measures you did take, or any misunderstandings are fully articulated to the court. This goes beyond just the legal elements; it’s about conveying the human element of your situation. I will gather all relevant evidence, interview potential witnesses, and work to present a comprehensive and compelling account that counters the state’s often-incomplete version, ensuring that the court hears more than just a sterile police record.

An Unwavering Commitment to a Winning Result

From our very first consultation, you will find in me an unwavering commitment to a winning result. This is not simply a legal case; it is a critical challenge to your peace of mind and your standing in the community. I will meticulously prepare your defense, exploring every legal avenue, and challenging every detail of the prosecution’s case. Whether that means aggressively negotiating with the prosecutor for a dismissal or a reduced charge, or fiercely advocating for you in a courtroom in Duluth, my primary focus will always be on securing the most favorable outcome possible. Your reputation, your future, and your ability to move forward unburdened are my top priorities. I will stand by you, fighting relentlessly, until every possible advantage has been pursued and the best possible outcome is achieved.

Your Questions Answered

What is Minnesota Statute 609.675 about?

Minnesota Statute 609.675 makes it a crime to expose an unused refrigerator or other container, large enough to retain a child and with automatically fastening doors, without removing the doors, lids, hinges, or latches. It aims to prevent children from becoming trapped in such items.

What kind of “container” does this law refer to?

This law primarily refers to unused refrigerators, but it can also include other containers of similar size and with automatically fastening doors, such as old freezers, some chests, or even large, abandoned storage lockers if they meet the specific criteria of being able to retain a child and having self-latching mechanisms.

Is this a serious criminal charge in Minnesota?

While classified as a misdemeanor, it is still a criminal charge that results in a permanent criminal record. The social stigma associated with a charge related to child safety can be particularly damaging, especially in communities like Duluth or Two Harbors.

What are the penalties for a conviction under 609.675?

A conviction for this misdemeanor can result in up to 90 days in jail, a fine of up to $1,000, or both. Beyond these direct penalties, the lasting impact on your reputation and future opportunities can be significant.

Do I need an attorney for a misdemeanor charge like this?

Absolutely. Even for a misdemeanor, having a dedicated criminal defense attorney is crucial. An attorney can challenge the elements of the charge, negotiate with prosecutors, and work to prevent a criminal record that could negatively impact your life in Duluth and beyond.

What if the door was already broken and didn’t latch automatically?

If the door, lid, or latch on the container did not automatically fasten when closed, then a key element of the crime under Minnesota Statute 609.675 is not met. This would be a strong defense, as the statute specifically targets the danger posed by self-latching mechanisms.

What if the container was on my property but secured?

If the container was in a secured location, such as a locked garage, a fenced yard with a locked gate, or otherwise inaccessible to children, it might not be considered “exposed and accessible” under the statute. This would be a vital part of your defense.

How does the state prove the container was “accessible to children”?

The state will typically try to show that the container was in an area where children could reasonably gain access, such as an unfenced yard near a park or school, or an unlocked shed. Your attorney will challenge this based on the specific circumstances of the location.

What if I was planning to dispose of it soon?

While intent to dispose might not be a complete defense, it can be used to demonstrate that you were not “permitting” its ongoing exposure as a permanent hazard. Evidence of scheduled disposal or active efforts to remove the item can be crucial in mitigating the charge or negotiating a favorable outcome.

Does this law apply to commercial properties in St. Louis County?

Yes, the law applies to “whoever, being the owner or in possession or control,” which can include individuals, businesses, and organizations. Commercial properties in St. Louis County must also comply with this statute.

Can I get this charge expunged from my record later?

Expungement rules in Minnesota can be complex, and while some misdemeanor convictions may be eligible for expungement after a certain period and under specific conditions, it’s not guaranteed. Preventing a conviction in the first place is always the best strategy.

What if I didn’t know children were in the area?

The statute does not require proof that you knew children were in the immediate area, only that the container was “exposed and accessible to children.” However, demonstrating a lack of reasonable foreseeability of children’s presence can be a part of challenging the “accessible” element.

What evidence might be used against me in these cases?

Evidence might include photographs taken by law enforcement, witness statements (e.g., from neighbors, reporting parties), and possibly your own statements if you spoke to authorities without an attorney. My defense will challenge the admissibility and interpretation of all such evidence.

What if the container wasn’t a refrigerator, but something else?

The law states “unused refrigerator or other container.” This means if the item was large enough to trap a child and had automatically fastening doors, it could fall under the statute, even if it wasn’t a refrigerator. The specific characteristics are key.

How quickly should I act after being charged?

Immediately. The sooner you contact a defense attorney, the sooner they can begin investigating the facts, preserving crucial evidence, and building a strong defense strategy. Delays can compromise your ability to achieve the best possible outcome.