Health Care Access Obstruction Attorney | Duluth, MN

Fighting an Accusation of Obstructing Health Care Access in Duluth with a Dedicated Defense Attorney

The sudden, jarring realization that you’re facing an accusation of physically interfering with safe access to health care can feel like an earthquake beneath your feet. Your phone rings, or perhaps a knock on the door, and suddenly, the familiar comfort of your home in Duluth, Minnesota, becomes a place of dread. The world you knew, the stability you built, feels like it’s crumbling around you. This isn’t just about a legal document; it’s about your life, your standing in the community, and the future you envisioned. The initial shock gives way to a tidal wave of questions: What does this mean for my job? How will my neighbors in Two Harbors or Proctor look at me? Will my family be safe from the fallout? This is the moment when the state, with all its power and resources, steps onto your doorstep, and the weight of their accusation threatens to crush everything you hold dear.

This isn’t just a legal battle; it’s a deeply personal crisis. You’re not a case number; you’re a person with a life, a reputation, and relationships that matter. In a close-knit community like Cloquet or Bemidji, an accusation of physically interfering with health care access can spread like wildfire, threatening to dismantle your professional standing and alienate you from friends and colleagues. The immediate fear isn’t just of legal penalties; it’s the chilling possibility of being ostracized, of losing the respect you’ve worked so hard to earn. This is the time when you need more than just legal advice; you need a relentless advocate who understands the human cost of a criminal charge and is prepared to fight fiercely for your rights and your future.

The Stakes: What a Conviction Truly Costs

Your Permanent Criminal Record

A conviction for physical interference with safe access to health care, even if it seems like a specific rather than broadly understood offense, carries a heavy and permanent burden: a criminal record. This isn’t something that simply fades away with time; it’s a digital scarlet letter that follows you, accessible to employers, landlords, and even educational institutions. Imagine applying for a new job in Duluth or trying to secure a lease in St. Louis County, only to have your application flagged because of a past conviction for this offense. This record can derail career aspirations, limit housing options, and ultimately restrict your ability to move forward with your life. It can cast a long shadow over your reputation, making it difficult to rebuild trust within your community and beyond. This isn’t just about paying a fine or serving a brief period of time; it’s about the enduring consequences that can ripple through every aspect of your existence, silently undermining your efforts to create a stable and secure future.

Loss of Second Amendment Rights

While Minnesota Statute 609.7495 does not directly mandate the loss of Second Amendment rights, a conviction for a gross misdemeanor, which this offense is classified as, can have indirect consequences. Certain misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor convictions, particularly those related to domestic violence or crimes of violence, can trigger federal prohibitions on firearm possession. Even if not an immediate, direct loss, the presence of a criminal record for physical interference with health care access could be interpreted in a way that impacts your ability to purchase or own firearms in the future, particularly if other charges or interpretations of the incident are made. It’s crucial to understand that seemingly unrelated convictions can have far-reaching implications for your constitutional rights.

Barriers to Employment and Housing

In today’s competitive job market, a criminal record for physical interference with safe access to health care can be a significant hurdle. Many employers conduct background checks, and such a conviction can immediately put your application at the bottom of the pile, regardless of your qualifications or experience. This is especially true if you work in any field related to healthcare, public service, or where a high degree of trust and ethical conduct is expected. Similarly, securing housing can become a nightmare. Landlords often run background checks, and this type of conviction can lead to outright rejection, leaving you struggling to find a place to live in areas like Proctor or Two Harbors. This isn’t merely an inconvenience; it’s a systemic barrier that can lead to financial instability and significantly diminish your quality of life, making it incredibly difficult to reestablish yourself after an accusation.

Impact on Professional Licenses and Reputation

If you hold a professional license – whether as a medical professional, a social worker, a therapist, or in any other regulated field – a conviction for physical interference with safe access to health care can jeopardize your career. Licensing boards often view such convictions as grounds for disciplinary action, ranging from suspension to permanent revocation, particularly given the nature of the offense. The damage to your professional reputation can be irreparable, not just within your immediate community but across your entire industry. Even if your license isn’t directly impacted, the public stigma associated with such a conviction can erode client trust and make it challenging to maintain or build a successful practice. Your reputation, painstakingly built over years of hard work, can be shattered in an instant, leaving you to face the daunting task of rebuilding it from the ground up.

The Accusation: Understanding the State’s Case

What Does the State Allege? Physical Interference With Safe Access To Health Care Explained in Plain English

When the state alleges physical interference with safe access to health care, they are claiming that you intentionally and physically blocked someone from getting into or out of a medical facility or other related service provider. This isn’t about standing generally near a facility; it’s about a deliberate act of obstruction that directly hinders an individual’s ability to enter or exit. The law defines “facility” broadly to include hospitals, clinics, counseling centers, emergency shelters, and even places where ambulance services are provided. The core of the accusation is that your actions directly prevented someone from accessing or leaving a place where they were seeking or providing essential health-related services, whether in a busy Duluth clinic or a smaller facility in Cloquet.

The key elements the state must prove are that your actions were both “intentional” and “physical,” and that they directly “obstructed” an individual’s access or egress. This means they cannot just claim you were present; they must show you specifically intended to block someone and that you physically did so. The law is designed to ensure that individuals can safely and freely access health care services without being physically impeded. This offense does not apply to constitutionally protected speech or protest, but rather to direct, physical interference. Understanding this distinction is vital for mounting an effective defense against such a charge.

The Law on the Books: Minnesota Statute 609.7495

Minnesota Statute 609.7495, titled “Physical Interference With Safe Access To Health Care,” creates a specific gross misdemeanor offense for intentionally and physically obstructing an individual’s access to or egress from a defined “facility.” The statute also outlines civil remedies for aggrieved parties.

609.7495 PHYSICAL INTERFERENCE WITH SAFE ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE.

Subdivision 1.Definitions. 	For the purposes of this section, the following terms have the meanings given them.
	(a) "Facility" means any of the following:
	(1) a hospital or other health institution licensed under sections 144.50 to 144.56;
	(2) a medical facility as defined in section 144.561;
	(3) an agency, clinic, or office operated under the direction of or under contract with the commissioner of health or a community health board, as defined in section 145A.02;
	(4) a facility providing counseling regarding options for medical services or recovery from an addiction;
	(5) a facility providing emergency shelter services for battered women, as defined in section 611A.31, subdivision 3, or a facility providing transitional housing for battered women and their children;
	(6) a facility as defined in section 260E.03, subdivision 6;
	(7) a facility as defined in section 626.5572, subdivision 6, where the services described in that paragraph are provided;
	(8) a place to or from which ambulance service, as defined in section 144E.001, is provided or sought to be provided; and
	(9) a hospice provider licensed under section 144A.753.
	(b) "Aggrieved party" means a person whose access to or egress from a facility is obstructed in violation of subdivision 2, or the facility.
Subd. 2.Obstructing access prohibited. 	A person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor who intentionally and physically obstructs any individual's access to or egress from a facility.
Subd. 3.Not applicable. 	Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the right of any individual or group to engage in speech protected by the United States Constitution, the Minnesota Constitution, or federal or state law, including but not limited to peaceful and lawful handbilling and picketing.
Subd. 4.Civil remedies. 	(a) A party who is aggrieved by an act prohibited by this section, or by an attempt or conspiracy to commit an act prohibited by this section, may bring an action for damages, injunctive or declaratory relief, as appropriate, in district court against any person or entity who has violated or has conspired to violate this section.
	(b) A party who prevails in a civil action under this subdivision is entitled to recover from the violator damages, costs, attorney fees, and other relief as determined by the court. In addition to all other damages, the court may award to the aggrieved party a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. If the aggrieved party is a facility and the political subdivision where the violation occurred incurred law enforcement or prosecution expenses in connection with the same violation, the court shall award any civil penalty it imposes to the political subdivision instead of to the facility.
	(c) The remedies provided by this subdivision are in addition to any other legal or equitable remedies the aggrieved party may have and are not intended to diminish or substitute for those remedies or to be exclusive.

The Prosecution’s Burden: Elements of Physical Interference With Safe Access To Health Care

In any criminal case, the burden of proof rests squarely on the prosecution. They must prove every single element of the alleged crime beyond a reasonable doubt. If they fail to establish even one of these elements, their entire case crumbles, and the charges against you must be dismissed. This is the bedrock of our justice system, and it’s where a relentless defense attorney begins to dismantle the state’s narrative. Understanding these elements is critical, as it reveals the precise points where the prosecution’s case can be attacked and ultimately defeated.

Identity of the Accused: The prosecution must definitively prove that you, and no one else, are the individual who intentionally and physically obstructed access to or egress from the facility. This may seem straightforward in some cases, but identification can be flawed. Eyewitness misidentification, poor quality surveillance footage, or the presence of many individuals at an event can all create reasonable doubt regarding whether it was truly you who committed the alleged act. An attorney will meticulously scrutinize all identification evidence to ensure its reliability.
Intentional Action: The state must prove that you acted with the specific intent to obstruct an individual’s access or egress. This means your actions were not accidental, unintentional, or merely incidental to another activity. It’s not enough that an obstruction occurred; the prosecution must demonstrate that you meant to obstruct. This element delves into your state of mind, and an attorney will look for evidence that suggests a lack of this specific intent. For example, if you were simply standing in a public area and someone tried to pass, but you weren’t actively trying to block them, the intent element might not be met.
Physical Obstruction: The law requires physical obstruction. This means that your actions must have involved a bodily presence or a physical barrier that directly prevented someone from entering or leaving the facility. Mere verbal protest, shouting, or holding signs, without a physical impediment, would not meet this element of the crime. The prosecution must show that you created a tangible, physical block that someone encountered and could not easily bypass. Your attorney will analyze whether the alleged actions truly constituted a physical obstruction as defined by the statute, not just a presence.
Obstruction of Access to/Egress from a “Facility”: The prosecution must prove that the obstruction occurred at a place that meets the statutory definition of a “facility” under Subdivision 1. This includes hospitals, clinics, counseling centers, emergency shelters, and even locations for ambulance services. If the alleged obstruction occurred at a location that does not fall within these specific definitions, then the charge cannot stand. Furthermore, the obstruction must have been of “access to or egress from” that facility, meaning it directly impacted someone’s ability to get in or out.

The Potential Outcome: Penalties for a Physical Interference With Safe Access To Health Care Conviction

A conviction for physical interference with safe access to health care under Minnesota Statute 609.7495 is a serious matter, classified as a gross misdemeanor. This means it carries significant penalties that can have a lasting impact on your life, your record, and your future opportunities.

If found guilty of intentionally and physically obstructing an individual’s access to or egress from a facility, you could face:

Imprisonment: Up to 364 days in jail. While not a state prison sentence, nearly a year in a county jail is a substantial loss of freedom that can disrupt your life, family, and employment in Duluth or anywhere in St. Louis County.
Fine: A fine of up to $3,000. This financial penalty can be a heavy burden, especially when combined with other legal costs.

These criminal penalties are imposed by the state to punish the offense. However, it is crucial to understand that the statute also allows for civil remedies in addition to the criminal charges. An “aggrieved party” (the individual whose access was obstructed, or the facility itself) can bring a separate civil lawsuit against you. In such a civil action, if they prevail, they may be entitled to recover:

Damages: Compensation for any harm they suffered as a result of your actions.
Costs and Attorney Fees: Reimbursement for their legal expenses.
Other Relief: Any other appropriate relief determined by the court, which could include injunctive relief preventing future contact or obstruction.
Civil Penalty: The court may award an additional civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. If the aggrieved party is a facility and the local political subdivision (like Duluth or St. Louis County) incurred law enforcement or prosecution expenses for the same violation, this civil penalty would be awarded to the political subdivision to cover their costs, rather than the facility.

This means that beyond the direct criminal penalties, a conviction can open the door to significant financial liability through civil lawsuits, further compounding the adverse effects on your life.

The Battle Plan: Building Your Strategic Defense

An Accusation is Not a Conviction: The Fight Starts Now

Hearing that you’ve been accused of physical interference with safe access to health care in Duluth, or anywhere in St. Louis County, is a gut punch. It feels like a judgment, a conviction already handed down. But let me be absolutely clear: an accusation is not a conviction. It is merely the beginning of a fight, and it’s a fight you can win. The state may have leveled its claims, but their case is built on narratives, on evidence that can be challenged, and on assumptions that can be shattered. This is not the end of your life; it is the moment to draw a line in the sand and prepare for battle.

Your defense isn’t about passively waiting to see what the prosecution does. It’s about launching a proactive, strategic counter-offensive. Every piece of evidence they present, every witness they call, every assertion they make will be rigorously tested, dissected, and challenged. This is about exposing the weaknesses in their case, highlighting inconsistencies, and presenting the truth of what actually happened. The state believes it has a clear path to conviction, but my job is to block that path, to create doubt where they see certainty, and to force them to prove every single element of their accusation beyond a reasonable doubt. We will not concede; we will fight for your freedom, your reputation, and your future.

How a Physical Interference With Safe Access To Health Care Charge Can Be Challenged in Court

When facing a charge of physical interference with safe access to health care, a formidable defense isn’t just a hope; it’s a necessity. There are multiple legal avenues to challenge the state’s claims, each designed to expose weaknesses in their case and protect your rights.

Lack of Intent

A key element the prosecution must prove is that you acted with the specific intent to obstruct access. If your actions were not intentionally aimed at blocking someone, the charge cannot stand.

Accidental or Unintentional Contact: Often, in crowded areas or during dynamic situations, unintentional physical contact or momentary impedance can occur without any intent to obstruct. The defense would present evidence that any alleged obstruction was purely accidental, a result of normal movement, or a crowded environment, rather than a deliberate act to block someone. This shifts the focus from the outcome to your state of mind.
Absence of Purpose to Obstruct: Your actions may have had an entirely different, non-obstructive purpose, even if they inadvertently caused some brief delay or inconvenience. For instance, if you were moving an object, looking for something, or engaging in a conversation, and someone interpreted that as obstruction, the defense can argue your true intent was unrelated to blocking access. The prosecution must prove your specific intent was to obstruct.
No Knowledge of Obstruction: You might have been unaware that your presence or actions were obstructing someone. For example, if you were standing in a public area and someone tried to pass without making their intention clear, or if you had your back turned, it would be difficult for the prosecution to prove you intentionally blocked them. The defense would highlight your lack of awareness that an obstruction was occurring.
Misunderstanding of Situation: In a chaotic or emotionally charged environment, misinterpretations are common. What one person perceives as deliberate obstruction, another might see as confusion or a simple misunderstanding of spatial dynamics. The defense can present an alternative, innocent explanation for your actions that negates the necessary criminal intent.

No Physical Obstruction

The statute requires a physical obstruction. If your actions were purely verbal or symbolic, without creating a tangible physical barrier, the charge is invalid.

Verbal Protest Only: The law specifically protects speech, including peaceful and lawful handbilling and picketing. If your alleged actions consisted solely of speaking, chanting, holding signs, or distributing literature, without creating a physical barrier, then no physical obstruction occurred as required by the statute. This defense emphasizes the distinction between expression and physical impedance.
Passable Space Available: Even if you were present in an area near a facility, if there was ample space for individuals to pass by without physical contact or significant deviation, then a true physical obstruction did not occur. The defense would present evidence, such as video footage or witness testimony, demonstrating that access and egress remained unhindered.
No Actual Impediment: The prosecution must prove that an individual’s access or egress was actually physically obstructed. If people were able to freely enter and exit the facility, even if they had to navigate around you, it weakens the claim of physical obstruction. The defense would show that while you might have been present, you did not physically prevent anyone from passing.
Passive Presence vs. Active Obstruction: There’s a crucial difference between simply being present in an area and actively engaging in physical obstruction. If you were merely standing, sitting, or kneeling, without moving to block or physically impeding anyone’s path, it may not meet the definition of “physical obstruction.” The defense would argue your presence was passive, not an active block.

Protected Speech or Lawful Activity

Minnesota Statute 609.7495, Subdivision 3, explicitly states that nothing in the section impairs the right to engage in speech protected by state or federal constitutions, including peaceful and lawful handbilling and picketing.

First Amendment Rights: If your actions were part of a peaceful protest, demonstration, or expressive activity, they are likely protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I of the Minnesota Constitution. The defense would argue that criminalizing such conduct would infringe upon your fundamental rights to free speech and assembly. This is a powerful shield against prosecution under this statute.
Lawful Picketing/Handbilling: The statute specifically mentions “peaceful and lawful handbilling and picketing” as protected speech. If your actions fall squarely within this definition, even if a facility found them unwelcome, they are expressly exempted from criminalization under this statute. An attorney will demonstrate that your conduct adhered to the principles of lawful and peaceful protest.
Lack of Unlawful Intent: Protected speech, by its nature, is usually aimed at conveying a message, not at committing an unlawful act of physical obstruction. The defense would highlight that your primary intent was communication and expression, consistent with lawful protest, rather than a criminal intent to physically block access.
Scope of the Exception: The defense will delineate the specific activities that are protected under Subdivision 3 and argue that your actions fall squarely within that protective scope. This involves demonstrating that your conduct remained within the bounds of peaceful and lawful expressive activity and did not cross the line into actual physical obstruction.

Misidentification

Cases involving multiple individuals or chaotic scenes often suffer from issues of misidentification. If the state cannot conclusively prove you were the individual who committed the alleged act, the charges cannot stand.

Unreliable Eyewitness Testimony: Eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable, especially in stressful situations or when multiple people are present. Factors like poor lighting, distance, brief encounters, and personal bias can all lead to mistaken identification. An attorney will challenge the reliability of any eyewitness testimony.
Ambiguous Surveillance Footage: If surveillance video is used, it may be grainy, distant, or obscured, making it difficult to definitively identify individuals. The defense can argue that the footage does not clearly show you committing the specific act of physical obstruction, or that other individuals present could have been responsible.
Presence vs. Action: Being present at a location where an alleged obstruction occurred is not the same as committing the obstruction. If you were part of a larger group, but did not personally engage in physical blocking, the defense can argue that the prosecution cannot prove your individual culpability beyond a reasonable doubt.
Alibi or Alternative Perpetrator: If you have an alibi placing you elsewhere at the time of the alleged obstruction, or if there is evidence suggesting another individual was responsible for the physical obstruction, this can be a powerful defense. Your attorney will investigate and present any evidence that points away from your involvement.

Defense in Action: Scenarios in Northern Minnesota

The principles of defense are abstract until they are applied to real-world situations. Here are scenarios in Northern Minnesota communities that illustrate how a physical interference with safe access to health care charge can be fought.

Scenario in Bemidji: Accidental Obstruction During Community Gathering

A client in Bemidji is accused of physically interfering with safe access to a local community health board office. The client was attending a large, impromptu community gathering outside the office, advocating for local health initiatives. During the gathering, an individual attempting to enter the office claimed my client intentionally blocked their path. The client asserts they were simply part of a dense crowd and any contact was accidental.

My defense would focus on the lack of intent and no physical obstruction elements. I would gather statements from other attendees and review any available footage (e.g., from personal phones or nearby businesses) to demonstrate that the client was not actively or intentionally blocking anyone. The defense would argue that if any obstruction occurred, it was an unavoidable consequence of a large crowd in a public space, not a deliberate act by my client to impede access. I would emphasize that the client’s presence was part of a lawful and protected gathering, and any perceived obstruction was purely incidental and lacked the necessary criminal intent.

Scenario in Cloquet: Misunderstanding During a Delivery

A client in Cloquet, a delivery driver, is accused of physically interfering with safe access to a hospice provider after parking their truck momentarily in front of the main entrance while making a delivery. An individual trying to enter the facility claimed the client intentionally blocked their path and caused a delay in an urgent situation. The client argues they were simply performing their job and attempting to unload quickly.

My defense would argue lack of intent and present evidence of a lawful commercial purpose. I would gather delivery manifests, GPS data from the delivery truck, and testimony from the client’s employer or other witnesses to prove that the client’s actions were part of their legitimate employment duties. The defense would contend that any temporary impedance was an unintended consequence of a necessary delivery in a congested area, and not a deliberate act of obstruction. The core argument would be that the client’s intent was to fulfill their work obligations, not to physically block access to the hospice provider, thus failing to meet the criminal intent element of the statute.

Scenario in Proctor: Peaceful Picketing Not Rising to Obstruction

In Proctor, a client is accused of physically interfering with safe access to a facility providing counseling for addiction recovery. The client was part of a small group peacefully picketing on a public sidewalk near the facility’s entrance, expressing their views on addiction treatment methods. An individual entering the facility claimed my client stepped in front of them, blocking their way. The client states they were only holding a sign and never made physical contact or blocked passage.

My defense would primarily invoke the protected speech or lawful activity exception under Subdivision 3 and challenge the claim of physical obstruction. I would present evidence, such as video footage from the protest, demonstrating that the client was engaged in peaceful and lawful picketing, a constitutionally protected activity. I would argue that mere presence with a sign, or even standing near an entrance, does not constitute a “physical obstruction” if clear paths for access and egress remained open. The defense would highlight that any perceived obstruction was not physical in nature and that the client’s actions fell squarely within their rights to free speech, explicitly protected by the statute.

Scenario in Two Harbors: Misidentification in a Chaotic Scene

A client in Two Harbors is accused of physically interfering with safe access to a medical facility during a large, emotionally charged protest where multiple individuals were gathered. A witness identified my client as one of several people who linked arms to form a human chain, allegedly blocking access. My client, however, asserts they were present but only observed the events from a distance and did not participate in any physical blocking.

My defense would center on misidentification and the absence of direct physical obstruction by my client. I would meticulously review any available surveillance footage, witness statements, and photographic evidence, looking for inconsistencies or ambiguities in the identification. I would seek out other individuals who were present to corroborate my client’s account, demonstrating that while they may have been at the scene, they did not personally engage in any act of physical obstruction. The defense would argue that the prosecution cannot definitively prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that my client was the individual who created a physical barrier, as opposed to merely being present in the vicinity of the protest.

The Advocate: Why a Dedicated Duluth Defense Attorney is Essential

Countering the Resources of the State

When you’re facing a charge of physical interference with safe access to health care in Northern Minnesota, you’re not just up against an individual accuser; you’re up against the full, overwhelming force of the state. This means prosecutors with vast resources, investigators who gather evidence relentlessly, and an entire system designed to secure convictions. They have unlimited time, taxpayer money, and the power of the badge on their side. To attempt to face this alone is to walk into a storm unarmed. You need someone who knows how to counter that immense power, someone who understands their tactics, and who has the experience to dismantle their case piece by piece. I stand as that singular barrier between you and the crushing machinery of the state, ensuring your rights are protected and your voice is heard. I will tirelessly review every piece of evidence, challenge every procedural misstep, and force the prosecution to prove their claims, leaving no stone unturned in the pursuit of your defense.

Strategic Command of the St. Louis County Courts

Navigating the criminal justice system in St. Louis County, whether in Duluth, Two Harbors, or Proctor, is not a simple task for an outsider. It’s a complex landscape with specific rules, unwritten customs, and a unique cast of characters—judges, prosecutors, and court staff—who all operate within their own established routines. A deep understanding of these local dynamics is not just helpful; it’s absolutely critical to building a successful defense. I possess a thorough command of the procedures and precedents within the St. Louis County courts. I know the local prosecutors, understand their typical strategies, and can anticipate their moves. This intimate knowledge allows me to strategically position your case, negotiate effectively, and present arguments that resonate within this specific judicial environment. This isn’t just about knowing the law; it’s about knowing the battlefield and every tactical advantage within it.

Fighting for Your Story, Not Just the Police Report

When a police report is filed for physical interference with safe access to health care, it presents a one-sided narrative, often painting a picture that simplifies complex interactions and casts you in a negative light. The police report is not the whole story; it is merely one interpretation, filtered through the lens of an accuser and an investigating officer. My commitment is to ensure your full, nuanced story is heard. I will delve into the circumstances leading to the accusation, uncover the motivations of the accuser, and bring to light any exculpatory evidence that the initial report may have overlooked or intentionally excluded. This means meticulously interviewing witnesses, examining communication records, and even investigating the accuser’s background if relevant to reveal bias or inconsistencies. I will challenge the police report’s version of events and construct a compelling counter-narrative that accurately reflects the truth, fighting relentlessly to present your side with clarity and conviction.

An Unwavering Commitment to a Winning Result

From the moment you walk through my door, my sole focus becomes achieving the best possible outcome for your physical interference with safe access to health care case. This isn’t just about going through the motions; it’s about an unwavering commitment to a winning result, whatever that looks like for your unique situation. Whether it’s securing a dismissal of the charges, negotiating a favorable plea agreement that minimizes the impact on your life, or taking your case to trial and fighting aggressively for an acquittal, my dedication remains steadfast. I understand the profound implications a physical interference with safe access to health care charge can have on your future, your family, and your standing in the community. My commitment is to tirelessly pursue every available legal avenue, leveraging my experience and expertise to protect your rights and help you emerge from this crisis with your life intact. Your fight becomes my fight, and I will not back down.

Your Questions Answered

What constitutes “physical obstruction” under this statute?

“Physical obstruction” means that your bodily presence or actions created a tangible barrier that directly prevented an individual from entering or leaving a facility. Mere verbal protest or holding signs without impeding passage would generally not be considered physical obstruction.

What types of facilities are covered by this law?

The law broadly defines “facility” to include hospitals, medical facilities, agencies or clinics operating under health department direction, counseling centers (including addiction recovery), emergency shelters for battered women, and places to or from which ambulance services are provided.

Is “intent” a necessary element for this crime?

Yes, the prosecution must prove that you intentionally obstructed an individual’s access or egress. If your actions were accidental, unintentional, or had a different purpose, the element of intent may not be met, which is crucial for a conviction.

Can I be charged with this crime if I was part of a protest?

Minnesota Statute 609.7495, Subdivision 3, explicitly states that nothing in the section impairs the right to engage in speech protected by the United States or Minnesota Constitutions, including peaceful and lawful handbilling and picketing. However, if your protest crosses the line into intentional physical obstruction, you could be charged.

What is the penalty for a conviction of physical interference with safe access to health care?

This offense is a gross misdemeanor. A conviction can result in up to 364 days in jail and/or a fine of up to $3,000. Additionally, you could face civil lawsuits for damages, costs, attorney fees, and a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation.

Are there civil penalties in addition to criminal penalties?

Yes, in addition to the criminal gross misdemeanor penalties, an aggrieved party (the individual whose access was obstructed or the facility) can bring a civil action against you for damages, costs, attorney fees, and a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation.

What if I was simply standing in a public area and someone walked into me?

If your presence was passive and unintentional, and someone encountered you without you actively moving to block them, it would be difficult for the prosecution to prove the necessary “intentional and physical obstruction.” This would be a key point of defense.

Does this law apply to private property or only public spaces?

The statute focuses on obstruction of access to a “facility,” which can be located on private property. The critical factor is whether the obstruction prevents access to or egress from that facility, regardless of whether the specific point of obstruction is public or private land.

Can I be charged if I did not actually touch anyone?

Yes, physical obstruction does not necessarily require direct physical contact. If you formed a human barrier, for instance, by linking arms with others, and this physically prevented passage, it could still be considered physical obstruction even without direct touching.

What if I was simply trying to deliver something to the facility?

If your actions were part of a lawful commercial purpose or employment duty, and any obstruction was incidental to that purpose rather than an intentional act of blocking, your attorney could argue that your conduct falls under a statutory exception or lacks the required criminal intent.

How does this charge impact my professional license?

A conviction for physical interference with safe access to health care can be particularly damaging to professional licenses, especially for those in healthcare, counseling, or other service-oriented professions. Licensing boards may initiate disciplinary action, including suspension or revocation, given the nature of the offense.

What is an “aggrieved party” in this statute?

An “aggrieved party” is defined as a person whose access to or egress from a facility is obstructed in violation of the statute, or the facility itself. Either of these entities can bring a civil action against the alleged violator.

Does this statute prohibit all forms of protest outside a health care facility?

No, Subdivision 3 explicitly states that the law should not be construed to impair the right to engage in constitutionally protected speech, including peaceful and lawful handbilling and picketing. The prohibition is specifically against intentional physical obstruction, not all forms of protest.

What if there was no “individual” whose access was obstructed?

The statute requires that you “intentionally and physically obstructs any individual’s access to or egress from a facility.” If no specific individual was actually obstructed or identifiable, or if their access was not truly impeded, the prosecution’s case may be weak.

Can I appeal a conviction for this offense?

Yes, like any criminal conviction, a conviction for physical interference with safe access to health care can be appealed. An attorney can review your case for legal errors, procedural issues, or insufficient evidence that could form the basis of an appeal.