Dismissed Charges Do Not Trigger Predatory Offender Registration
By Larry . . . The Minnesota Supreme Court recently issued a decision in Siegel v. Evans. Chad Loran Siegel was charged with two counts of kidnapping, a predatory offense under the predatory-offender-registration statute, as well as attempted second-degree murder and first-degree assault related to an incident where Siegel and accomplices beat victim J.A.L. The case went to trial. The trial court entered a judgment of acquittal on the kidnapping charges. The jury found Siegel not guilty of attempted second-degree murder but guilty of assault.
Minnesota’s predatory-offender-registration statute, Minnesota Statutes section 243.166, subdivision 1b(a)(1), provides that a person who has been “charged with” one of the statute’s enumerated predatory offenses and “convicted of” that offense or another offense “arising out of the same set of circumstances” must register as a predatory offender. Minnesota is or is close to being unique in imposing predatory-offender registration on every person who has been charged with, but not convicted of, a statutorily enumerated predatory offense and who has been convicted of a non-predatory offense arising out of the same circumstances as the charged predatory offense.
In August 2022, Siegel sued Drew Evans in his official capacity as the superintendent of the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA). Siegel argued that requiring him to register as a predatory offender based on the dismissed kidnapping charge was a violation of his procedural and substantive due process rights and that it violated the predatory-offender-registration statute. Siegel also argued that the predatory-offender-registration statute is an unconstitutional bill of attainder. Siegel brought suit under the United States and Minnesota constitutions.
The question on which the court granted review is whether Siegel was required to register as a predatory offender under section 243.166. Siegel argued that section 243.166, subdivision 1b(a)(1), does not require a person to register under circumstances where the trial court entered a judgment of acquittal on the charged predatory offense. He contended that after the trial court entered the judgment of acquittal on the kidnapping charges, he was no longer charged with a predatory offense for purposes of section 243.166.
The BCA disagreed. The BCA argued that a person is charged with a predatory offense during the period it labels the time of charging, a period which includes pretrial proceedings, but which ends when trial begins. According to the BCA, a person who is initially charged with a predatory offense but later prevails on a pretrial motion to dismiss the charge for lack of probable cause is not subject to registration. But because a judgment of acquittal occurs after the trial starts and the “time of charging” ends, the BCA requires that a person who is acquitted of a predatory offense by judgment of the trial court register if the person is convicted of another crime arising out of the same set of circumstances.
The court did not find that argument persuasive. NARSOL agrees with this. The court stated, “Even if we accept the BCA’s interpretation that the statute requires Siegel to register, we hold that requiring Siegel to register after the trial court entered a judgment of acquittal at trial on the predicate predatory offense violates the Minnesota Constitution’s substantive due process protections.” Opinion, 8. Also, they stated, “Nothing suggests that the Legislature considered—or had any facts before it to support—whether expanding the statute’s requirement to register to persons acquitted of a predicate predatory offense at trial by entry of a judgment of acquittal would address the concerns underlying the law that we have identified. The BCA provided us with no such evidence.” Opinion, 18.
Although this decision is an “as applied” win for Siegel, it bodes well going forward for others who have charges dismissed at trial.
