Ramsey County Law Library Blog

Now that Federal District Court Judge Frank has declared the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP) unconstitutional, a commission of leaders is planning what steps to take to make the program constitutional. It was strange timing when news broke last week that Alfonzo Rodriguez, Jr. had filed for habeas corpus in federal court, on grounds alleging juror misconduct at his 2006 trial. The commission’s task now becomes more emotionally loaded, as Minnesotans are reminded once more of the tragic Dru Sjodin story. It is no wonder that Judge Frank has banned media from these emotionally sensitive meetings.

Minnesota’s draconian sex offender program didn’t emerge out of the blue. Its implementation and growth was a well-intended response by our leaders to their horror at what had happened to Dru and other victims, hoping that such strong measures would prevent similar incidents in the future. This article in MinnPost explains how judges and prosecutors came to have such a heavy hand in committing Minnesota sex offenders after the Rodriguez matter. The number of civil sex offender committments peaking at 88 in 2007, an almost six-fold increase from 2003.  (MSOP’s reputation is that no one gets out of the MSOP, but apparently one man is about to graduate this week after 20 years.) The William Mitchell Law Review recently published insightful perspectives from both a legislator and a county attorney on the evolution and application of the current MSOP.

The Sjodin/Rodriguez case is not only tragic. It has been miscast as representing the typical Minnesota sex offender. Most do not fit the extremely dangerous Alfonzo Rodriguez profile, and might benefit from individualized treatment in a less restrictive setting. But as long as Rodriguez remains the unofficial poster boy of sex offenders, changing the MSOP remains an emotionally-charged task.

The Law Librarian would be amiss in not acknowledging the huge decision handed down by U.S. District Court Judge Donovan Frank in the case of Karsjens et al. vs. Minnesota Department of Human Services et al. today, better known as the Minnesota Sex Offender Program case. This case involved 700+ committed sex offenders who had essentially been locked up indefinitely under the veil of “treatment,” which the program residents claimed was neither adequate nor appropriate. They key factor is that their “incarceration” was never criminal, in fact, most of them had already completed criminal sentences.

This case has been observed by the Law Librarian before, but now Judge Frank has ruled that that Minnesota’s Sex Offender Program is in fact unconstitutional, stating that “there is something very wrong with this state’s method of dealing with sex offenders.” Over time, he has warned the Legislature that they must change the draconian program, or expect a court-ordered to do so. (It’s probably no accident that this ruling came shortly after the Minnesota Legislature had ended its last session.) Predictably, legislators have been in no mood to change the program, lest risking their electability. Read the MPR article about this ruling, plus the Judge’s Order.

Stay tuned for the next exciting development of this legal-political drama. Its next season will commence on August 10, when the Judge has scheduled a conference to begin planning suitable remedies for the situation. State officials, including Governor Dayton, have quickly assured Minnesotans that the state would defend its law and the sex offender program. Questions remain unanswered. Can any of these offenders be rehabilitated? Released? Which ones? What will the Minnesota Sex Offender Program look like in the future? Will the locked up “inmates” seek civil damages? We must wait and see.

It appears that a Minnesota criminal statute from the 1890’s is obsolete for certain modern prosecution needs. In this age of smart phones, Minnesota’s criminal defamation law has been ruled overbroad and unconstitutional by the Minnesota Court of Appeals.

The appellant in State v. Turner (A14-1408) had posted sexually explicit solicitation ads of his girlfriend (and her teenage daughter) on Craigslist, which he admitted to doing out of retaliation. When charged with criminal defamation in the District Court of Isanti County, Turner filed a motion to dismiss said charges, asserting that the statute was unconstitutionally overbroad and vague. The Court denied Turner’s motion, and found him guilty of criminal defamation. But the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the defamation statute was indeed overly broad and vague. So even though it described Turner’s conduct as “reprehensible and defamatory,” the Court did not uphold his conviction.

The Turner decision may be simplified as follows: In Minnesota, “revenge porn” cases are typically charged under criminal defamation statute MN Stat. § 609.765, which was drafted in the 1890’s and last revised in 1963. The problem is that the U.S. Supreme Court decided New York Times Co. v. Sullivan in 1964, which established the well-known “actual malice” standard for defamation suits.  That same year, the Supreme Court also established truth as a defamation defense in the case of Garrison v. Louisiana. Now the Turner facts have seemingly little to do with “truth,” and definitely much to do with “malice,” but unfortunately,  MN Stat. § 609.765 was never updated to reflect the standards of these groundbreaking Supreme Court decisions.

Does this recent decision leaves Minnesota without necessary tools for prosecuting this predictable sort of offense made possible by smartphones, Skype, Craigslist, YouTube, etc.? (It was suggested that Turner should have been prosecuted for disorderly conduct.) One Minnesota legislator is making it his project to usher in a new criminal legislation for these particular twenty-first century offenses. If successful, Minnesota would join 16 other states in having  specific statutes against “revenge porn.” The timing seems rather unfortunate, with the legislature is unlikely to take up this new issue in its special session. Still, its also unlikely to take another 52 years before Minnesota gets legislation to prosecute such modern misdeeds of the digital age. Read more about revenge porn law in this detailed Wake Forest University Law Review article.