Minnesota Second Amendment Attorney Lynne Torgerson obtained successful result in wrongful FBI NIC’s denial of purchase of firearm. Ms. Torgerson’s client is a 43 year old man. He is gainfully employed. He does not use illegal drugs. He has never had a mental health hospitalization nor commitment. He has never been convicted of a felony, nor a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. However, in or about 18 years ago, he was CHARGED with a drug felony. However, the charge was amended to a misdemeanor before plea and sentencing, whereby he was convicted of a misdemeanor drug offense. THIS IS PUBLIC INFORMATION. In 2020, Ms. Torgerson’s went to a retailer and attempted to purchase firearm. NICs, administered by the FBI, DENIED his purchase on the grounds that he was a prohibited person. Ms. Torgerson’s client undertook an online NICs appeal; NICs, FBI, again, wrongfully denied his on line appeal. An appeal in federal district court was subsequently initiated. The NICs/FBI corrected its erroneous information. Ms. Torgerson’s client can now purchase firearms. Well done Ms. Torgerson.
Minnesota Gun Rights Restoration Lawyer, https://lynnetorgerson.com/2nd-amendment-rights/ Lynne Torgerson won a gun rights restoration case out of the County of Carver, State of Minnesota. Ms. Torgerson’s client was now in his 60’s. He was a high school graduate. He obtained some higher education. For a career, he worked in his family business. Petitioner does not use drugs or alcohol. Petitioner had one disqualifying conviction of record, a 19 year old felony harassment case. He received a stay of imposition of sentence, whereby now the conviction is deemed a misdemeanor as a matter of law. Petitioner, as a child, had had positive experiences with firearms with his father. He would also shovel other people’s driveways and pull people’s vehicles out of ditches, for no remuneration.
Finding good cause, the Carver County District Court Judge restored Ms. Torgerson’s client’s Second Amendment rights. Well done Ms. Torgerson.
Minnesota Second Amendment Lawyer Lynne Torgerson wins gun rights restoration case in Clay County, State of Minnesota. Petitioner is now in his 50s. He is married. He is a homeowner. Petitioner is gainfully employed, in a field for which he obtained some higher education. He works in a Supervisory position. His only disqualifying conviction involved a felony drug possession case, now over 16 years old. Petitioner had remained law abiding for over 14 years. Petitioner now wished to get his Second Amendment rights restored, be able to engage in self defense should the need arise, and go hunting. Finding good cause, the trial court, granted restoration. https://lynnetorgerson.com/2nd-amendment-rights/ Well done Ms. Torgerson.
Minnesota Gun Rights Restoration Lawyer Lynne Torgerson, https://lynnetorgerson.com/2nd-amendment-rights/ won a gun rights restoration case out of the County of Stearns, State of Minnesota, the Honorable Matthew E. Engelking presiding. Petitioner is in his 30s. He resides in St. Cloud. Since high school, Petitioner has continued his education. He is gainfully employed, full time. He is a Manager. Approximately 10 years ago, Petitioner was convicted of a felony drug offense. He successfully completed probation, and completed Drug Court. He has not had any serious conviction since this case, and does not use illegal drugs. Petitioner engages in significant hobbies. As a child, Petitioner went hunting with family, and obtained his Firearms Safety Certificate. Finding good cause, the court granted Petitioner’s request for restoration of his gun rights. Well done Ms. Torgerson.
Minnesota Second Amendment Attorney Lynne Torgerson won a gun rights restoration https://lynnetorgerson.com/2nd-amendment-rights/ case out of the County of Isanti, State of Minnesota. Ms. Torgerson’s client had lost his gun rights when he was a teenager of about 18 years old, because he followed his girlfriend to another man’s house, entered the house, and punched the man, resulting in bruising. Surprisingly, this will cause a felony burglary conviction. At the time of the petition to restore, Mr. Torgerson’s client was a high school graduate, the father of 3 children, was gainfully employed, and had not had a new conviction for 8 years. He also wanted to join his Dad and friends in hunting, and be able to engage in self defense should the need arise. Finding good cause, the Court granted his petition to restore his gun rights. Well done Ms. Torgerson.
Minnesota Expungement Attorney Lynne Torgerson https://lynnetorgerson.com/minneapolis-expungement-lawyer/ won expungement of a felony drug conviction out of Hennepin County. Ms. Torgerson’s client had a felony drug case from 1991, now 31 years ago. Petitioner’s client is a high school graduate. He has been gainfully self employed over 20 years. He has given back to the community by donating to organizations which benefit children, veterans, law enforcement, and fire departments. He stopped using drugs over 10 years ago. The Hennepin County District Court found that expungement of the records did not create a public safety risk and granted the petition for expungement. Well done Ms. Torgerson!
Ms. Torgerson practices throughout the State of Minnesota.
Minnesota Gun Rights Lawyer Lynne Torgerson won another case out of the County of Carver, State of Minnesota. Ms. Torgerson’s client had had some serious cases as a juvenile, it appears, in connection with his diagnosis of some level of autism. This caused him to lose his Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms for life. In an approximate 3 year period, he was adjudicated guilty of assault, disorderly conduct, threats of violence, counterfeit bills, burglary. Since being a child, he had become an adult, graduated from high school, obtained some higher education, been gainfully employed with the same employer for 9 year, gotten married, was raising 4 children, and had no further serious conviction. Finding good cause, the Carver County District Court Judge restored Ms. Torgerson’s client’s Second Amendment rights. Well done Ms. Torgerson.
CASE LAW UPDATE: Whether the evidence was sufficient for defendant’s threats of violence conviction?
Defendant was convicted of threats of violence against his daughter, and, his son. Defendant was also convicted of child endangerment against his daughter, and, his son. Defendant was sentenced on both the threats of violence convictions and child endangerment convictions. Defendant appealed his convictions and sentences. On appeal, defendant argued that (1) his convictions for threats of violence must be reversed on the grounds of insufficient evidence; and (2) that his convictions for threats of violence and child endangerment as to his two children arose out of single behavioral incident, and that therefore, the child endangerment sentences must be vacated under Minnesota Statute §609.035.
Section 609.035 of the Minnesota Statutes is known as the double jeopardy statute. Generally, it prevents a defendant from being punished twice for the same crime.
Historically, the crime of “threats of violence,” was called “terroristic threats.” More recently, there has been an affirmative effort to re-name this crime “threats of violence,” so that people charged or convicted of this crime will not be confused with having engaged in terrorism related criminal activity. Generally speaking, threats of violence can be a threat to commit a crime of violence, or, a threat made in disregard of this risk of causing a person terror.
Noting that defendant threatened to shoot the gas meter and mentioned a bomb, the Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that the evidence was sufficient for threats of violence against his daughter, but given the lack of evidence as to what his four hear old son heard, said conviction must be vacated. Further, the threats of violence and child endangerment offenses arose out of single behavioral incident whereby the latter conviction against his daughter must be vacated.
State v. Bolster, A21-0373, Dakota County.
Minneapolis Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.
CASE LAW UPDATE: Whether defendant did not violate the interference with privacy statute when he used his phone to video his girlfriend naked without her consent?
The defendant used his cell phone to videotape his girlfriend while naked without her consent. Defendant admitted to using his cell hone to record a woman while she was naked in her bed without her consent, and knowing that she likely would not have consented. He was convicted of violating the interference with privacy statute, §609.746, subd. 1(b). He appealed. The question in this appeal was not whether defendant’s conduct was wrong, but instead, whether the statute defendant was found guilty of violating, Minnesota Statute secion 609.746, subdivision 1 (b), covers his conduct. More specifically, whether the statutory requirement that an indvididual “use any device for . . . reocrding . . . through the window or any other aperture of a house or place of dwelling of another” is satisfied when a person surreptitiously records another person in the same room with a cell phone camera.
The Minnesota Supreme Court held that defendant did not violate the statute when he used a cell phone camera to record a woman without her consent while in the same room with her, because it did not meet the statutory requirement of using a recording device through the window or any other aperture of a house or place of dwelling.
Commentary: A very interesting case. So, Ladies and gentlemen beware! Although clearly wrong, under this case, a person can secretly videotape you with their cell phone, when you are not dressed, and not be violating this statute. Although generally we definitely have way too many laws, rules, and criminal laws, it appears that a statute is needed criminalizing secret videotaping of another, without their consent, when they are naked.
State v. McReynolds, A20-1435, Minnesota Supreme Court.
Minnesota Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.
CASE LAW UPDATE: Whether pornography between children juveniles violates the law?
Juvenile defendant was adjudicated delinquent for disseminating and attempting to aid and abet the dissemination of pornographic work, fifth degree criminal sexual conduct, and indecent exposure. Juvenile child defendant had sent multiple nude pictures of himself to a 13 years old victim, and asked the victim to send nude pictures of herself. Juvenile defendant had done so via Snapchat. Defendant appealed. On appeal, defendant argued that (1) the pornographic work statute does not prohibit the act of a juvenile disseminating a pornographic picture of themselves; and therefore the two (2) dissemination of pornographic work adjudications should be reversed; (2) the trial court erred by failing to obtain juvenile defendant’s person waiver of his right to testify and, therefore, all adjudications should be reversed; (3) the trial court erred by ordering juvenile defendant to comply with the predatory offender registration statute; and (4) the trial court erred by entering adjudications for 5th degree criminal sexual conduct and an included offense of indecent exposure, and therefore, one adjudication should be reversed.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that (1) the plain language of the pornographic work statute prohibits juveniles from creating and sending pornographic work of themselves; (2) the trial court did not err by failing to obtain juvenile defendant’s personal waiver of his right to testify; (3) ordering juvenile defendant to comply with the predatory offender registration statute was proper; (4) because indecent exposure is an included offense of 5th degree criminal sexual conduct, the trial court erred by entering adjudications for both offenses. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
In re Welfare of J.C.L., A21-1018, Redwood County.
Minnesota Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.
In this case the juvenile defendant raised an interesting legal issue: whether the criminal child pornographic work statute applied to child engaging in sending pornographic work to each other.
In Minnesota, the law distinguishes between crimes that are committed by children versus adults. There is a general rule that crimes committed by children should be handled in the best interests of child. In contrast, for crimes committed by adults, there are four (4) primary purposes of the law: (1) to punish; (2) to deter people from committing crimes; (2) to rehabilitate, so that people will not continue to commit crimes; (3) to incapacitate, whereby people are locked up in a prison, so that they are not able to commit crimes. In addition, another policy of juvenile law is that the records of offenses of juveniles are confidential, so that mistakes made by children do not haunt them into their adult lives.
A typical child pornography case involves an adult possessing child pornography. In the State courts, these cases are usually punished by sentencing the defendant to prison for a term of years. In federal court, the sentences are typically much longer, usually running 20 to 40 years.
So, in this case, the people involved, both the offender, and the victim, were children. So, the juvenile defendant raised the issue of whether the legislature actually intended the child pornography criminal statute to be applied against children. The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that it did. It is probably likely that this case will be appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court, in order to finally determine the issue.