of people served
rated by clients
available to help
Interactions with law enforcement can sometimes become tense or physical, but certain actions taken during these encounters cross a line into exceptionally serious criminal conduct due to the danger they create. Minnesota Statute § 609.504 specifically addresses one such dangerous act: intentionally disarming a peace officer. This law recognizes that the defensive tools carried by officers – whether firearms, Tasers, batons, or chemical sprays – are essential for their safety and their ability to protect the public and control dangerous situations. Taking possession of these items without consent presents an immediate and grave threat, not only to the officer but potentially to anyone nearby.
The crime of Disarming Peace Officer under § 609.504 is a felony offense in Minnesota. It applies when someone intentionally takes a “defensive device” from an officer, or from the area within the officer’s immediate control, without permission, while that officer is lawfully performing their official duties. The statute broadly defines “defensive device” to include much more than just firearms. Understanding the specific elements of this offense, the broad definition of the items covered, and the significant penalties involved is crucial for anyone facing such a serious charge.
Disarming a Peace Officer in Minnesota is a specific felony crime defined under statute § 609.504. It occurs when a person intentionally takes physical possession of a defensive device that is being carried by a peace officer or is within the officer’s immediate reach, without getting the officer’s consent. This act must happen while the officer is engaged in the performance of their official duties, such as making an arrest, responding to a call, or conducting an investigation. The key elements are the intentional taking, the item being a defensive device, the item belonging to or being controlled by an on-duty officer, and the lack of consent from the officer.
The law defines “defensive device” very broadly to ensure officer safety. It explicitly includes firearms, dangerous weapons, authorized chemical agents like tear gas or pepper spray, electronic incapacitation devices (like Tasers), clubs or batons, and significantly, any other item issued by the officer’s employer specifically to aid in the officer’s protection. This means grabbing an officer’s issued flashlight, handcuffs, or radio could potentially fall under this statute if it was issued for protective purposes and taken with the requisite intent. The statute aims to deter any attempt to unlawfully seize items that officers rely on for defense and control.
The crime of intentionally taking a defensive device from an on-duty peace officer is codified under Minnesota Statutes § 609.504. This section provides the definition of “defensive device,” describes the prohibited conduct, specifies the required elements like intent and lack of consent, and sets forth the felony-level penalty for a violation.
Here is the text of Minnesota Statute § 609.504:
609.504 DISARMING PEACE OFFICER.
Subdivision 1. Definition. As used in this section, “defensive device” includes a firearm; a dangerous weapon; an authorized tear gas compound, as defined in section 624.731, subdivision 1; an electronic incapacitation device, as defined in section 624.731, subdivision 1; a club or baton; and any item issued by a peace officer’s employer to the officer to assist in the officer’s protection.
Subd. 2. Crime described. Whoever intentionally takes possession of a defensive device being carried by a peace officer or from the area within the officer’s immediate control, without the officer’s consent while the officer is engaged in the performance of official duties, is guilty of a crime and may be sentenced as provided in subdivision 3.
Subd. 3. Penalty. A person who violates this section is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years, payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.
To secure a conviction for the serious felony offense of Disarming Peace Officer under Minnesota Statute § 609.504, the prosecution must prove each of the following specific elements beyond a reasonable doubt. The statute requires a confluence of factors relating to the accused’s intent, the nature of the item taken, the status and actions of the officer, and the lack of permission. Failure by the state to establish any single element means the charge cannot be sustained.
Disarming a Peace Officer is treated as a serious felony offense in Minnesota, reflecting the inherent danger created when an officer loses control of a defensive tool, particularly a firearm or other weapon. The statute § 609.504 provides a single, significant penalty structure for any conviction under this section, underscoring the gravity with which the legislature views this specific act against law enforcement.
According to Subdivision 3, any person convicted of violating this section (intentionally taking a defensive device from an on-duty officer without consent) is guilty of a felony. The potential penalties are imprisonment for not more than five years, or payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both. The possibility of a five-year prison sentence highlights the seriousness of the offense. The actual sentence imposed would be determined by a judge following the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines, taking into account the circumstances of the offense and the individual’s prior criminal record, but the statutory maximum allows for substantial incarceration.
Minnesota Statute § 609.504 serves a critical purpose: protecting law enforcement officers by criminalizing the act of taking away the tools they rely on for their own defense and for controlling potentially dangerous situations. When an individual attempts to disarm an officer, it dramatically escalates the risk of serious injury or death – not only to the officer directly involved but also to the suspect, bystanders, and the wider community if the weapon falls into the wrong hands. The law’s broad definition of “defensive device” acknowledges that officers rely on more than just firearms for protection and control, including less-lethal options like Tasers, batons, and chemical sprays, as well as other issued equipment.
The core of the offense is the intentional, non-consensual taking of one of these devices while the officer is performing their job. It doesn’t require that the device actually be used against the officer or anyone else; the act of intentionally taking possession itself constitutes the felony. This reflects a legislative judgment that the mere act of disarming an officer creates an unacceptable level of danger that warrants severe punishment. These examples illustrate scenarios where this charge could apply.
During a struggle while resisting a lawful arrest, a suspect intentionally reaches for the officer’s service handgun secured in its holster and manages to pull it free or gain control of it, even momentarily, without the officer’s consent.
This is a clear violation of § 609.504. The suspect intentionally took possession of a defensive device (firearm) being carried by a peace officer engaged in official duties (making a lawful arrest), without consent. The suspect would face felony charges under this statute, in addition to charges for resisting arrest and the underlying offense.
An officer is attempting to detain an unruly individual at a public disturbance. As the officer reaches for their electronic incapacitation device (Taser) clipped to their duty belt, the individual intentionally grabs the Taser from the officer’s hand or belt holster, preventing the officer from using it and gaining possession themselves.
This action fits the crime described in § 609.504. The individual intentionally took possession of a defensive device (electronic incapacitation device) from a peace officer performing official duties, without consent. This constitutes a felony, regardless of whether the Taser was subsequently used.
Police officers are lawfully attempting to disperse an unruly crowd. One officer is using their issued baton to maintain distance. A protester intentionally grabs the baton away from the officer or picks it up immediately after the officer drops it during a scuffle, thereby taking possession from the officer or the area of their immediate control.
This act violates the statute. The protester intentionally took possession of a defensive device (club or baton) from a peace officer engaged in official duties (crowd control), without consent. This is a felony under § 609.504.
An officer is interviewing someone during a roadside stop. The person becomes agitated. As the officer reaches for their issued authorized tear gas compound (pepper spray) canister attached to their vest, the person intentionally snatches the canister away from the officer’s reach or hand.
This conduct falls under § 609.504. The person intentionally took possession of a defensive device (authorized tear gas compound) being carried by or within the immediate control of a peace officer engaged in official duties, without consent. This act constitutes a felony offense.
Facing a felony charge for Disarming Peace Officer under Minnesota Statute § 609.504 is incredibly serious. These incidents often occur during dynamic, high-stress confrontations with law enforcement, where actions and intentions can be easily misinterpreted. A conviction carries significant prison time and lifelong consequences. However, the prosecution must prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, including the crucial element of intent – that the accused purposefully meant to take possession of the device. Potential defenses often focus on challenging this intent or other key elements of the statute.
Given the chaotic nature of many encounters leading to these charges, a meticulous defense investigation is critical. Reviewing body camera footage, interviewing witnesses, and examining the physical evidence can shed light on whether the taking was truly intentional or perhaps accidental contact during a struggle. Defenses might also explore whether the officer was acting lawfully, whether the item taken actually qualifies as a “defensive device,” or whether consent, however unlikely, was given.
The cornerstone of this offense is the intentional taking of possession. If the taking was accidental or unintentional, the charge cannot be sustained.
The statute requires the officer to be lawfully engaged in the performance of official duties at the time the alleged disarming occurs. If the officer’s actions were unlawful, this element fails.
While extremely rare in practice for defensive devices, lack of consent is still a formal element. The defense could theoretically argue consent was given.
The item taken must fit the statutory definition in Subdivision 1. If it does not, the charge under this specific statute fails (though other charges like theft or assault might apply).
In extremely rare and dangerous situations involving an officer’s use of unlawful deadly force, the defense might argue taking the officer’s weapon was a necessary act of self-defense.
Peace officers typically include licensed police officers employed by state, county, or municipal agencies, sheriffs and deputies, state troopers, conservation officers, and other individuals with statutory arrest powers and duties to maintain public order.
Minnesota law generally defines a dangerous weapon broadly to include not only firearms but also any device designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or great bodily harm, or any other device or instrumentality that, in the manner it is used or intended to be used, is calculated or likely to produce1 death or great bodily harm (e.g., a large knife).
This typically refers to devices like Tasers or stun guns, designed to incapacitate a person using electrical currents, as defined further in referenced statute § 624.731.
Immediate control refers to the area within an officer’s easy reach. If an officer places their baton on the seat beside them in their patrol car, it’s likely within their immediate control. An item locked in the trunk probably is not. The specific distance depends on the circumstances.
Not necessarily. The statute applies if the person taken from is a peace officer engaged in official duties. An undercover or plainclothes officer performing lawful duties is protected by this statute if the accused intentionally disarms them. However, proving the accused knew the person was an officer might be relevant contextually.
It doesn’t matter. The statute prohibits taking possession of the defensive device itself. Whether the firearm was loaded or functional is irrelevant to whether the act of intentionally taking it occurred.
Accidentally brushing against or even briefly grappling near a weapon during a struggle likely does not meet the element of intentionally taking possession. The key is the purposeful act of gaining control over the device.
The crime is complete upon intentionally taking possession without consent. Dropping the device immediately afterward does not undo the commission of the offense, although it might potentially influence sentencing decisions.
Yes, potentially. Subdivision 1 includes “any item issued by a peace officer’s employer to the officer to assist in the officer’s protection.” If handcuffs or a radio were issued with a protective or control function in mind, intentionally taking them could fall under this statute.
It depends. If it’s a standard personal flashlight, probably not. If it’s a heavy-duty flashlight specifically issued by the department potentially for use as an impact weapon or defensive tool, taking it might qualify under the “any item issued… to assist in… protection” clause.
Assault involves causing or attempting to cause fear or bodily harm. Disarming focuses specifically on taking the officer’s defensive device. While disarming might occur during an assault, they are distinct crimes. Disarming requires taking possession; assault requires harmful/offensive contact or intent to cause fear.
Resisting arrest involves obstructing or interfering with a lawful arrest. While disarming an officer often happens while resisting arrest, disarming (§ 609.504) is a separate, more serious felony focusing solely on the act of taking the device. Resisting (§ 609.50) covers broader obstructive conduct.
If an officer uses unlawful excessive force, a person generally has the right to use reasonable force in self-defense. If taking the device was a necessary part of reasonable self-defense against unlawful deadly force, it could be a defense. However, simply resisting non-deadly excessive force might not justify disarming the officer under self-defense principles.
While knowledge that the victim is a peace officer isn’t explicitly listed as an element in Subd. 2, it’s inherent in the requirement that the officer be “engaged in the performance of official duties.” Arguing you didn’t know the person was an officer might be relevant contextually, especially regarding intent, but likely isn’t a complete defense if the other elements are met.
Contact a criminal defense attorney immediately. This is a serious felony charge. Do not speak to law enforcement without counsel present. An attorney can analyze the complex factual situation, evaluate the elements, explore defenses related to intent or officer conduct, and protect your rights.
A conviction for Disarming Peace Officer under Minnesota Statute § 609.504 carries severe and lasting consequences that extend far beyond the potential five-year prison sentence and $10,000 fine. As a felony conviction involving the deliberate taking of an officer’s defensive tool, it creates a permanent criminal record that signifies a serious threat to law enforcement and public safety. The collateral consequences associated with this conviction can profoundly impact an individual’s future employment, civil rights, and overall standing in the community.
The severity of the impact stems from the inherent violence and danger implied by the act. Disarming an officer is often viewed as a precursor to using that weapon against the officer or others, or as an extreme act of resisting authority. This perception shapes how the conviction is viewed by employers, courts, and society.
A conviction under § 609.504 results in a serious felony record that explicitly details an offense against a peace officer involving the taking of a defensive device. This record is permanent unless expunged, a process often difficult for felony convictions, especially those involving perceived violence or threats against law enforcement. This conviction will appear on background checks for employment, housing, loans, and professional licenses, creating immediate and significant barriers. It signals a high level of risk and untrustworthiness to anyone reviewing the record.
The nature of the offense often leads to harsher judgments than other felonies of similar statutory severity levels because it directly involves confrontation with and potential endangerment of law enforcement personnel.
While the maximum sentence is five years, any period of incarceration resulting from this felony conviction leads to significant life disruption. Time spent in prison results in lost employment opportunities, strained family relationships, and difficulties reintegrating into society upon release. The felony record combined with a history of incarceration makes rebuilding a stable life exceptionally challenging. The sentence reflects the gravity of endangering an officer by attempting to take control of their means of defense.
Obtaining employment after a conviction for disarming an officer is extremely difficult, particularly in certain fields. Careers in law enforcement, private security, corrections, or any position requiring a firearm permit or involving public safety are essentially foreclosed. Furthermore, any job requiring a background check demonstrating trustworthiness, reliability, and respect for authority may be unattainable. Employers across various sectors may view the conviction as indicating a propensity for violence, defiance of authority, or poor impulse control, making hiring seem too risky. This can lead to long-term unemployment or underemployment.
As a felony conviction in Minnesota, Disarming Peace Officer results in the loss of key civil rights. The convicted individual loses the right to vote until their full sentence, including probation or parole, is completed. More significantly, under both Minnesota and federal law, a felony conviction results in a lifetime ban on possessing firearms or ammunition. Given that this offense involves the taking of a defensive device (often a firearm), the likelihood of restoring firearm rights after such a conviction is extremely low. This permanent loss of Second Amendment rights is a major consequence.
Charges of disarming a peace officer often arise from volatile, rapidly evolving situations involving physical struggles or confrontations. Reconstructing these chaotic events accurately is paramount for the defense. An experienced criminal defense attorney meticulously analyzes all available evidence – body camera footage, dashcam video, witness statements, police reports, physical evidence – to understand the sequence of events frame by frame. The goal is to determine precisely how contact with the officer’s device occurred and whether the client’s actions truly constituted an intentional “taking of possession” or were perhaps accidental, reflexive, or misinterpreted amidst the turmoil. This detailed factual analysis is crucial for challenging the prosecution’s narrative.
The core legal battle in many § 609.504 cases revolves around the element of intent. The prosecution must prove the accused acted purposefully to take the device. An attorney focuses on differentiating intentional conduct from accidental contact that might occur during a struggle, fall, or general physical resistance not aimed at the specific device. Was the hand movement directed at the device with the goal of possessing it, or was it part of a broader movement to push away, break free, or shield oneself? Raising reasonable doubt about the specific intent to possess the device, as opposed to generalized resistance or accidental contact, is a key defensive strategy.
A conviction under § 609.504 requires that the peace officer was lawfully engaged in the performance of official duties at the time of the incident. An attorney critically examines the legality of the officer’s actions leading up to and during the alleged disarming attempt. Was the initial stop or detention lawful? Was there probable cause for arrest? Did the officer use excessive force, thereby potentially justifying certain actions by the accused in self-defense? If the officer’s conduct was unlawful, it can provide a complete defense to the disarming charge, as the “lawful performance of duties” element would be negated. This requires a thorough understanding of constitutional law and police procedure.
While often involving firearms, the statute’s definition of “defensive device” is broad, including Tasers, batons, chemical sprays, and potentially other issued items. An attorney ensures the item allegedly taken actually fits within this specific statutory definition (Subdivision 1). If the item was, for example, the officer’s personal property or standard equipment not issued specifically for defensive assistance (like perhaps a notepad), the attorney argues that the charge under § 609.504 is inappropriate, even if taking the item constituted a different offense like theft or interference. Verifying that the specific item falls under the statute’s definition is a necessary step in the defense analysis.
