of people served
rated by clients
available to help
Accurate identification is fundamental to the proper functioning of both law enforcement activities and court proceedings. When individuals provide false names, dates of birth, or identification documents to police officers during investigations or arrests, or to court officials during criminal proceedings, it hinders the ability to ascertain identities, check for warrants, review criminal histories, and maintain accurate records. This deliberate provision of false information can impede investigations, lead to wrongful consequences for others, and undermine the administration of justice. Minnesota Statute § 609.506 specifically addresses this issue, criminalizing the act of giving false identifying information to peace officers or court officials when done with the intent to obstruct justice.
The statute distinguishes between different types of false information and the recipient of that information, assigning different penalty levels accordingly. Providing a purely fictitious name or false date of birth is generally treated as a misdemeanor, while providing the actual name and date of birth of another real person – potentially implicating that innocent party – is considered a more serious gross misdemeanor. The law applies to interactions with peace officers during lawful stops, arrests, or other duties, as well as interactions with court officials within criminal proceedings. The core requirement in all cases is the specific intent to obstruct justice through the deception.
Prohibiting Giving Peace Officer False Name, under Minnesota Statute § 609.506, is a crime that occurs when an individual intentionally provides false identifying information to certain officials with the specific purpose of obstructing justice. This law covers interactions with two main groups: peace officers and court officials. When dealing with a peace officer (like a police officer or sheriff’s deputy) who is making inquiries during a lawful stop, arrest, or other official duty, it is illegal to give a fictitious name (other than a legitimate nickname), a false date of birth, or a false or altered identification card with the intent to obstruct justice. This conduct is typically a misdemeanor.
The offense becomes more serious, a gross misdemeanor, if instead of providing purely fictitious information, the individual provides the actual name and date of birth belonging to another real person to the peace officer, again with the intent to obstruct justice. This is treated more severely because it directly implicates an innocent third party. Similarly, the statute prohibits providing false identifying information (fictitious name/false DOB – misdemeanor; another person’s name/DOB – gross misdemeanor) to court officials (like judges, clerks, or other court employees) during any criminal proceeding, provided it is done with the intent to obstruct justice. The key elements across all scenarios are the provision of false identifying information to a specific official in a defined context with the intent to impede the legal process.
The specific crime related to providing false identifying information to peace officers or court officials to obstruct justice is codified in Minnesota Statutes § 609.506. This section defines the prohibited acts based on the type of false information given and the official receiving it, outlines the requirement of obstructive intent, and establishes the corresponding misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor penalties.
Here is the text of Minnesota Statute § 609.506:
609.506 PROHIBITING GIVING PEACE OFFICER FALSE NAME.
Subdivision 1. Misdemeanor. Whoever with intent to obstruct justice gives a fictitious name other than a nickname, or gives a false date of birth, or false or fraudulently altered identification card to a peace officer, as defined in section 626.84, subdivision 1, paragraph (c), when that officer makes inquiries incident to a lawful investigatory stop or lawful arrest, or inquiries incident to executing any other duty imposed by law, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Subd. 2. Name of another; gross misdemeanor. Whoever with intent to obstruct justice gives the name and date of birth of another person to a peace officer, as defined in subdivision 1, when the officer makes inquiries incident to a lawful investigatory stop or lawful arrest, or inquiries incident to executing any other duty imposed by law, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
Subd. 3. Fictitious name; gross misdemeanor. Whoever in any criminal proceeding with intent to obstruct justice gives a fictitious name, other than a nickname, or gives a false date of birth to a court official is guilty of a misdemeanor. Whoever in any criminal proceeding with intent to obstruct justice gives the name and date of birth of another person to a court official is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. “Court official” includes a judge, referee, court administrator, or any employee of the court.
To secure a conviction under Minnesota Statute § 609.506, the prosecution must prove specific elements beyond a reasonable doubt, which vary depending on the subdivision charged. Key factors include the type of false information provided (fictitious vs. another person’s), the recipient of the information (peace officer vs. court official), the context of the interaction (lawful stop/arrest vs. criminal proceeding), and, crucially in all cases, the accused’s intent to obstruct justice. Failure to establish any necessary element for the specific charge will prevent a conviction.
The penalties for violating Minnesota Statute § 609.506 depend directly on the nature of the false information provided and whether it was given to a peace officer or a court official. The law distinguishes between using purely fictitious information versus using the identity of another real person, treating the latter more seriously due to the potential harm caused to the innocent party.
Accurate identification is a cornerstone of effective law enforcement and court administration. When police make a lawful stop or arrest, knowing the person’s true identity is crucial for checking warrant status, driving records, and criminal history, all of which inform officer safety and appropriate legal action. Similarly, courts rely on correct identification to manage dockets, ensure defendants appear, apply prior records at sentencing, and maintain the integrity of legal judgments. Minnesota Statute § 609.506 criminalizes the intentional disruption of these processes through the provision of false identifying information.
The law makes a clear distinction based on the type of false information. Giving a made-up name or wrong birthdate (misdemeanor) is treated less severely than giving the name and birthdate of an actual other person (gross misdemeanor). This reflects the added harm and complication caused when an innocent third party’s identity is wrongly injected into the legal system, potentially leading to warrants, charges, or damaged records for that uninvolved individual. The requirement of “intent to obstruct justice” is key – simply forgetting one’s ID or being nervous and misspeaking is different from deliberately lying to avoid consequences or shift blame.
An officer lawfully stops a driver for speeding. The driver knows they have an outstanding warrant for unpaid fines under their real name. When the officer asks for their name and date of birth, the driver provides a completely fictitious name and a false date of birth, intending that the officer won’t discover the warrant and will issue the ticket under the fake name, thus obstructing justice by avoiding apprehension.
This violates Subdivision 1. The driver gave a fictitious name and false DOB to a peace officer during inquiries incident to a lawful stop, with the intent to obstruct justice (avoiding the warrant). This is a misdemeanor.
Police respond to a disturbance and lawfully arrest an individual for assault. During the booking process at the jail (part of the arrest/duty process), the arrestee provides the name and date of birth of their sibling, who has a clean record. The arrestee does this intentionally, hoping the charges will be filed against the sibling, thereby obstructing justice regarding their own culpability.
This violates Subdivision 2. The arrestee gave the name and date of birth of another person to peace officers during inquiries incident to a lawful arrest, with the intent to obstruct justice (shifting blame/charges). This is a gross misdemeanor.
A defendant appears before a judge for arraignment on theft charges. When asked by the court clerk or judge to state their name and date of birth for the record, the defendant provides a name they made up and a false date of birth, intending to confuse the court records and potentially avoid having prior convictions linked to them, thus obstructing justice.
This violates Subdivision 3. The defendant gave false identifying information to court officials during a criminal proceeding with intent to obstruct justice. If they gave a fictitious name/false DOB, it’s a misdemeanor. If they gave the name and DOB of another actual person, it would be a gross misdemeanor.
During a lawful investigatory stop related to suspected underage drinking outside a bar, a 19-year-old presents a driver’s license to the peace officer where the date of birth has been visibly, though crudely, altered to make them appear 21. The individual knows the license is altered and presents it intending the officer will rely on the false date of birth and not issue an underage consumption citation, thus obstructing justice.
This violates Subdivision 1. The individual gave a false or fraudulently altered identification card to a peace officer during inquiries incident to a lawful stop, with the intent to obstruct justice (avoiding the citation). This is a misdemeanor.
Charges under Minnesota Statute § 609.506 for providing false identification often arise during stressful encounters with law enforcement or within the formal setting of a courtroom. While providing false information to officials is taken seriously, a conviction requires the prosecution to prove specific elements beyond a reasonable doubt, including the crucial element of “intent to obstruct justice.” Defenses frequently center on challenging the state’s evidence regarding this intent, the lawfulness of the underlying official action, or the nature of the information provided.
An effective defense strategy involves a careful review of the circumstances surrounding the interaction. Why was the officer making inquiries? Was the stop or arrest lawful? What exactly was said or presented? Was there a genuine intent to deceive and obstruct, or was there perhaps confusion, nervousness, a simple mistake, or use of a common nickname? Exploring these factual nuances and legal requirements is key to identifying potential weaknesses in the prosecution’s case.
The statute explicitly requires that the false information be given “with intent to obstruct justice.” If this specific intent was lacking, the charge fails, even if incorrect information was provided.
Subdivisions 1 and 2 require the peace officer to be making inquiries incident to a lawful investigatory stop, lawful arrest, or other lawful duty. If the underlying police action was unlawful, the charge may be defeated.
This defense challenges the core assertion that the information provided was actually false or fictitious as legally defined.
For the more serious gross misdemeanor charges under Subdivisions 2 and 3, the state must prove the name and DOB given belonged to another specific, real person.
It means your purpose in giving the false information was to hinder, impede, delay, confuse, or otherwise interfere with the lawful process, investigation, arrest, court proceeding, or other official duty being carried out. It requires more than just being untruthful; it requires intending that untruthfulness to affect the legal process.
A stop is generally lawful if the officer has reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity. An arrest is lawful if the officer has probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and the person arrested committed it. Actions must comply with constitutional standards (Fourth Amendment).
Subdivision 1 covers giving a “fictitious name other than a nickname.” Giving only a false first name, if intended to obstruct justice, could potentially qualify. Subdivision 2 requires giving the name and date of birth of another person.
Subdivisions 1 and 3 explicitly state that giving a “nickname” is not prohibited. If the name you provided is a genuine nickname you regularly use and are known by, and not intended to deceive about your legal identity to obstruct justice, it should be a valid defense.
No, § 609.506 specifically lists giving a fictitious name, false date of birth, false/altered ID card, or another person’s name/DOB. Providing a false address is not included in this particular statute, although it could potentially lead to issues or charges under other laws depending on the context (e.g., related to residency requirements for benefits, bail conditions).
No, Subdivision 3 explicitly states it applies “in any criminal proceeding.” Giving false identification in a purely civil matter would not be covered by this statute.
The statute provides a non-exhaustive list: judges, judicial referees, court administrators (clerks), and any employee of the court. This covers most personnel one would interact with officially within the court system during a criminal case.
Refusing to identify yourself might lead to practical difficulties or potentially charges for Obstruction (§ 609.50) if it hinders a lawful investigation or duty, but it is generally not a violation of § 609.506, which specifically requires giving false information with obstructive intent. However, laws regarding identification requirements can be complex depending on the situation (e.g., driving).
Subdivision 2 (Gross Misdemeanor) requires giving the name and date of birth of another person. If you give someone else’s correct name but an incorrect DOB for them, it might arguably not fit the exact elements of Subdivision 2, potentially reverting to a misdemeanor analysis under Subdivision 1 (giving false DOB). This is a technical point an attorney would analyze.
This is a Minnesota state statute defining state crimes. Providing false information to federal officers or in federal court would be governed by federal laws (like 18 U.S.C. § 1001 – False Statements), not § 609.506.
This statute (§ 609.506) does not include specific restitution provisions like § 609.505 (False Police Misconduct Report) does. While courts can sometimes order restitution in criminal cases if there are direct victims with financial losses, it’s less common for this specific offense unless giving another’s name caused direct, quantifiable financial harm to that person.
Presenting a false or altered ID under the circumstances defined in § 609.506 (to an officer during lawful inquiry with intent to obstruct) is a misdemeanor. Possessing or using a fake ID in other contexts (e.g., to buy alcohol) is typically covered by different statutes, such as § 340A.503 (underage alcohol offenses) or potentially forgery laws depending on the ID type and use.
Subdivision 1 includes inquiries “incident to executing any other duty imposed by law.” This is broad but still requires the officer to be acting lawfully in their official capacity when asking for identification. If the inquiry was completely unrelated to any lawful duty (e.g., purely personal curiosity while off-duty), the statute might not apply.
Minor misspellings due to nervousness or accent might lack the required knowledge of falsity or intent to obstruct. However, intentionally misspelling a name in a way designed to prevent computer systems from finding warrants or records could potentially be seen as providing a fictitious name with obstructive intent.
Generally, yes. While remaining silent might sometimes lead to practical complications or potentially obstruction charges in specific contexts, intentionally providing false information under § 609.506 carries a direct criminal penalty (misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor) related to dishonesty and obstruction. Consulting an attorney about the right to remain silent is always advisable.
A conviction under Minnesota Statute § 609.506, whether a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor, results in a criminal record reflecting dishonesty and obstruction towards law enforcement or the court system. While not typically carrying the severe immediate penalties of felonies, these convictions can have surprisingly persistent negative effects on an individual’s life and future opportunities. The nature of the offense – lying about one’s identity to authorities – can significantly impact how others perceive one’s trustworthiness and character.
These collateral consequences often stem from the presence of the conviction on background checks and the negative inferences drawn from an offense involving deceit and interference with official processes. Understanding these potential long-term repercussions is important when facing charges for providing false identification.
Any conviction under this statute creates a permanent criminal record. While misdemeanors and gross misdemeanors are less severe than felonies, they are still public records accessible through background checks for employment, housing, loans, and professional licensing. A conviction for giving a false name indicates dishonesty and an attempt to avoid responsibility or deceive authorities. This can be a significant red flag, particularly for positions requiring integrity, handling sensitive information, or interacting with the public or legal system. Even a single misdemeanor conviction can create future hurdles.
The gross misdemeanor offense for using another person’s identity is viewed more seriously, as it involves not only deception but also potentially harming an innocent third party, reflecting a greater degree of culpability.
A conviction under § 609.506 fundamentally undermines an individual’s credibility, especially in any future interactions with law enforcement or the courts. If involved in future legal proceedings as a witness, defendant, or plaintiff, the prior conviction for providing false identification could potentially be used by opposing counsel to impeach their testimony, suggesting a propensity for untruthfulness when dealing with the justice system. This can make it significantly harder to be believed, even when telling the truth. Law enforcement officers interacting with the individual in the future might also view their statements or provided identification with heightened skepticism based on the prior conviction.
While perhaps not an automatic bar to all employment, a conviction for giving a false name can be problematic. Employers value honesty and integrity. A background check revealing this type of conviction might lead an employer to question an applicant’s character and trustworthiness, potentially resulting in denial of employment, especially for roles involving cash handling, security, access to confidential information, driving (if related to DVS), or positions requiring background checks for licensing or bonding. Explaining such a conviction during an interview can be difficult and may not overcome an employer’s concerns about reliability.
For non-citizens residing in the United States, convictions for certain crimes, including those involving dishonesty or fraud (often termed “crimes involving moral turpitude”), can have severe immigration consequences. Depending on the specific circumstances and interpretation, a conviction under § 609.506, particularly the gross misdemeanor offense involving use of another’s identity, could potentially trigger adverse immigration actions such as denial of visa applications, refusal of entry, or even deportation proceedings. Any non-citizen facing criminal charges should seek advice regarding potential immigration impacts.
The requirement of “intent to obstruct justice” is central to all violations under § 609.506. Simply providing incorrect information is not enough; the prosecution must prove the accused did so purposefully to hinder, delay, or interfere with the legal process or official duties. A criminal defense attorney meticulously examines the context of the interaction. Why was false information allegedly given? Was it a deliberate attempt to avoid a warrant, shift blame, or confuse records, or could it be attributed to fear, panic, misunderstanding, intoxication, or a simple mistake without obstructive intent? Challenging the state’s evidence on this subjective mental state is often a primary focus of the defense strategy.
Subdivisions 1 and 2 explicitly require that the peace officer’s inquiries occur during a lawful stop, arrest, or other lawful duty. An attorney investigates the underlying police conduct preceding the request for identification. Was the traffic stop supported by reasonable suspicion? Was the arrest based on probable cause? Were the officer’s questions within the permissible scope of their duty at that moment? If the foundational police action was unlawful, any information obtained subsequently, including allegedly false identification, might be suppressed, or the charge under § 609.506 might fail because the “lawful duty” element is missing. This requires careful analysis of Fourth Amendment principles and police procedure.
The penalty structure under § 609.506 hinges on whether the accused provided purely fictitious information (misdemeanor) or the actual name and date of birth of another real person (gross misdemeanor). An attorney ensures the charge aligns with the evidence. Did the state adequately prove the name/DOB given corresponds to a specific, identifiable third party? Or was the information simply made-up, even if similar to someone else’s name? Contesting the gross misdemeanor charge by arguing the information was fictitious, not belonging to another specific person, can significantly reduce potential penalties if successful, potentially leading to resolution at the misdemeanor level defined in Subdivisions 1 or 3.
Subdivision 3 deals specifically with providing false identification to court officials during criminal proceedings. An attorney representing a client facing these charges understands the unique context and potential ramifications within the court system itself. Providing false information to a judge or court staff is viewed extremely seriously as a direct affront to the court’s authority and integrity. The attorney assesses the evidence, challenges intent, and negotiates with the prosecutor, mindful that the judge presiding over the case may also be the recipient of the allegedly false information, requiring careful handling of the defense and potential plea negotiations to mitigate consequences both for the § 609.506 charge and potentially the underlying criminal case.
