of people served
rated by clients
available to help
Minnesota Statute § 609.40 addresses the treatment and use of the United States flag, the Minnesota state flag, and related official symbols like the U.S. shield or coat of arms. The law categorizes several actions related to these symbols as misdemeanors. These prohibitions fall into broad categories: actions considered disrespectful or damaging, such as intentionally and publicly mutilating or defiling the flag; altering the flag by adding unauthorized marks or advertisements; depicting the flag on merchandise for sale; and using the flag directly for commercial advertising. The statute aims to preserve the dignity and respect afforded to these significant national and state emblems.
However, it is critically important to understand that laws regulating the treatment of the flag, particularly those prohibiting physical desecration like burning or defilement as a form of protest (covered under § 609.40, subd. 2(1)), face serious constitutional challenges. The United States Supreme Court has ruled in landmark cases like Texas v. Johnson (1989) and United States v. Eichman (1990) that flag desecration as a form of political expression is protected speech under the First Amendment. While Minnesota Statute § 609.40 remains codified, its enforcement, especially regarding clause (1), is likely unconstitutional when applied to expressive conduct. Other clauses related to commercial use or alteration may be analyzed differently but could also face constitutional scrutiny depending on the context. An attorney can provide guidance on the current legal landscape regarding this statute.
Minnesota Statute § 609.40 defines what constitutes a “flag” for its purposes and outlines several specific acts related to flags and official emblems that are prohibited and classified as misdemeanors. The law intends to regulate the physical treatment of flags and prevent certain types of commercial exploitation. It also provides specific exceptions for certain common depictions of flags, provided they meet certain criteria.
609.40 FLAGS.
Subdivision 1. Definition.
In this section “flag” means anything which is or purports to be the Stars and Stripes, the United States shield, the United States coat of arms, the Minnesota state flag, or a copy, picture, or representation of any of them.
Subd. 2. Acts prohibited.
Whoever does any of the following is guilty of a misdemeanor:
(1) intentionally and publicly mutilates, defiles, or casts contempt upon the flag; or
(2) places on or attaches to the flag any word, mark, design, or advertisement not properly a part of such flag or exposes to public view a flag so altered; or
(3) manufactures or exposes to public view an article of merchandise or a wrapper or receptacle for merchandise upon which the flag is depicted; or
(4) uses the flag for commercial advertising purposes.
Subd. 3. Exceptions.
This section does not apply to flags depicted on written or printed documents or periodicals or on stationery, ornaments, pictures, or jewelry, provided there are not unauthorized words or designs on such flags and provided the flag is not connected with any advertisement.
To secure a conviction under Minnesota Statute § 609.40, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed one of the specific acts prohibited in Subdivision 2, and that the object involved meets the statute’s definition of a “flag.” While the statute classifies these acts as misdemeanors, understanding the distinct elements for each prohibited act is crucial, especially considering the constitutional limitations on enforcing clause (1) regarding expressive conduct.
Violations of Minnesota Statute § 609.40, covering various forms of flag misuse or desecration, are uniformly classified as misdemeanors under state law. This means the potential legal penalties are less severe than those for gross misdemeanors or felonies. However, a conviction still results in a criminal record and can carry potential fines and jail time, alongside any social or political repercussions.
As specified in Subdivision 2, anyone found guilty of any of the prohibited acts—from public defilement (clause 1, though likely unconstitutional to prosecute for expressive conduct) to improper commercial use (clauses 2-4)—is guilty of a misdemeanor. Under Minnesota law, a standard misdemeanor is punishable by a maximum of 90 days in jail, a maximum fine of $1,000, or both. The actual sentence imposed by a judge would depend on the circumstances of the case and the individual’s prior record. It bears repeating that prosecutions under clause (1) are exceptionally rare due to constitutional protections for free speech.
Minnesota Statute § 609.40 attempts to regulate conduct concerning important state and national symbols – the U.S. and Minnesota flags, the U.S. shield, and the U.S. coat of arms. The law aims to prevent acts deemed disrespectful, such as public desecration, and to limit the commercialization of these symbols by prohibiting their use on merchandise or for advertising. It reflects a legislative desire to maintain reverence for these emblems.
However, the legal landscape surrounding flag laws is heavily shaped by First Amendment free speech principles. The U.S. Supreme Court has clearly stated that treating the flag contemptuously, such as by burning it as part of a political protest, is expressive conduct protected by the Constitution. Therefore, while § 609.40(1) remains in the Minnesota statutes, its power to punish such acts is effectively nullified. The other sections dealing with commercial use or alterations might be more legally viable but could still face challenges depending on the specific application and context.
An individual, as part of a political demonstration against government policy, intentionally sets fire to a U.S. flag in a public park. This act clearly falls under the description in § 609.40, subd. 2(1): intentionally and publicly mutilating and casting contempt upon the flag. However, based on Texas v. Johnson and U.S. v. Eichman, this act is considered expressive political speech protected by the First Amendment. Therefore, a prosecution under the Minnesota statute for this conduct would almost certainly be dismissed as unconstitutional.
A clothing company manufactures and sells t-shirts featuring a large image of the Minnesota state flag printed across the chest. This appears to fall under § 609.40, subd. 2(3), which prohibits manufacturing or exposing to public view an article of merchandise upon which the flag is depicted. However, Subd. 3 provides exceptions for depictions on certain items like “pictures,” and the line between a picture on merchandise and the merchandise itself can be blurry. Enforcement of such clauses against common apparel is also rare, and constitutional challenges based on commercial speech or vagueness might arise.
A car dealership flies a large U.S. flag on its property but attaches its company logo sticker directly onto the stripes of the flag itself. This action seems to fit § 609.40, subd. 2(2): placing on or attaching to the flag any word, mark, design, or advertisement not properly part of such flag. This clause, focused on altering the physical flag rather than expressive desecration, might be more likely to be enforced, as it regulates the physical object rather than the message conveyed through its destruction.
A furniture store runs a newspaper advertisement for a Fourth of July sale, featuring prominent images of the U.S. flag alongside pictures of discounted sofas and prices. This action could potentially violate § 609.40, subd. 2(4), which prohibits using the flag for commercial advertising purposes. However, Subd. 3 allows depictions on “printed documents or periodicals” if not connected with an advertisement in a prohibited way. The interpretation might depend on how directly the flag image is used to promote the sale versus being part of a general patriotic theme in the publication.
Defending against charges under Minnesota’s flag statute, § 609.40, requires careful consideration of the specific clause allegedly violated and the significant constitutional overlay, particularly regarding the First Amendment. For charges under clause (1) involving public mutilation or contempt, the primary defense is the constitutional protection of expressive conduct established by the U.S. Supreme Court. Such charges are highly unlikely to be prosecuted successfully if the conduct was part of political expression.
For charges under clauses (2), (3), or (4), related to alterations or commercial uses, defenses might focus more on statutory interpretation, exceptions, lack of intent, or challenging the specific clause’s constitutionality on grounds like vagueness or overbreadth as applied to the defendant’s conduct. Given the legal complexities and the interplay with fundamental rights, consulting with an attorney is crucial to identify the most effective defense strategy based on the specific facts and the clause invoked.
This is the paramount defense against charges under § 609.40, subd. 2(1) involving acts like burning, defiling, or trampling the flag as protest. The defense rests firmly on U.S. Supreme Court precedent.
This defense argues the defendant’s specific actions do not fall within the scope of the prohibition cited, or are explicitly permitted by the statute’s exceptions in Subdivision 3.
Challenge the mental state element or other specific requirements like the act being “public.”
Challenge the constitutionality of clauses (2), (3), or (4) as being too vague or prohibiting too much protected activity.
While Minnesota Statute § 609.40 subd. 2(1) technically prohibits intentionally and publicly mutilating the flag (which includes burning), the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that burning the flag as a form of political protest is expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. Therefore, prosecuting someone for flag burning as political speech under this Minnesota law would likely be unconstitutional.
Yes, generally. While § 609.40 subd. 2(3) prohibits depicting the flag on “articles of merchandise,” this is rarely enforced against common apparel like shirts or hats, especially given the exceptions in Subd. 3 and potential free speech/expression arguments. Wearing flag apparel is common practice and generally not prosecuted.
According to § 609.40 subd. 2(2), placing or attaching any word, mark, design, or advertisement “not properly a part of such flag” is a misdemeanor. Flying a flag that has been physically altered with unauthorized additions could potentially violate this clause, though enforcement may be rare.
Clause (3) prohibits manufacturing or exposing merchandise with the flag depicted. However, Subd. 3 provides exceptions for depictions on items like pictures, ornaments, or jewelry, provided there are no unauthorized words/designs and no connection to advertising. The application to specific items like mugs or posters can be ambiguous, and this section is likely subject to constitutional scrutiny and is rarely enforced against typical souvenir items.
This likely falls under the exception for “ornaments” or “pictures” in Subdivision 3, provided the patch itself doesn’t contain unauthorized additions or advertisements. Flag patches are widely used and not typically considered a violation.
These terms imply actions that soil, dishonor, or show extreme disrespect towards the flag. Examples often cited include spitting on the flag, trampling it, or using it in a degrading manner. However, prosecuting based on these subjective terms, especially when expressive conduct is involved, is constitutionally problematic due to vagueness and First Amendment protections.
Yes, the U.S. Flag Code suggests that when a flag is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, it should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning.1 This customary method is distinct from the prohibited public desecration intended to show contempt.
No. Subdivision 1 defines “flag” specifically as the U.S. flag/symbols or the Minnesota state flag. The statute does not regulate the treatment of flags from other nations.
Likely no. Political cartoons fall under exceptions for “written or printed documents or periodicals” (Subd. 3) and are also strongly protected by free speech principles. Depicting the flag critically in a cartoon would generally not violate this statute.
Clause (4) prohibits using the flag “for commercial advertising purposes.” This is often interpreted as prohibiting the use of the actual flag as part of an ad display or incorporating the flag’s image directly into an ad promoting a product. Patriotic themes in ads are common, but direct use for promotion might technically violate this clause, though enforcement is inconsistent.
Enforcement, particularly of clause (1) regarding desecration, is extremely rare, if ever, due to the constitutional issues established by the Supreme Court. Enforcement of the clauses related to commercial use or alterations (2, 3, 4) may occur but is also inconsistent and potentially subject to legal challenges depending on the circumstances.
In Texas v. Johnson (1989) and United States v. Eichman (1990), the Supreme Court held that flag desecration (specifically flag burning in these cases) constitutes expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech. Laws banning flag desecration were thus found unconstitutional.
Flying the flag upside down is traditionally recognized as a signal of dire distress. While some might view it as disrespectful outside of an emergency, it is generally considered a form of political protest protected by the First Amendment and is not explicitly prohibited by Minn. Stat. § 609.40.
Clause (1) requires the act be done “intentionally.” If a flag is damaged or soiled accidentally (e.g., torn by wind, stained by rain), it does not meet the intent requirement for a violation under this statute.
Likely no. Tattoos could be seen as falling under the exception for “ornaments” or “pictures” in Subd. 3. Furthermore, tattoos are often considered personal expression, and prosecuting someone for a flag tattoo under this statute would face significant First Amendment hurdles.
While violations of Minnesota Statute § 609.40 are classified as misdemeanors, and prosecutions (especially for expressive conduct) are rare due to constitutional protections, facing charges or even a potential conviction can still carry certain consequences, although generally less severe than those associated with felony offenses.
A conviction under any clause of § 609.40 results in a misdemeanor criminal record. Although less damaging than a felony, this record can still appear on background checks conducted by employers, landlords, or educational institutions. Depending on the nature of the check and the policies of the entity conducting it, even a misdemeanor might raise questions or require explanation, potentially affecting opportunities, though typically less significantly than a felony would.
As a misdemeanor, a conviction carries the possibility of court-imposed penalties up to 90 days in jail and/or a fine up to $1,000. While lengthy jail sentences are uncommon for such offenses, particularly given the constitutional issues, the imposition of fines, probation, or even a short jail term is legally possible and represents a direct punitive consequence, involving financial costs and potential temporary loss of liberty.
Given the strong emotions often associated with the flag, actions perceived as disrespectful or misuse, even if constitutionally protected or resulting only in misdemeanor charges, can provoke significant social or political controversy. An individual charged or convicted under this statute might face public criticism, protests, online harassment, or damage to their personal or professional reputation within their community, separate from the direct legal penalties. This social backlash can sometimes be a more impactful consequence than the legal outcome itself.
Compared to felonies, misdemeanor convictions generally have fewer automatic collateral legal consequences. For instance, a misdemeanor conviction under § 609.40 typically does not result in the loss of voting rights, the right to serve on a jury, or firearm rights under Minnesota law (though federal firearm prohibitions can sometimes apply to misdemeanors involving domestic violence, which is unrelated here). The primary long-term legal impact stems from the existence of the criminal record itself.
The most critical aspect of defending against charges under Minn. Stat. § 609.40, particularly clause (1) involving alleged desecration, is understanding and asserting First Amendment free speech rights. An attorney knowledgeable in constitutional law can effectively argue that the defendant’s actions, such as flag burning during a protest, constitute expressive conduct protected by the landmark Supreme Court decisions in Texas v. Johnson and U.S. v. Eichman. This involves filing motions to dismiss based on the unconstitutionality of the statute as applied to the defendant’s conduct, presenting evidence of the expressive intent, and ensuring the court recognizes these binding precedents that safeguard political dissent, even when offensive to some.
For charges brought under clauses (2), (3), or (4) relating to alterations or commercial use, a detailed analysis of the statute’s specific language is essential. A defense attorney must carefully examine whether the object in question truly meets the definition of a “flag” under Subdivision 1. Furthermore, the attorney investigates whether the defendant’s actions fall squarely within the prohibited conduct described or, crucially, whether they are permitted under the exceptions listed in Subdivision 3 (e.g., depictions on documents, jewelry, periodicals). Crafting arguments based on precise statutory interpretation and the applicability of exceptions can be key to defeating charges unrelated to expressive desecration.
Many clauses in § 609.40 require proof of intent, and clause (1) explicitly requires the act be done “publicly.” A defense attorney scrutinizes the prosecution’s evidence regarding the defendant’s mental state and the circumstances of the act. Was the alleged mutilation accidental rather than intentional? Did the act occur in a private setting rather than publicly? Was the use of the flag for commercial purposes truly intentional advertising, or merely incidental? By challenging the sufficiency of evidence on these crucial elements, the attorney works to show the prosecution cannot meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt for the specific offense charged.
Given the politically charged nature of flag-related incidents, there’s potential for charges under § 609.40 to be motivated by bias against the defendant’s views or identity, rather than a neutral application of law (however constitutionally flawed). An attorney must be vigilant for signs of selective enforcement or prosecutorial overreach. Moreover, due to the clear unconstitutionality of prosecuting expressive flag desecration under clause (1), the primary goal is often to seek immediate dismissal of such charges based on binding Supreme Court precedent. For other clauses, raising constitutional vagueness or overbreadth arguments, or highlighting the chilling effect on protected expression, can also support motions for dismissal or favorable negotiation outcomes.
