of people served
rated by clients
available to help
Freedom of religion is a fundamental right, protected by both the U.S. and Minnesota Constitutions. Minnesota law provides specific criminal statutes to safeguard the ability of individuals to practice their religion without unlawful interference. Minnesota Statute 609.28, titled “Interfering with Religious Observance,” directly addresses conduct aimed at preventing religious practice or blocking access to places of worship. The statute creates two distinct offenses: one dealing with interference through threats or violence, and the other dealing with physical obstruction of access to religious establishments. These actions are treated as criminal offenses because they infringe upon the protected right to religious freedom and assembly.
The first subdivision of the statute defines a misdemeanor offense: intentionally preventing someone from performing a lawful act related to their religion through the use of threats or violence. This focuses on direct interference with an individual’s personal religious practices. The second subdivision defines a more serious gross misdemeanor offense: intentionally and physically obstructing access to or egress from a building used for worship services (a religious establishment). This targets actions that physically block people from entering or leaving places like churches, mosques, synagogues, or temples. Understanding the specifics of each subdivision, including the required intent and actions, is essential for navigating charges under this statute.
Interfering with Religious Observance, under Minnesota Statute 609.28, encompasses two distinct types of criminal conduct aimed at hindering religious freedom. Subdivision 1 makes it a misdemeanor to use threats or actual violence to intentionally stop another person from carrying out a lawful act that is either required or recommended by their professed religion. This could involve preventing someone from attending a worship service, praying, wearing religious attire, observing dietary laws, or engaging in other practices central to their faith. The key elements here are the use of threats or violence, the intent to prevent the religious act, and the connection between the prohibited act and the victim’s religious beliefs and practices.
Subdivision 2 addresses a different form of interference, making it a gross misdemeanor to intentionally and physically obstruct someone’s ability to enter or leave a “religious establishment” – defined as a building used for worship and clearly identified as such. This targets actions like physically blocking doorways, forming human chains to prevent passage, or otherwise creating a physical barrier that impedes access or egress. It specifically prohibits intentional physical obstruction, distinguishing it from peaceful protest or picketing near an establishment that doesn’t physically block access. The law includes an exception, stating it doesn’t apply if someone is excluded from the establishment at the request of an official of the religious organization itself.
The legal definitions and penalties for interfering with religious observance through threats/violence or physical obstruction are codified under Minnesota Statute § 609.28. This section details the elements of both the misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor offenses.
609.28 INTERFERING WITH RELIGIOUS OBSERVANCE.
Subdivision 1. Interference.
Whoever, by threats or violence, intentionally prevents another person from performing any lawful act enjoined upon or recommended to the person by the religion which the person professes is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Subd. 2. Physical interference prohibited.
A person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor who intentionally and physically obstructs any individual’s access to or egress from a religious establishment. This subdivision does not apply to the exclusion of a person from the establishment at the request of an official of the religious organization.
Subd. 3. Definition.
For purposes of subdivision 2, a “religious establishment” is a building used for worship services by a religious organization and clearly identified as such by a posted sign or other means.
To secure a conviction under Minnesota Statute 609.28, the prosecution must prove all the specific elements required for the relevant subdivision beyond a reasonable doubt. Subdivision 1 focuses on using threats or violence against an individual’s practice, while Subdivision 2 concerns the physical obstruction of access to a religious building. The elements for each are distinct and must be carefully established by the evidence presented. Failure to prove any one required element necessitates an acquittal on that charge.
Minnesota Statute 609.28 establishes two distinct levels of offenses with corresponding penalties based on the nature of the interference. Interfering with an individual’s religious acts through threats or violence is treated as a misdemeanor, while physically obstructing access to a religious establishment is considered a more serious gross misdemeanor.
A person found guilty under Subdivision 1 for intentionally preventing another’s lawful religious act through threats or violence is guilty of a misdemeanor. Under Minnesota Statute § 609.02, subd. 3, the maximum penalty for a misdemeanor is imprisonment for not more than 90 days or payment of a fine of not more than $1,000, or both.
A person found guilty under Subdivision 2 for intentionally and physically obstructing access to or egress from a religious establishment is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. Under Minnesota Statute § 609.02, subd. 4, the maximum penalty for a gross misdemeanor is imprisonment for not more than 364 days or payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both. The higher penalty reflects the greater disruption caused by physically blocking access to a place of worship.
Minnesota Statute 609.28 protects the practice of religion in two key ways: safeguarding individual observance from direct interference by threats or violence (Subd. 1), and protecting access to places of worship from physical obstruction (Subd. 2). It draws a line between lawful expression or protest and unlawful actions that directly prevent religious practice or physically impede access to religious sites. Understanding this line is crucial, particularly concerning protests or disputes involving religious groups or establishments.
Subdivision 1 focuses on individual coercion – stopping someone’s personal religious act through fear or force. Subdivision 2 focuses on physically blocking the path to a building clearly identified as a place of worship, regardless of who is being blocked. It’s important to note that Subdivision 2 requires physical obstruction; simply protesting loudly nearby, while potentially disruptive or subject to other laws (like disorderly conduct), would not typically violate this specific statute unless it physically impedes entry or exit. The following examples illustrate potential applications.
An individual’s family member has converted to a different religion. Disapproving, the individual threatens the family member: “If you go to that church service on Sunday, I will damage your car while you are inside.” Fearing for their property based on the threat, the family member, against their will, stays home and does not attend the religious service, an act recommended by their professed religion.
This scenario could constitute a misdemeanor under 609.28, Subd. 1. A threat (to unlawfully inflict property damage, linking to Coercion statute’s threat types indirectly, or simply viewed as a threat under this statute) was used to intentionally prevent the family member from performing a lawful religious act (attending service). The act was prevented due to the threat against the person’s will.
An individual confronts someone wearing a religious head covering (e.g., hijab, yarmulke, turban) in public. Stating they disapprove of the display, the individual uses physical force to pull the head covering off the victim, thereby preventing them from wearing an item recommended or enjoined by their religion in that moment.
This could also be charged as a misdemeanor under 609.28, Subd. 1. Violence (physical force) was used to intentionally prevent the victim from performing a lawful act enjoined/recommended by their religion (wearing the specific attire). The intent was clearly to interfere with the religious expression through force.
A group protesting a particular church’s doctrines decides to physically block the main entrance during Sunday services. They link arms across the doorway, making it physically impossible for arriving worshippers to enter the building or for anyone inside to leave through that door without using force. The building is clearly identified as a church.
This action likely constitutes a gross misdemeanor under 609.28, Subd. 2. The group is intentionally and physically obstructing individuals’ access to (and potentially egress from) a religious establishment. Their actions go beyond protest and create a physical barrier. Assuming they were not acting at the request of church officials, they could face charges under this subdivision.
Following a service at a synagogue, a group opposing the synagogue’s stance on a political issue forms a tight human chain across the primary exit sidewalk just outside the doors, preventing members from easily leaving the premises onto the public way. They do not touch anyone but physically occupy the space, forcing people to push through or find significantly longer alternative routes. The building is clearly marked.
This could also qualify as a gross misdemeanor under 609.28, Subd. 2. The group is intentionally and physically obstructing egress from a religious establishment. Even without direct physical contact, creating an impassable human barrier directly outside the exit physically hinders departure. This intentional physical obstruction falls within the scope of the statute.
Defending against charges under Minnesota Statute 609.28 requires addressing the specific elements of either Subdivision 1 (interference via threat/violence) or Subdivision 2 (physical obstruction). While categorized as misdemeanors or gross misdemeanors, convictions still result in a criminal record and potential penalties, making a defense important. Strategies often involve challenging the defendant’s intent, disputing the nature of the actions (e.g., were they threats/violence? was obstruction physical?), questioning whether the prevented act was truly religious observance, or asserting rights related to free speech or protest (within limits).
For Subdivision 2 charges related to obstructing access to religious establishments, specific defenses might include arguing the building wasn’t clearly identified as required, that the obstruction wasn’t physical, or that the exclusion was requested by religious officials. An attorney will carefully examine the facts, witness accounts, and any available evidence (like videos of a protest) to build a defense tailored to the specific subdivision charged and the circumstances of the case.
If charged under Subdivision 1, a primary defense is that the defendant did not use threats or violence.
Both subdivisions require proof that the defendant acted intentionally – either intending to prevent a religious act (Subd. 1) or intending to physically obstruct access/egress (Subd. 2).
Subdivision 1 requires that the act prevented be one “enjoined upon or recommended to the person by the religion which the person professes.”
For charges involving physical obstruction under Subdivision 2, several specific defenses exist.
Subdivision 1 (misdemeanor) prohibits using threats or violence to intentionally stop an individual from performing a personal lawful religious act. Subdivision 2 (gross misdemeanor) prohibits intentionally and physically blocking access to or exit from a building used for religious worship. One focuses on individual practice, the other on physical access to a place.
Subdivision 1 is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to 90 days in jail and/or a $1,000 fine. Subdivision 2 is a gross misdemeanor, punishable by up to 364 days in jail and/or a $3,000 fine.
It depends on whether proselytizing is considered an act “enjoined upon or recommended” by that person’s specific religion. If it is a recognized religious duty or practice for that faith, then intentionally preventing it through threats or violence could potentially fall under Subdivision 1. This can be a fact-specific inquiry.
No, not necessarily. Subdivision 2 specifically prohibits intentional physical obstruction of access or egress. Loud protesting, while potentially subject to noise ordinances or disorderly conduct laws, does not violate Subdivision 2 unless it physically blocks entryways or exits. Free speech rights protect peaceful protest that doesn’t physically obstruct.
A threat typically involves an expression of intent to inflict future harm (bodily harm, property damage, etc.) if the person does not comply. The context matters, but it must go beyond mere argument or expressing displeasure to convey a credible intent to harm if the religious act is performed.
Subdivision 3 defines it as a building used for worship services by a religious organization and clearly identified as such (e.g., by a sign or other clear means). This limits the scope to actual places of worship like churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, etc.
Generally no, unless that specific building is also regularly used for worship services and clearly identified as such. The definition focuses on buildings used for worship services, not all properties owned or operated by religious organizations.
Subdivision 2 explicitly states it “does not apply to the exclusion of a person from the establishment at the request of an official of the religious organization.” If security personnel physically prevent someone from entering or remove them based on an official request from church leadership, that action is exempted from this statute.
Yes. Subdivision 1 requires acting “intentionally” to prevent the religious act. Subdivision 2 requires acting “intentionally” to physically obstruct. Accidental interference or obstruction would not meet the required criminal intent for either offense.
Yes, particularly Subdivision 1. If a family member uses threats or violence specifically to stop another family member from practicing their chosen religion (attending services, praying, etc.), charges could potentially be filed under Subdivision 1.
Subdivision 1 applies to lawful acts enjoined/recommended by religion. If the “religious act” was part of an unlawful protest (e.g., trespassing, disorderly conduct), then preventing that unlawful act might not fall under this statute, although the means used (threats/violence) could lead to other charges.
Courts balance First Amendment rights with public order and safety laws. While peaceful protest and religious expression are protected, this statute targets conduct that crosses the line into unlawful threats, violence, or physical obstruction that directly infringes on others’ rights to practice religion or access places of worship safely. It generally regulates conduct, not protected speech itself.
No. This statute deals with preventing religious observance or physically blocking access to worship. Refusing service based on religion would typically be addressed under civil rights laws prohibiting discrimination, not under this specific criminal statute.
Subdivision 1 requires intent to prevent an act the defendant knows or reasonably should know is a religious observance for that person. While direct proof of knowing the specific religion isn’t required, the prosecution generally needs to show the defendant intended to stop what appeared to be a religious practice. Claiming complete ignorance might be a factual defense against proving intent.
For Subdivision 1 (misdemeanor), the statute of limitations is generally two years. For Subdivision 2 (gross misdemeanor), the statute of limitations is also generally two years under Minn. Stat. § 628.26(k). Charges must typically be filed within this timeframe.
While Interfering with Religious Observance under Minnesota Statute 609.28 constitutes misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor offenses, rather than felonies, a conviction can still carry notable long-term consequences. Any criminal conviction results in a record that can impact various aspects of an individual’s life, and the nature of these offenses, involving religious freedom, can sometimes attract particular attention or carry social stigma.
It is important to recognize that even non-felony convictions are not trivial. They appear on background checks and can influence decisions made by potential employers, landlords, educational institutions, and licensing bodies. While the impacts are generally less severe and less permanent than felony consequences (e.g., regarding firearm rights), they should not be overlooked.
A conviction under either subdivision of 609.28 creates a permanent criminal record – either a misdemeanor (Subd. 1) or a gross misdemeanor (Subd. 2). While both levels are generally eligible for expungement (sealing) in Minnesota after applicable waiting periods and meeting statutory requirements, the record exists and is publicly accessible until formally expunged. A gross misdemeanor is viewed more seriously than a simple misdemeanor on background checks.
This record can be a hurdle. Employers or volunteer organizations, especially those working with diverse communities or requiring high levels of trust, may view a conviction for interfering with religious observance negatively, potentially impacting hiring or participation decisions.
While less likely to trigger automatic disqualification compared to felonies, misdemeanor and particularly gross misdemeanor convictions can still pose challenges in employment and housing. Jobs requiring background checks – such as those in education, healthcare, security, or government – may screen out applicants with convictions reflecting intolerance or disregard for others’ rights. Landlords may also consider such convictions negatively when reviewing rental applications.
The impact may vary depending on the specific nature of the job or housing situation and the employer/landlord’s policies, but the existence of the conviction requires disclosure when asked and can necessitate potentially awkward explanations.
Unlike felony convictions which result in a lifetime state and federal ban on firearm possession, misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor convictions in Minnesota generally do not automatically result in the loss of firearm rights under state law. However, there is a crucial federal exception: if the misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor conviction is considered a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” under federal law (which involves specific relationship dynamics and elements of force/threat), it can trigger a lifetime federal firearm ban (Lautenberg Amendment).
Therefore, if the interference under 609.28 occurred within a qualifying domestic relationship and involved threats/violence (Subd. 1), it’s possible federal firearm restrictions could apply, even though it’s not a felony. This requires careful analysis of the specific facts and federal definitions.
Being convicted of a crime involving interference with someone’s religious practice or blocking access to a place of worship can carry significant social stigma. It may damage relationships with individuals from different religious backgrounds or within diverse communities. It can harm one’s reputation for tolerance and respect for fundamental rights. In an increasingly diverse society, such a conviction could have lasting negative repercussions on personal and professional relationships beyond the formal legal penalties. It might also impact participation in community groups or civic activities.
When charges arise under Subdivision 1 of Minnesota Statute 609.28, alleging interference through threats or violence, a core function of the defense attorney is to rigorously challenge these specific elements. The attorney investigates the alleged incident, interviews witnesses, and analyzes any evidence (like recordings or messages) to determine if the defendant’s conduct legally constituted a “threat” (an expression of intent to unlawfully harm) or “violence” (physical force). The attorney may argue the communication was misinterpreted, lacked intent to harm, was constitutionally protected speech, or that any physical contact was accidental or justified (e.g., self-defense), thereby negating the foundational elements required for a conviction under this subdivision.
For charges under Subdivision 2 involving obstruction of a religious establishment, the defense focuses heavily on intent and the nature of the obstruction. An attorney works to demonstrate the defendant did not intend to physically obstruct access or egress, perhaps arguing their presence was for lawful protest protected by the First Amendment and did not physically impede passage. The attorney emphasizes the statute requires physical obstruction, differentiating the client’s actions from conduct that merely causes inconvenience or verbal disruption. Furthermore, the attorney verifies if the location meets the statutory definition of a clearly identified religious establishment and explores whether the exclusion exception (requested by officials) applies, building a defense based on the precise requirements of the gross misdemeanor statute.
Subdivision 1 requires that the act prevented be one “enjoined upon or recommended” by the victim’s religion. This can sometimes be a point of contention. A defense attorney may need to research the specific religious doctrines or practices involved to challenge the prosecution’s assertion that the prevented act qualifies under the statute. The attorney might argue the act was a personal choice or cultural custom rather than a religiously mandated or recommended observance, or perhaps that the act itself was unlawful. Successfully demonstrating the act lacked the necessary religious connection required by the statute can defeat a charge under Subdivision 1.
While not felonies, misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor convictions under 609.28 still carry consequences, including potential jail time, fines, and a criminal record. An attorney provides crucial counsel on the potential outcomes and works to achieve the best possible result. This may involve negotiating with the prosecutor for dismissal, a continuance for dismissal, or a plea to a lesser offense (like disorderly conduct) that might have fewer long-term impacts. The attorney also advises on the possibility and process of expungement after the case concludes and any waiting periods are met, helping the client mitigate the lasting effects of even a non-felony conviction on their record and future opportunities.
