of people served
rated by clients
available to help
Minnesota’s criminal code contains numerous statutes defining specific offenses. However, some statutes serve a different but equally vital purpose: providing clear, authoritative definitions for terms used across multiple related laws. Minnesota Statute § 609.556 is precisely this type of law. It doesn’t outline a crime for which someone can be charged but instead defines “Property of another” and “Building” as those terms are used in the context of Minnesota’s arson laws (§§ 609.561 to 609.576) and the law regarding negligent fires (§ 609.611). Understanding these specific definitions is fundamental to correctly interpreting and applying those related criminal statutes, ensuring clarity and consistency in legal proceedings involving damage or destruction of property by fire or explosives.
The precision offered by § 609.556 is critical because the legal definitions of terms like “building” or “property of another” can sometimes differ from their everyday meanings. For instance, the statute clarifies situations involving co-owned property and expands the concept of a “building” beyond traditional structures to include things like tents and watercraft used for lodging. This level of detail prevents ambiguity when determining whether the elements of a crime like arson have been met. For anyone facing charges under the related statutes, or for legal practitioners interpreting these laws, § 609.556 provides the necessary framework for understanding exactly what types of property and structures fall within the scope of Minnesota’s laws concerning fire-related offenses. Its role is foundational for the proper application of justice in these cases.
Minnesota Statute § 609.556 serves as a foundational legal tool within the state’s criminal code, specifically concerning property crimes involving fire or explosives. Unlike statutes that define specific criminal acts like theft or assault, § 609.556 does not outline an offense for which a person can be arrested or prosecuted. Instead, its sole purpose is to provide precise legal definitions for two key terms: “Property of another” and “Building.” These definitions are explicitly intended for use when interpreting and applying Minnesota Statutes sections 609.556 to 609.576 (which cover various degrees of arson and related offenses like possession of incendiary devices) and section 609.611 (covering negligent fires). It acts as a legal dictionary entry embedded within the statutes themselves.
The function of this statute is to ensure consistency and eliminate ambiguity when courts, attorneys, law enforcement, and juries are dealing with cases under the specified arson and negligent fire laws. By defining what legally constitutes “property of another” – particularly addressing situations where the accused might also have an interest in the property – and by clarifying the scope of what qualifies as a “building” – including non-traditional structures used for lodging – the statute provides essential parameters. This clarity is vital for determining whether the specific elements of an arson or negligent fire charge have been met in a particular situation, ensuring the law is applied fairly and as the legislature intended when drafting the related criminal offenses.
Minnesota Statute § 609.556 is located in Chapter 609 of the Minnesota Statutes, which covers a wide range of crimes and punishments. This specific section provides definitions applicable to the range of statutes dealing with arson and negligent fires, ensuring uniform understanding of key terms within that context.
Here is the text of the statute:
609.556 DEFINITIONS.
Subdivision 1. Scope. For the purposes of sections 609.556 to 609.576 and 609.611, the terms defined in this section have the meanings given them.
Subd. 2. Property of another. “Property of another” means a building or other property, whether real or personal, in which a person other than the accused has an interest which the accused has no authority to defeat or impair even though the accused may also have an interest in the building or property.
Subd. 3. Building. “Building” in addition to its ordinary meaning includes any tent, watercraft, structure or vehicle that is customarily used for overnight lodging of a person or persons. If a building consists of two or more units separately secured or occupied, each unit shall be deemed a separate building.
While Minnesota Statute § 609.556 does not define a crime itself, it provides critical definitions that function like elements within the context of related property crime statutes, primarily arson (§§ 609.561-609.576) and negligent fires (§ 609.611). Understanding these definitions is essential because the prosecution must prove that the property involved fits these legal definitions to secure a conviction under those related statutes. These definitions establish the specific legal meaning of terms that might otherwise be open to interpretation, ensuring the law is applied consistently to the facts of each case involving alleged arson or negligent fire.
The two key terms defined are:
It is essential to understand that Minnesota Statute § 609.556 itself, being purely a definitional statute, carries no direct penalties. A person cannot be charged with or penalized for violating § 609.556. However, the definitions it provides for “Property of another” and “Building” are critically important in determining whether a person can be convicted under related statutes, primarily those concerning arson (§§ 609.561-609.576) and negligent fires (§ 609.611), and what penalties might apply under those laws. The severity of penalties for arson, for example, often depends heavily on whether the property involved fits the definition of a “building” and whether it was the “property of another.”
The actual penalties are found within the specific arson statutes that utilize the definitions from § 609.556. For instance:
The definitions provided in Minnesota Statute § 609.556 are best understood through practical examples that illustrate their scope and application in the context of property crimes like arson. These definitions ensure that the law consistently addresses various property types and ownership situations. For instance, the definition of “property of another” clarifies how the law treats jointly owned assets, while the definition of “building” extends beyond common structures to include temporary or mobile lodging, reflecting the potential danger when such places are targeted.
Thinking about concrete scenarios helps clarify why these precise legal definitions matter. If someone sets fire to a structure, the legal consequences under Minnesota’s arson statutes can vary significantly based on whether that structure meets the § 609.556 definition of a “building” and whether it qualifies as “property of another.” These definitions draw lines that determine the severity of charges and potential penalties, making their correct application crucial in any legal case involving fire or explosives damage covered by §§ 609.556-609.576 or § 609.611.
Sarah and Tom co-own a small retail shop as equal partners. After a falling out, Sarah, angry and feeling cheated, intentionally sets fire to the shop, causing significant damage. Although Sarah owns 50% of the business and the building, the property still qualifies as “property of another” under § 609.556. This is because Tom has a 50% interest in the property, and Sarah has no legal authority to defeat or impair Tom’s interest by burning the shop.
Even though Sarah has her own interest, her act damaged Tom’s interest without authority. Therefore, if charged with arson (likely Second Degree, assuming the shop isn’t a dwelling and no accelerants were used in a way that triggers First Degree), the prosecution can establish the “property of another” element using the definition in § 609.556. Sarah cannot successfully argue that because she was part-owner, it wasn’t “property of another.” The definition specifically addresses this type of scenario involving shared ownership interests.
A group is camping in a large, multi-room tent designed for extended stays and equipped for sleeping. An individual intentionally sets fire to the tent while it is set up at the campsite, destroying it. Under § 609.556, this tent likely qualifies as a “building” because it is a “tent… that is customarily used for overnight lodging of a person or persons.” The definition explicitly includes such structures beyond the ordinary meaning of a building.
This classification is significant because burning a “building” used for lodging can lead to more severe arson charges (potentially First Degree if someone could reasonably be expected to be inside, or Second Degree otherwise) compared to burning personal property of equivalent value that doesn’t meet the “building” definition (which might fall under Third Degree Arson). The statute’s broad definition of “building” ensures that setting fire to structures used as temporary lodging receives appropriate legal attention under the arson laws.
An individual sets a fire in the hallway of an apartment complex. The fire spreads and causes significant smoke and fire damage to the doors and entryways of three separate apartment units, each leased and occupied by different tenants. According to § 609.556, “If a building consists of two or more units separately secured or occupied, each unit shall be deemed a separate building.”
In this scenario, even though the fire occurred within one larger physical structure, the law treats each damaged apartment unit as a separate “building.” This means the individual could potentially face multiple counts of arson (e.g., three counts of First or Second Degree Arson, depending on the circumstances), one for each affected unit. This reflects the fact that the act violated the security and habitation of multiple distinct living spaces, justifying separate charges for each instance of damaging a legally defined “building.”
Michael lives full-time on a houseboat moored at a marina. An acquaintance, involved in a dispute with Michael, deliberately sets the houseboat ablaze. Under § 609.556, the houseboat qualifies as a “building” because it is a “watercraft… that is customarily used for overnight lodging.” The fact that it’s mobile or on the water doesn’t exclude it from the definition if it serves as a residence.
Therefore, the act of burning the houseboat would be treated under the arson statutes applicable to buildings used for lodging (likely First-Degree Arson, as a dwelling was involved), rather than potentially lesser charges applicable to destroying other types of vehicles or personal property. This ensures that structures serving as homes, regardless of their specific form (house, apartment, tent, or houseboat), receive heightened protection under Minnesota’s arson laws, thanks to the inclusive definition of “building” provided by § 609.556.
When defending against charges under Minnesota statutes that rely on the definitions in § 609.556, such as arson or negligent fires, a key strategy often involves challenging whether the facts of the case actually meet these specific legal definitions. Since the prosecution must prove every element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt, demonstrating that the property involved was not “property of another” or did not constitute a “building” as legally defined can be a complete defense or lead to reduced charges. Success hinges on scrutinizing the evidence and applying the precise language of § 609.556 to the situation.
This requires a careful analysis of the ownership structure, the nature and use of the structure involved, and the defendant’s authority regarding the property. For instance, if property was solely owned by the accused, or if they had legitimate authority to dispose of or alter it (like demolishing their own dilapidated shed), the “property of another” element might fail. Similarly, arguing that a particular structure, like a simple open-sided picnic shelter or a vehicle not used for lodging, does not meet the specific requirements of the “building” definition could be crucial. An attorney experienced with property crime defense can effectively raise these challenges based on the statutory language and relevant case law.
A defense may argue that the property damaged did not legally constitute “property of another” at the time of the incident. This involves examining the ownership interests and the defendant’s authority.
The defense might contend that the structure involved does not meet the specific legal definition of a “building” under § 609.556, potentially leading to lesser charges if successful.
This defense focuses specifically on proving that no other person held a legally recognized interest in the property that the accused was obligated to respect.
When dealing with multi-unit structures, the defense might challenge the prosecution’s assertion that separate units constitute separate “buildings” under the facts.
The main purpose of § 609.556 is to provide clear, official legal definitions for the terms “Property of another” and “Building” specifically for use within Minnesota’s laws covering arson (§§ 609.561-609.576) and negligent fires (§ 609.611). It ensures these key terms are interpreted consistently.
No, you cannot be charged with violating § 609.556. It is purely a definitional statute and does not describe a criminal act. Charges would be brought under other statutes, like those for arson, which utilize the definitions provided in § 609.556.
Under § 609.556, even if you co-own property, it is still considered “property of another” if someone else also has an interest in it, and you lack the legal authority to impair or defeat that other person’s interest. Burning jointly owned property without the co-owner’s consent would likely fit this definition.
Besides its ordinary meaning, § 609.556 explicitly includes tents, watercraft, structures, or vehicles if they are customarily used for overnight lodging. It also specifies that separately secured or occupied units within a larger structure (like apartments) are each considered separate buildings.
A detached garage would likely fall under the “ordinary meaning” of a building. Whether damaging it constitutes a specific degree of arson would depend on other factors, such as whether it contained property belonging to another or if accelerants were used, and it would need to be analyzed under the relevant arson statute (§§ 609.561-563).
A car is only considered a “building” under § 609.556 if it is “customarily used for overnight lodging.” A standard passenger vehicle typically would not meet this definition, but a camper van or RV might. Damaging a regular car by fire might fall under different provisions of arson or property damage laws.
The definition is likely broad to ensure that structures used for habitation or lodging, even temporary or mobile ones like tents or houseboats, receive the heightened protection afforded under arson laws, particularly those addressing dangers to occupants (like First-Degree Arson).
The definitions in § 609.556 are essential elements that prosecutors must prove in many arson cases. For example, to prove First-Degree Arson involving a dwelling, the prosecution must show the structure fits the § 609.556 definition of a “building” used for lodging. Similarly, many arson degrees require proving the damaged property was “property of another” as defined here.
While the car itself might not be “property of another” if solely owned, burning property with intent to defraud an insurer is a specific type of arson (Third Degree, § 609.563(1)(b)). The “property of another” definition is more relevant to arson charges not involving insurance fraud.
The statute explicitly states its scope is limited to sections 609.556 to 609.576 (Arson and related offenses) and 609.611 (Negligent Fires). While the definitions might seem relevant elsewhere, their official application is confined to these specific statutes by the text of § 609.556 itself.
Yes, a vacant structure that fits the ordinary meaning of a building or the expanded definition (like a vacant house or apartment unit) is still considered a “building” under § 609.556. Vacancy might be relevant to the specific degree of arson charged (e.g., whether people were likely present) but doesn’t remove it from the definition.
This would likely be determined based on the nature and design of the structure (tent, RV, houseboat) and evidence of its typical or intended use. Factors like size, amenities (beds, etc.), and common practices regarding that type of structure would be considered.
Construction materials lying on a site generally would not constitute a “building.” However, if a partially constructed structure has reached a stage where it fits the ordinary meaning of a building or structure used for lodging, it might qualify. This would be fact-dependent.
Absolutely. If the prosecution cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the property involved meets the specific legal definition of “property of another” or “building” as defined in § 609.556, then an essential element of the related arson or negligent fire charge may be missing, which could lead to acquittal or reduced charges.
The primary arson statutes in Minnesota that rely on these definitions are found in Minnesota Statutes sections 609.561 (Arson in the first degree), 609.562 (Arson in the second degree), 609.563 (Arson in the third degree), 609.5631 (Arson in the fourth degree), and 609.5632 (Arson in the fifth degree), along with related sections like 609.576 (Negligent fires; dangerous smoking).
While § 609.556 itself is just a definitions statute, convictions for the serious crimes it relates to, primarily arson, carry devastating and long-lasting consequences. An arson conviction, particularly a felony-level conviction which is common for acts involving “buildings” or significant “property of another” as defined by § 609.556, creates a permanent criminal record that follows an individual for life, unless expunged. This record can severely hinder opportunities and fundamentally alter the course of one’s future, extending far beyond any prison sentence, probation period, or fines imposed by the court.
These collateral consequences arise because criminal records are widely accessible through background checks used by employers, landlords, educational institutions, government agencies, and licensing bodies. An arson conviction, often viewed as a violent and destructive act demonstrating disregard for safety and property, raises significant red flags. It can lead to automatic disqualifications or create insurmountable barriers in many areas of life, impacting financial stability, housing security, civil rights, and personal relationships for years or even decades after the sentence is completed.
A felony arson conviction can be a major obstacle to securing meaningful employment. Many employers are hesitant to hire individuals with such a serious offense on their record, particularly for positions involving responsibility, access to property, handling finances, or working with vulnerable populations. Background checks are standard practice in numerous fields, and an arson conviction can lead to immediate rejection or make it extremely difficult to compete with other applicants. Certain careers, like those in law enforcement, firefighting, education, childcare, and healthcare, may be entirely foreclosed. Furthermore, obtaining or renewing professional licenses (e.g., contractor, electrician, insurance agent) can become difficult or impossible, severely limiting career options and earning potential long after the debt to society has been paid.
The stigma associated with arson can be particularly damaging, as potential employers may harbor concerns about reliability, judgment, and potential risk to workplace safety or property. Even if an individual possesses valuable skills and experience, the conviction often overshadows qualifications. Overcoming these hurdles requires immense persistence and may necessitate focusing on industries with less stringent background check policies or pursuing self-employment. The path to stable, fulfilling work is significantly complicated by the presence of an arson conviction on one’s record, highlighting the severe economic consequences of such an offense.
Finding safe and stable housing can become incredibly challenging with an arson conviction. Landlords and property management companies routinely conduct background checks on potential tenants, and a felony conviction, especially for a crime involving property destruction like arson, is frequently grounds for denial. Landlords may fear potential damage to their property, risks to other tenants, or increases in insurance premiums. This can force individuals into less desirable housing situations, limit choices to neighborhoods with fewer resources, or, in worst-case scenarios, contribute to housing instability or homelessness. Accessing public or subsidized housing may also be restricted based on the nature of the conviction.
The definition of “building” in § 609.556, encompassing dwellings and places of lodging, means that arson convictions often involve the very types of properties individuals need to rent. This creates a direct conflict when seeking housing post-conviction. Even years after completing a sentence, the arson record remains a significant barrier. Individuals may need to seek assistance from reentry programs or be prepared for numerous rejections before finding a landlord willing to take a chance, demonstrating the profound impact on one’s ability to secure a fundamental need like shelter.
Under both federal law and Minnesota state law, individuals convicted of a felony are generally prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition for life. Since most arson convictions, particularly those involving “buildings” or substantial “property of another” as defined by § 609.556, are classified as felonies, a conviction typically results in the permanent loss of Second Amendment rights. This prohibition applies to all types of firearms and carries severe penalties if violated (felon in possession of a firearm is itself a serious crime). Restoring these rights in Minnesota is a separate, complex legal process that is not guaranteed and often requires a significant passage of time and proof of rehabilitation.
For individuals who previously owned firearms for hunting, sport shooting, collection, or personal protection, this represents a significant and often permanent loss of a constitutional right and associated activities. It is a stark reminder of how a single conviction can lead to lifelong civil disabilities. This collateral consequence underscores the gravity of an arson charge and the importance of mounting a vigorous defense against allegations that could lead to a felony conviction utilizing the definitions within § 609.556.
An arson conviction becomes a permanent part of an individual’s criminal history, readily available to law enforcement, prosecutors, and courts. Should the individual face any future arrests or charges, even for unrelated offenses, this prior felony conviction will significantly worsen their position. It will increase their criminal history score under the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines, leading to harsher presumptive sentences for any new convictions. Prosecutors may be less willing to offer favorable plea bargains, and judges may impose stricter bail conditions or sentences, viewing the individual as having a higher risk profile due to the serious nature of the prior arson offense.
The record persists even if the individual remains law-abiding for many years. It can be brought up in various legal contexts, potentially affecting credibility in civil lawsuits or impacting decisions in family court matters. While expungement may be a possibility in some cases after a lengthy period, it is a difficult process for serious felonies like arson and is not guaranteed. The conviction remains a shadow, potentially amplifying the consequences of any future mistakes and serving as a constant reminder of the past offense defined in part by statutes like § 609.556.
Navigating charges related to arson or negligent fires, where the specific definitions from § 609.556 are central, demands skilled legal representation. The interpretation of terms like “property of another” and “building” can be complex, often involving subtle factual distinctions and analysis of case law. An attorney experienced in Minnesota property crimes can meticulously examine the evidence to determine if the prosecution can truly meet these definitions beyond a reasonable doubt. They understand how to challenge the state’s interpretation, presenting evidence and arguments that the property or structure involved does not fall within the statutory meaning, potentially leading to dismissed or reduced charges.
Without legal counsel, an individual may not recognize the significance of these definitional elements or know how to effectively challenge them. The nuances of property law, ownership interests, and the specific uses of structures require legal expertise to analyze properly. An attorney can identify weaknesses in the prosecution’s case related to these definitions – perhaps demonstrating sole ownership, proving authority to impair, or showing a structure wasn’t customarily used for lodging – arguments that could be pivotal to the outcome but might be overlooked by someone unfamiliar with the intricacies of § 609.556 and its application.
The application of § 609.556 often involves more than just reading the statute; it requires understanding how Minnesota courts have interpreted these definitions in past cases. An experienced criminal defense attorney will be familiar with relevant case law that clarifies the boundaries of “property of another” and “building.” They can research precedents involving similar factual scenarios – co-ownership disputes, unique structures like yurts or modified vehicles, multi-unit building configurations – to build the strongest possible argument based on how courts have previously ruled. This ability to leverage legal precedent is crucial for effectively arguing about the application of statutory definitions.
Furthermore, legal counsel can analyze the interplay between § 609.556 and the specific elements of the charged arson statute (§§ 609.561-609.576). They understand how proving (or failing to prove) one of these definitions impacts the potential charges and penalties. For example, successfully arguing a structure wasn’t a “building” might differentiate between a First-Degree and a Third-Degree Arson charge, a difference potentially involving many years in prison. This strategic understanding, grounded in knowledge of statutes and case law, is vital for developing an effective defense strategy.
Proving that property fits the definitions in § 609.556 often relies on specific evidence presented by the prosecution, such as deeds, lease agreements, witness testimony about property use, or photographs of a structure. A defense attorney plays a critical role in scrutinizing and challenging this evidence. They can cross-examine witnesses to highlight inconsistencies or ambiguities regarding ownership or how a structure was used. They can file motions to exclude improperly obtained evidence or challenge the reliability of documents presented by the state.
For instance, if the prosecution claims a tent was “customarily used for lodging,” the attorney can investigate its actual use, potentially finding evidence it was only used for daytime storage or was structurally unsuitable for sleeping. If the state alleges property belonged to “another,” the attorney can investigate title records and agreements to uncover evidence of the defendant’s sole ownership or authority. This proactive investigation and challenging of the state’s evidence regarding the definitional elements is a cornerstone of effective defense in these types of cases.
Even if the evidence seems strong, an attorney’s understanding of § 609.556 and its role can be crucial during plea negotiations and sentencing. They can leverage any weaknesses in the state’s ability to prove the definitional elements to negotiate for reduced charges (e.g., pleading to a lesser degree of arson or a non-arson offense like property damage). If a conviction occurs, the attorney can present arguments at sentencing that emphasize aspects of the definitions or the specific facts to advocate for leniency. For example, arguing that while technically a “building,” the structure was dilapidated and unused might support a request for a sentence below the guidelines.
Ultimately, facing charges under statutes like Minnesota’s arson laws, where technical definitions like those in § 609.556 play such a pivotal role, requires sophisticated legal analysis and advocacy. The potential for severe penalties and lifelong collateral consequences makes securing representation from a knowledgeable criminal defense attorney essential. They provide the necessary expertise to dissect the charges, challenge the evidence related to statutory definitions, protect the accused’s rights, and pursue the best possible outcome in a complex legal landscape.
