seriousness violation in Minnesota

2025State v. Austin, 295 N.W.2d 246, 250 (Minn. 1980). “[T]he [district] court must 1) designate the specific condition or conditions that were violated; 2) find that the violation was intentional or inexcusable; and 3) find that [the] need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation.” Id. 3 correctional treatment which can most effectively be provided if [they are] confined; or (iii) it would unduly depreciate the seriousness of the violation if probation were not revoked.” Modtland, 695 N.W.2d at 607 (quotation omitted).

2024In determining whether the third Austin factor is met, the district court should consider whether: (1) “confinement is necessary to protect the public from further criminal activity by the offender”; (2) “the offender is in need of correctional treatment which can most effectively be provided if he is confined”; or (3) “it would unduly depreciate the seriousness of the violation if probation were not revoked.” Modtland, 695 N.W.2d at 607 (quotation omitted).

2025State v. Austin, 295 N.W.2d 246, 250 (Minn. 1980). “[T]he [district] court must 1) designate the specific condition or conditions that were violated; 2) find that the violation was intentional or inexcusable; and 3) find that [the] need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation.” Id. 3 correctional treatment which can most effectively be provided if [they are] confined; or (iii) it would unduly depreciate the seriousness of the violation if probation were not revoked.” Modtland, 695 N.W.2d at 607 (quotation omitted).

2025State v. Austin, 295 N.W.2d 246, 250 (Minn. 1980). “[T]he [district] court must 1) designate the specific condition or conditions that were violated; 2) find that the violation was intentional or inexcusable; and 3) find that [the] need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation.” Id. 3 correctional treatment which can most effectively be provided if [they are] confined; or (iii) it would unduly depreciate the seriousness of the violation if probation were not revoked.” Modtland, 695 N.W.2d at 607 (quotation omitted).

2004Evidence "[T]he severity of an administrative sanction must reflect the seriousness of the violation." In re Revocation of Family Child Care License of Burke, 666 N.W.2d 724, 728 (Minn.App.2003) (reversing revocation of daycare provider's license as overly severe sanction); see also Haugen, 278 N.W.2d at 80-81 (affirming district court's reversal of commissioner's revocation of real estate brokers' licenses as overly severe sanction); Henry Youth Hockey 511 N.W.2d at 457 (affirming revocation of gambling licenses as appropriately severe sanction); In re Insurance Licences of Kane, 473 N.W.2d 8

2004Evidence “[T]he severity of an administrative sanction must reflect the seriousness of the violation.” In re Revocation of Family Child Care License of Burke, 666 N.W.2d 724, 728 (Minn.App.2003) (reversing revocation of daycare provider’s license as overly severe sanction); see also Haugen, 278 N.W.2d at 80-81 (affirming district court’s reversal of commissioner’s revocation of real estate brokers’ licenses as overly severe sanction); Henry Youth Hockey 511 N.W.2d at 457 (affirming revocation of gambling licenses as appropriately severe sanction); In re Insurance Licences of Kane, 473 N.W.2d 8

2016Relator’s brief describes the offenses and sanctions in 23 disciplinary cases decided by the Board, which relator argues involved more egregious violations by licensees but less severe sanctions than relator received. 6 “[T]he severity of an administrative sanction must reflect the seriousness of the violation.” In re Revocation of Family Child Care License of Burke, 666 N.W.2d 724, 728 (Minn. App. 2003).

2004Evidence “[T]he severity of an administrative sanction must reflect the seriousness of the violation.” In re Revocation of Family Child Care License of Burke, 666 N.W.2d 724, 728 (Minn.App.2003) (reversing revocation of daycare provider’s license as overly severe sanction); see also Haugen, 278 N.W.2d at 80-81 (affirming district court’s reversal of commissioner’s revocation of real estate brokers’ licenses as overly severe sanction); Henry Youth Hockey 511 N.W.2d at 457 (affirming revocation of gambling licenses as appropriately severe sanction); In re Insurance Licences of Kane, 473 N.W.2d 8

1992See Western Waterproofing Co. v. Marshall, 576 F.2d 139, 142 (8th Cir.) (a willful violation is an act done voluntarily with either an intentional disregard of or plain indifference to statutory requirements), ce rt. denied, 439 U.S. 965 , 99 S.Ct. 452 , 58 L.Ed.2d 423 (1978).

1992See Western Waterproofing Co. v. Marshall, 576 F.2d 139, 142 (8th Cir.) (a willful violation is an act done voluntarily with either an intentional disregard of or plain indifference to statutory requirements), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 965 , 99 S.Ct. 452 , 58 L.Ed.2d 423 (1978).

1992See Western Waterproofing Co. v. Marshall, 576 F.2d 139, 142 (8th Cir.) (a willful violation is an act done voluntarily with either an intentional disregard of or plain indifference to statutory requirements), ce rt. denied, 439 U.S. 965 , 99 S.Ct. 452 , 58 L.Ed.2d 423 (1978).

1992See Western Waterproofing Co. v. Marshall, 576 F.2d 139, 142 (8th Cir.) (a willful violation is an act done voluntarily with either an intentional disregard of or plain indifference to statutory requirements), ce rt. denied, 439 U.S. 965 , 99 S.Ct. 452 , 58 L.Ed.2d 423 (1978).

1992See Western Waterproofing Co. v. Marshall, 576 F.2d 139, 142 (8th Cir.) (a willful violation is an act done voluntarily with either an intentional disregard of or plain indifference to statutory requirements), ce rt. denied, 439 U.S. 965 , 99 S.Ct. 452 , 58 L.Ed.2d 423 (1978).

1992See Western Waterproofing Co. v. Marshall, 576 F.2d 139, 142 (8th Cir.) (a willful violation is an act done voluntarily with either an intentional disregard of or plain indifference to statutory requirements), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 965 , 99 S.Ct. 452 , 58 L.Ed.2d 423 (1978).

2016Cf. State v. Rottelo, 798 N.W.2d 92, 94 (Minn. App. 2011) (stating that “[t]he district court made the appropriate [Austin] findings” where district court found on the third Austin factor that “confinement is necessary, because not to execute the sentence would unduly depreciate 7 the seriousness of the violation if probation were not revoked” and that “the only way [the court] can be assured that [defendant] does have treatment is to have it take place in a correctional facility because he has not kept in contact with Probation” (quotations omitted)), review denied (Minn. July 19, 2011).

2015He asserts that he was only terminated from the program after a new individual was placed in charge, who was “simply unfamiliar with [Bartyzal]’s progress over the course of 6 years, and witnessed a few rules violations in a short period of time,” and that “[he] was terminated from a program in which he was making progress.” In addressing the third Austin factor, the district court stressed Bartyzal’s repeated failure to do the things that he had been ordered to do throughout his probationary period and expressed a belief that “it would unduly depreciate the seriousness of the violation if pro

2004Evidence "[T]he severity of an administrative sanction must reflect the seriousness of the violation." In re Revocation of Family Child Care License of Burke, 666 N.W.2d 724, 728 (Minn.App.2003) (reversing revocation of daycare provider's license as overly severe sanction); see also Haugen, 278 N.W.2d at 80-81 (affirming district court's reversal of commissioner's revocation of real estate brokers' licenses as overly severe sanction); Henry Youth Hockey 511 N.W.2d at 457 (affirming revocation of gambling licenses as appropriately severe sanction); In re Insurance Licences of Kane, 473 N.W.2d 8

2004Evidence “[T]he severity of an administrative sanction must reflect the seriousness of the violation.” In re Revocation of Family Child Care License of Burke, 666 N.W.2d 724, 728 (Minn.App.2003) (reversing revocation of daycare provider’s license as overly severe sanction); see also Haugen, 278 N.W.2d at 80-81 (affirming district court’s reversal of commissioner’s revocation of real estate brokers’ licenses as overly severe sanction); Henry Youth Hockey 511 N.W.2d at 457 (affirming revocation of gambling licenses as appropriately severe sanction); In re Insurance Licences of Kane, 473 N.W.2d 8

2004Evidence "[T]he severity of an administrative sanction must reflect the seriousness of the violation." In re Revocation of Family Child Care License of Burke, 666 N.W.2d 724, 728 (Minn.App.2003) (reversing revocation of daycare provider's license as overly severe sanction); see also Haugen, 278 N.W.2d at 80-81 (affirming district court's reversal of commissioner's revocation of real estate brokers' licenses as overly severe sanction); Henry Youth Hockey 511 N.W.2d at 457 (affirming revocation of gambling licenses as appropriately severe sanction); In re Insurance Licences of Kane, 473 N.W.2d 8

2004Evidence “[T]he severity of an administrative sanction must reflect the seriousness of the violation.” In re Revocation of Family Child Care License of Burke, 666 N.W.2d 724, 728 (Minn.App.2003) (reversing revocation of daycare provider’s license as overly severe sanction); see also Haugen, 278 N.W.2d at 80-81 (affirming district court’s reversal of commissioner’s revocation of real estate brokers’ licenses as overly severe sanction); Henry Youth Hockey 511 N.W.2d at 457 (affirming revocation of gambling licenses as appropriately severe sanction); In re Insurance Licences of Kane, 473 N.W.2d 8

2004Evidence "[T]he severity of an administrative sanction must reflect the seriousness of the violation." In re Revocation of Family Child Care License of Burke, 666 N.W.2d 724, 728 (Minn.App.2003) (reversing revocation of daycare provider's license as overly severe sanction); see also Haugen, 278 N.W.2d at 80-81 (affirming district court's reversal of commissioner's revocation of real estate brokers' licenses as overly severe sanction); Henry Youth Hockey 511 N.W.2d at 457 (affirming revocation of gambling licenses as appropriately severe sanction); In re Insurance Licences of Kane, 473 N.W.2d 8

2004Evidence “[T]he severity of an administrative sanction must reflect the seriousness of the violation.” In re Revocation of Family Child Care License of Burke, 666 N.W.2d 724, 728 (Minn.App.2003) (reversing revocation of daycare provider’s license as overly severe sanction); see also Haugen, 278 N.W.2d at 80-81 (affirming district court’s reversal of commissioner’s revocation of real estate brokers’ licenses as overly severe sanction); Henry Youth Hockey 511 N.W.2d at 457 (affirming revocation of gambling licenses as appropriately severe sanction); In re Insurance Licences of Kane, 473 N.W.2d 8