Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 244.172 (2026)

Challenge Incarceration Program; Phases I To Iii

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subdivision 1.Phase I.

Phase I of the program lasts at least six months. The offender must be confined at the Minnesota Correctional Facility - Willow River/Moose Lake, the Minnesota Correctional Facility - Togo, or the Minnesota Correctional Facility - Shakopee and must successfully participate in all intensive treatment, education, and work programs required by the commissioner. The offender must also submit on demand to random drug and alcohol testing at time intervals set by the commissioner. Throughout phase I, the commissioner must severely restrict the offender's telephone and visitor privileges.

Subd. 2.Phase II.

Phase II of the program lasts at least six months. The offender shall serve this phase of the offender's sentence in an intensive supervision and surveillance program established by the commissioner. The commissioner may impose such requirements on the offender as are necessary to carry out the goals of the program. Throughout phase II, the offender must be required to submit to drug and alcohol tests randomly or for cause, on demand of the supervising agent. The commissioner shall also require the offender to report daily to a challenge incarceration agent or program staff.

Subd. 3.Phase III.

Phase III continues until the commissioner determines that the offender has successfully completed the program or until the offender's sentence, minus jail credit, expires, whichever comes first. If an offender successfully completes phase III of the challenge incarceration program before the offender's sentence expires, the offender shall be placed on supervised release for the remainder of the sentence. The commissioner shall set the level of the offender's supervision based on the public risk presented by the offender.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2006–2024 · leading case: Heilman v. Courtney, 926 N.W.2d 387 (Minn. 2019).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Heilman v. Courtney, 926 N.W.2d 387 (Minn. 2019). · cites it 24× “See Minn. Stat. § 244.172 (laying out phases).”

State Ex Rel. Guth v. Fabian, 716 N.W.2d 23 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “” See Minn.Stat. § 244.172, subd. 1 (2004) (providing that during phase I of the CIP an “offender must be confined in a state correctional facility”).”

Hines v. Fabian, 764 N.W.2d 849 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 9× “Hines argues that he had a protected liberty interest in remaining in the CIP because Minn.Stat. § 244.172, subd. 3, requires the commissioner to place an offender who successfully completes the CIP on supervised release.”

State of Minnesota, ex rel. Nicole Rae Cloud v. Paul Schnell, Comm'r of Corr., ... (Minn. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 4× “Minn. Stat. § 244.172 , subd. 1. In Phase II, the offender is released from prison under a minimum six-month intensive-supervision and surveillance program.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.