§
Subdivision 1.Riot first degree.
When three or more persons assembled disturb the public peace by an intentional act or threat of unlawful force or violence to person or property and a death results, and one of the persons is armed with a dangerous weapon, that person is guilty of riot first degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 20 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $35,000, or both.
§
Subd. 2.Riot second degree.
When three or more persons assembled disturb the public peace by an intentional act or threat of unlawful force or violence to person or property, each participant who is armed with a dangerous weapon or knows that any other participant is armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of riot second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.
§
Subd. 3.Riot third degree.
When three or more persons assembled disturb the public peace by an intentional act or threat of unlawful force or violence to person or property, each participant therein is guilty of riot third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 364 days or to payment of a fine of not more than $1,000, or both.
Notes of Decisions
United States v. Ryan William McMillan, 863 F.3d 1053 (8th Cir. 2017).
· cites it 17× “See Minn. Stat. § 609.71 , subd. 3 (2009). McMillan objected to the presentence report's determination that his conviction for third degree riot qualified as a crime of violence.”
Binion v. City of St. Paul, 788 F. Supp. 2d 935 (D. Minnesota 2011).
· cites it 8× “Minn.Stat. § 609.71, subd. 2. The elements of second-degree riot are (1) the defendant was one of three or more persons assembled together; (2) the assembled persons disturbed the public peace by an intentional act or threat of unlawful force or violence to person or property;…”
Brook Bernini v. City of St. Paul, 665 F.3d 997 (8th Cir. 2012).
· cites it 2× “2008); see also Minn.Stat. §§ 609.71 subdiv. 3, 609.705. The video footage shows that officers engaged and pursued the group only after the unlawful conduct.”
State v. Babcock, 685 N.W.2d 36 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 6× “1 (2000), and third-degree riot under Minn.Stat. § 609.71, subd. 3 (2000), arguing the district court erred in refusing his request to modify the patterned Spreigl-evidence jury instruction.”
Schlamp v. State, 891 A.2d 327 (Md. 2006).
“§ 752-541; Minn.Stat § 609.71; Mont Code Ann. § 45-8-103; N.”
State of Minnesota v. Ayyoob Dawood Abdus-Salam (2024).
· cites it 6× “Minn. Stat. § 609.71 , subd. 2 (2022). The State argues that the vehicles used in the “takeovers” were transformed into dangerous weapons because of the way in which those vehicles were used.”
In the Matter of the Welfare of: M. E. G., Child (Minn. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 2× “582, subdivision 1(a), (b), (c) (2024); one count each of second- and third-degree riot in violation of Minnesota Statutes section 609.71, subdivisions 2, 3 (2024); and one count of fifth-degree assault in violation of Minnesota Statutes section 609.”
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.