§
Subdivision 1.Misdemeanors.
Whoever does any of the following is guilty of a misdemeanor:
(1) knowing that the actor does not have the consent of either the sender or the addressee, intentionally opens any sealed letter, telegram, or package addressed to another; or
(2) knowing that a sealed letter, telegram, or package has been opened without the consent of either the sender or addressee, intentionally publishes any of the contents thereof; or
(3) with the intent to harass or intimidate another person, repeatedly mails or delivers or causes the delivery by any means, including electronically, of letters, telegrams, or packages and thereby places the other person in reasonable fear of substantial bodily harm; places the person in reasonable fear that the person's family or household members will be subject to substantial bodily harm; or causes or would reasonably be expected to cause substantial emotional distress as defined in section 609.749, subdivision 2, paragraph (a), clause (4), to the other person.
§
Subd. 3.Venue.
The offense may be prosecuted either at the place where the letter, telegram, or package is sent or received or, alternatively in the case of wireless electronic communication, where the sender or receiver resides.
Notes of Decisions
Matter of Welfare of A. J. B., 929 N.W.2d 840 (Minn. 2019).
· cites it 49× “2(6) (2018), the stalking-by-mail provision, and Minn. Stat. § 609.795 , subd. 1(3) (2018), known as the mail-harassment statute-are unconstitutional under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
State v. Orsello, 554 N.W.2d 70 (Minn. 1996).
· cites it 4× “" Minn.Stat. § 609.795, subd. 1(3) (1994). Another analogy is provided in the comparison of the crime of "repeatedly mak[ing] telephone calls, whether or not conversation ensues, with intent to abuse, disturb, or cause distress," Minn.”
In re A.J.B., 910 N.W.2d 491 (Minn. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 6× “" See Minn. Stat. § 609.795 , subd. 1(3). Implicates First Amendment The state does not contest that both statutes implicate the First Amendment.”
State v. Collins, 580 N.W.2d 36 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “1(b) (1996) (repeatedly making telephone calls with intent to abuse, disturb, or cause distress); and Minn.Stat. § 609.795, subd. 1(3) (1996) (repeatedly using mails with intent to abuse, disturb, or cause distress).”
State v. Mullen, 577 N.W.2d 505 (Minn. 1998).
· cites it 2× “79; (9) section 609.795; (10) section 609.582; or (11) section 609.”
Saliterman v. State, 443 N.W.2d 841 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 2× “1987), and harassment (delivering unwanted packages), Minn.Stat. § 609.795(3) (Supp.1987). A plea bargain was reached between the cities’ attorneys and Saliterman’s trial attorney whereby, if Saliterman pled guilty to two charges of violating the protective order, the cities…”
State v. Pegelow, 809 N.W.2d 245 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “" Minn.Stat. § 609.795, subd. 1(8) (1992). Clause (7) was added in 1998 and so is not relevant as to the *251 legislature's intent in 1998.”
— Minn. Stat. § 609.795(3) — 1 case
Saliterman v. State, 443 N.W.2d 841 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989).
“1987), and harassment (delivering unwanted packages), Minn.Stat. § 609.795(3) (Supp.1987). A plea bargain was reached between the cities’ attorneys and Saliterman’s trial attorney whereby, if Saliterman pled guilty to two charges of violating the protective order, the cities…”
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.