Minnesota Supreme Court: You Cannot Be Forced to Register as a Predatory Offender for a Charge You Were Acquitted Of

What was the issue in Siegel v. Evans?

Chad Siegel was charged in 2013 with several offenses, including two counts of kidnapping. Kidnapping under Minn. Stat. § 609.25 is a "predatory offense" that can trigger registration. At trial, after the State rested, the district court granted Siegel's motion for a judgment of acquittal on the kidnapping charges, finding the evidence insufficient. The jury then convicted him of first-degree assault arising from the same incident.

Even though a judge had thrown out the only charges that could require registration, Siegel was still ordered to register as a predatory offender — because Minnesota law keys registration to whether the registrable charge was supported by probable cause, not to whether the person was ultimately convicted of it. Siegel later sued, arguing he should never have had to register.

Why is Minnesota's registration law unusual?

Minnesota is widely described as the only state that can require registration when a person is merely charged with a predatory offense and then convicted of some other offense — even a minor one — arising from the same set of circumstances. Earlier decisions had gone further still, holding that a person could be required to register even after being acquitted of the registrable charge, so long as the original charge was supported by probable cause.

What did the Court decide?

The Minnesota Supreme Court held that applying the registration requirement to Siegel — based on charges a court had acquitted him of by a judgment of acquittal — violated substantive due process under the Minnesota Constitution. The Court reversed and remanded. In practical terms, it drew a line the earlier cases had not: a judge's determination at trial that the evidence could not sustain a conviction on the registrable charge is not the same as an ordinary dismissal, and it cannot be used to force a person to register. The decision (Siegel v. Evans, No. A24-0594, Minn. 2026, Thissen, J.) was not unanimous; two justices concurred in part and dissented in part.

What this decision does NOT necessarily change

It is important to read this ruling narrowly. The holding addresses a specific situation: a judgment of acquittal on the registrable charge. It may not reach every scenario — for example, a charge dismissed before trial that was supported by probable cause, a jury acquittal, or a conviction on a different registrable offense. Whether Siegel helps in a particular case depends on exactly how the earlier charge was resolved and on the record in that case.

What should you do if you were required to register after an acquittal?

If you were ordered to register as a predatory offender and your only registrable charge ended in a judgment of acquittal, this decision may be directly relevant to you. The path to relief — and whether one exists in your situation — depends on your specific record, how and when you were required to register, and what deadlines may apply. These are exactly the details worth reviewing carefully with a lawyer before assuming anything about your own obligations.