Authorities in Minnesota will begin their annual two-week “Click it or Ticket” campaign on Monday, which targets unbelted drivers across the state.

Although more people may be opting for public transportation now that Minnesota has the highest average price for a gallon of gas in the entire United States, carpoolers and motorists should make sure they have their seat belt fastened to stay safe and keep themselves from getting a ticket.

The goal of the annual Click it or Ticket campaign is to reduce “preventable fatalities” by ensuring all motorists fasten their seat belts during their commute.  The extra patrols will occur statewide until June 2, which means you may notice an increased police presence during your Memorial Day travels.

Police hope their presence will remind people to buckle up each time they hit the road.  According to their data, of the 864 traffic deaths that have occurred over the past few years, 41 percent of those victims were not wearing a safety belt.  They also said a person is six times more likely to suffer an injury in a traffic accident if they are not wearing a seat belt.

When discussing this year’s data, the Minnesota Department of Public Safety said of the 102 deaths so far on Minnesota roads, at least 30 individuals were not wearing a seat belt at the time of the crash.

A ticket for failing to wear a seat belt is $25, but it can cost more than $100 with administrative fees and court costs.

Seat Belts Save Lives

Taking three seconds to buckle up may be one of the easiest ways to protect yourself in the event of a traffic accident.  But don’t just take our word for it, check out some of the stats below!

• Seat belts reduce “serious crash-related injuries” by roughly 50%

• Men are 10% less likely to wear their seat belt than women

• People between the ages of 18-34 are less likely to wear a seat belt than individuals 35 and older

• According to data from 2010, 90.2% of Minnesotans wear their seat belt when they are driving.  That ranks 13^th nationally and is well above the national average of 84.0%

• Adults who live in rural areas are 10% less likely to wear their seat belt than those who live in a city or suburb

• Your chances of being killed are four times greater if you are thrown from your vehicle during a traffic crash

• Being thrown against the dashboard at 30 mph is the equivalent of falling from a third story window

• People are less likely to wear a seat belt at night than during the day, and individuals who have consumed alcohol are less likely to wear a seat belt than sober drivers

• On average, one person dies every hour in America in a “preventable fatality” because they neglected to wear their seat belt

Related source:  CBS Minnesota, CDC

Over the last few months, we have seen an influx of questions about the offenses, penalties and potential ramifications of being convicted of a sex crime in Minnesota.  We decided to conduct a three-part series to answer some of the most common questions surrounding criminal sexual conduct.  In Part 1, we explained what types of crimes require you to register as a sex offender in Minnesota.  Today, we’ll explain “How to register as a Predatory Offender in Minnesota”, and next week we’ll discuss “The Penalties and Community Notification Process in the Release of a Predatory Offender”.

According to Minnesota Statute 243.166, there are numerous regulations a person must follow if they are convicted of a crime that requires them to register as a predatory offender.   Once they are released from prison, the first thing they need to do is register as a “predatory offender” in person with their assigned corrections agent.  The registration must be done in person because the corrections agent needs a signed statement, fingerprints, and a current photo for their database.

In addition, in accordance with subd. 4a. “A person required to register under this section shall provide to the corrections agent or law enforcement authority the following information:

• The person’s primary address;
• All of the person’s secondary addresses in Minnesota, including all addresses used for residential or recreational purposes;
• The addresses of all Minnesota property owned;
• The addresses of all locations where the person is employed;
• The addresses of all school where the person is enrolled;
• The year, model, make, license plate number and color of all motor vehicles owned or regularly driven by the person.”
• A person must also register in another state if they enter and remain in that state for 14 days or longer

An individual is required to notify law enforcement or their corrections officer at least five days before moving to a new address.  When applicable, the offender must also give five days notice if any of the above information changes, i.e. a five-day notice before they start a new job.

Staying Registered

Registering as a predatory offender is not a one-and-done deal.  As the law states, “A person who is required to register is subject to the law for ten years from the time he or she initially registered in connection with the offense, or until probation, supervised release, or conditional release period expires, whichever occurs later.”  This means that each individual who has to register as a predatory offender will need to keep his or her registration current for a minimum of 10 years.  If part of a person’s sentence is 15 years of probation, they’ll need to register as an offender for 15 years.

Also, it’s extremely important for a predatory offender to follow the conditions of their registration, or they could be forced to register for a longer period then they expected.  The police have the authority to add five years to the end of an offender’s registration period if they:

• Fails to register a change in primary address
• Fails to register with the local law enforcement authority if the person has no primary address
• Fails to notify authorities of any other change in registered information
• Fails to return the verification form sent by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension within ten days of receiving the form

In order to stay current with the BCA, the predatory offender must fill out and return a yearly verification form.  The BCA usually mails the form to the offender’s last known primary address within 30 days of the anniversary of the offender’s initial registration.  As noted above, once the offender receives the verification form, he or she has ten days to return the completed form or they will be subject to additional years of registration.

Most predatory offenders only need to complete the yearly verification form to stay current with their registration; however, some offenders (those who are deemed sexually dangerous, a sexual psychopath, or a level III offender) are required to complete verification forms on a more regular basis, sometimes as many as four per year.

Lifetime Registration

While 10 years is the minimum amount of time a predatory offender needs to keep his or her information current, some individuals are required to register for the rest of their lives.  Lifetime registration is required for three types of convicts:

Sexual Predators – Any person who is required to register following commitment as a sexual psychopathic personality or sexually dangerous person under Minnesota law is considered a sexual predator.

Aggravated Offenders – Any person who commits a sexual act with a victim of any age through the use of force or the threat of serious violence, or commits a sexual act on a victim under the age of 13 is considered an aggravated offender who must register for life.

Reoffenders – Any person convicted of a crime for which predatory registration is required who has previously been convicted of an offense where registration was required will need to stay on the predatory offenders list for life.

Related source: Minnesota House of Representatives

Over 150 drivers across the state of Minnesota were arrested for drunk driving on Friday night in connection with the state’s largest-ever DWI patrol.

Authorities decided to conduct the patrols on the eve of opening fishing weekend, an unofficial holiday for many across the state.  According to the Minnesota Department of Public Safety’s Office of Traffic Safety, over 150 squads from 70 different agencies across the state were involved in the crackdown.

Officers said about half of the roughly 150 arrests came in the Twin Cities metro area.

Friday’s DWI enforcement drew added attention because of the role social media played advertising the increased patrols.  The Minnesota State Patrol used social media to inform the public about the increased police presence in hopes of deterring would-be drunk drivers.

Here are the squads rolling out for extra DWI patrols. Plan ahead for a sober ride & keep roads safe. #May10DWI twitter.com/MnDPS_OTS/stat…

— MnDPS_OTS (@MnDPS_OTS) May 11, 2013

In addition to tweeting out pictures of the squad cars as they left the station, the Department of Public Safety tweeted out information about DWI arrests using the hashtag #May10DWI.

Previous reports had stated that authorities would tweeted out the names of those individuals arrested for driving under the influence, but they appeared to back off that statement, as they only tweeted out the age, sex, and location of a handful of perpetrators who were arrested.

However, the Twitter account @Mpls_DWI_Arrests tweeted out the names of some of the individuals arrested, also using the hashtag #May10DWI.  State Patrol Lt. Eric Roeske said that account was in no way affiliated with the Minnesota State Patrol or the Department of Public Safety’s Office of Traffic Safety.  The account which tweeted out the names has since been deleted from the Twittersphere.

The Office of Traffic Safety did not say if they planned to have another large DWI patrol in the future, but they do plan on concentrating their efforts to prevent drunk driving in the 13 counties that report the most DWIs.  That includes many of the Twin Cities metro counties, including Hennepin and Ramsey.

Related source:  TwinCities.com

The following post was written by Criminal Defense Attorneys Stacy Kaye and Geoff Saltzstein. After countless hours of research and decades of legal opinions, Stacy Kaye, the firm’s constitutional law expert, has begun writing the myriad of legal briefs and motions that will be the basis of the Appelman Law Firm’s challenge to Minnesota’s DWI laws; and Geoff Saltzstein has filtered the arguments into digestible material for our readers to gain a better understanding of the issues presented, and the looming questions our courts have yet to answer.

Below, Stacy and Geoff discuss the implications of Missouri v. McNeely, and foreshadow upcoming blog posts that will build off this historic ruling.

On April 17^th, 2013, the United States Supreme Court delivered an opinion, Missouri v. McNeely, which called into question nearly every aspect of Minnesota’s DWI law.  Not only does the ruling in McNeely raise doubts about the constitutionality of our DWI law in its entirety, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor explicitly overturned what has become the constitutional basis for Minnesota’s DWI law.

Up until now, the legality of our DWI law has been based on the natural metabolism of blood-alcohol in a suspect’s body causing the forensic evidence of DWI, your blood-alcohol concentration (BAC), to be diminished as time passes. This allowed law enforcement to take samples of your blood, breath or urine without a warrant, as required in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution.

McNeely’s Argument

Missouri v. McNeely involved a DWI suspect, Tyler McNeely, who was stopped by a Missouri police officer for speeding and crossing the centerline.  After declining to take a breath test to measure his BAC, he was arrested and taken to a nearby hospital for blood testing.  The officer never attempted to obtain a search warrant, and McNeely refused to consent to the blood test.  The officer then directed a lab technician to take a blood sample, which revealed a BAC well above Missouri’s legal limit.  McNeely was ultimately charged with DWI, and asked the court to suppress the evidence of the blood test, arguing that there was no consent, and certainly no warrant, as required by the 4^th Amendment of the Constitution.

Issues of warrantless blood tests have been argued, and rejected, regularly throughout the country; but in a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1966, Schmerber v. California – which has been routinely misinterpreted – most notably by the State of Minnesota – the court ruled that the metabolism and natural dissipation of alcohol levels in the bloodstream created a situation where law enforcement did not need to get a warrant because the evidence was being lost with every minute that passed.  The ruling was deliberately limited to the circumstances specific to that case; and with advances in technology such as email, fax, and even video conferencing, the ability for law enforcement to obtain warrants has become infinitely more convenient, a fact that has been overlooked by nearly every state court in the country.

After almost 50 years, the Missouri courts finally decided that enough was enough.  The Supreme Court of Missouri ruled that, other than the natural dissipation of blood alcohol, there was no reason that the officer could not get a warrant, and he therefore violated McNeely’s constitutional right against warrantless searches, meaning the evidence of McNeely’s BAC could not be used against him, and that the body’s natural metabolism of alcohol can no longer be used as the sole-factor for a warrantless search.

Sotomayor Defends McNeely’s Rights

The State of Missouri appealed to the United States Supreme Court, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the high court’s ruling, agreeing with the Missouri courts throughout her 15-page opinion, saying specifically that, “In drunk-driving investigations, the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not constitute [a situation] in every case sufficient to justify conducting a blood test without a warrant.” Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S.Ct. 1552 (2013).

In discussing the history of the law, Sotomayor pointed to a handful of egregious examples of state law with particularity, Minnesota being near the top of that list, and admonished the reasoning courts have used to justify warrantless blood tests.  These warrantless searches for evidence have not only become routine in DWI stops across the country, they’ve become part of the Minnesota DWI law by making refusal to submit to the blood-alcohol tests a crime in and of itself.

What’s Next?

The best place to start the discussion is the fundamental Constitutional rights that are implicated, violated routinely, and why they exist in the first place.  We’ll then move into the 4^th Amendment right to privacy, and more specifically, the requirement that law enforcement obtain a warrant for any search.  Next, we will discuss what is known as the Frost Doctrine, or the “unconstitutional conditions doctrine,” meaning that the government cannot condition a privilege – driving, in this case – on the waiver of constitutional right – the warrant requirement for searches and seizures.  Then we’ll take you under the hood of the DWI process a little, and discuss the implications of the Due Process Clause in the 5^th and 14^th Amendments of the Constitution.  You’ll also get a glimpse into the crime of Refusal to Submit to Chemical Testing, a gross misdemeanor that you will be charged with, and convicted of, if you don’t “consent” to the chemical testing process.  Finally, we’ll wrap up the discussion, for the time being, with some of the more ancillary issues that will be raised, and any new developments in the Court of Appeals, or in the DWI law itself.

Even a cursory reading of Missouri v. McNeely raises questions about the constitutionality of Minnesota’s DWI laws.  But a closer study of the decisions and rulings that form the constitutional foundations of our DWI laws, and the effect that McNeely has on those foundations, reveals the potential effects of the ruling to be widespread and dramatic.  In the coming weeks Stacy Kaye and Geoff Saltzstein will discuss the various issues in greater detail, what the impact of McNeely will be in the near future and what the legacy of McNeely may hold for the future of Minnesota’s DWI laws. Stay tuned. Film at 11.

Prom season is already in full swing, and as the school year winds down many high school students look for ways to celebrate.  One celebration ritual that some people can relate to involves consuming alcohol before or after their high school prom.  While this wasn’t a huge deal 30 years ago when the legal drinking age was 18, nowadays school officials are looking for new ways to make the end of the year dance safer for those in attendance.

One way some high schools have combated underage drinking if by enforcing mandatory alcohol screenings before teens can enter the dance or walk in graduation.  Lac qui Parle Valley High School and Montevideo High School instituted mandatory breathalyzers last year during prom, and they believe it helped deter underage drinking.  While it may stop teens from consuming alcohol before the dance, does the mandatory testing violate a person’s 4^th amendment rights to unreasonable searches and seizures?  We’ll take a closer look at the issue.

Can Schools Legally Test?

A couple of high schools that have instituted breathalyzer testing before prom claim to be doing it for the safety of the attendees and of those people who have to share the roads with the teens.  By breathalyzing before the event, officials hope all students will arrive completely sober.  While the school may not be able to control the students once they leave the event, they can attempt to keep them sober on their way to and from the event, which is important considering the leading cause of death among 15-19 year olds is traffic accidents.

St. Charles High School Superintendent Mark Roubinek echoed those sentiments when he explained why his school breathalyzed students before last year’s graduation ceremony.

“It would’ve been a terrible situation if some kids would’ve gotten hurt or killed,” said Roubinek.

Nobody will ever know if Roubinek’s actions prevented any tragedies, but some parents felt that their children’s rights were violated by the mandatory breathalyzer.  They argue that only the students who appeared intoxicated should have been tested, while others say if the teens have nothing to hide, why not consent to the test?

Defense Attorney Avery Appelman, who routinely handles cases surrounding unreasonable searches and seizures, said it’s a bit of a gray area, but some regulations allow the schools to conduct the tests.

“It’s similar to a ‘student-athlete code’, which states that a student must abstain from certain activities if they want to participate in sports,” said Appelman.  “If you want to participate in school functions, you may have abide by their policies.”

Appelman added that schools can hide behind the clause that they are looking to protect the “greater good” of all their students when conducting the tests.

Consequences of Testing

Besides the debate over 4^th Amendment rights, forcing mandatory breath tests on prom-goers isn’t a perfect system.  Some opponents of the process say teens will simply turn to drugs like marijuana in order to bypass alcohol detection, while others say students may skip the dance altogether because they want to drink without detection.

Another reason why across-the-board testing of all students isn’t a perfect science is because sometimes breathalyzers report a “false positive”.  As we’ve written about before, diabetics, dieters and asthmatics all have an increased likelihood of registering a false reading on a breathalyzer, and it could be devastating to a teenager to be refused entry to their prom because of an inaccurate test.

Related source:  CBS Local Minnesota

The FBI prevented a possible terrorist attack in western Minnesota on Friday when they raided a mobile home and uncovered Molotov cocktails, firearms, and suspected pipe bombs.

The bureau provided details of the raid on Monday, saying they believed to have stopped “a localized terror attack”.

Buford “Bucky” Rogers, 24, was arrested during the raid on his mobile home in Montevideo, Minnesota.  Rogers was in his home at the time of the raid, but he was taken into custody without incident.  He was charged with one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, and he remained in federal custody over the weekend.

“The information which we had led us to believe that a terror attack was planned,” said FBI spokesman Kyle Loven. “The FBI believed there was a terror attack in its planning stages, and we believe there would have been a localized terror attack, and that’s why law enforcement moved quickly to execute the search warrant on Friday to arrest Mr. Rogers.”

Montevideo is located about 125 miles west of the Twin Cities.  Although Loven would not divulge the location of a possible target, it is believed that he was planning to carry out an attack in Montevideo.  Loven said authorities are still working to determine if Rogers acted alone or in a group, but he believes any immediate threats have been dealt with.

“With respect to this terror plot, we no longer believe the public is in danger,” said Loven.

A search of the mobile home resulted in the discovery of a Romanian AKM assault rifle, among other incendiary devices.  Rogers informed investigators that he has shot the rifle at a gun range on two separate occasions. Rogers was previously convicted of felony burglary, meaning it is illegal for him to own a firearm under Minnesota law.

Christopher Warrener, special agent in charge of the FBI office in Minneapolis, credited the hard work of many separate agencies in peacefully preventing the possible threat.

“Cooperation between the FBI and its federal, state, and local partners enabled law enforcement to prevent a potential tragedy in Montevideo,” said Warrener.

Rogers is scheduled to make his initial appearance in federal court later this week.

Related source:  TwinCities.com, Yahoo

Minnesota Marijuana Decriminalization – An infographic hosted at Appelman Law Firm

Embed this infographic on Your Site: Copy and Paste the Code Below

<a href="http://blog.aacriminallaw.com/drug-offenses/minnesota-marijuana-decriminalization-infographic/"><img src="http://blog.aacriminallaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/decriminfo.png" width="540"></a></p> <p>Minnesota Marijuana Decriminalization – An infographic hosted at <a href="http://blog.aacriminallaw.com">Appelman Law Firm</a></p> <p>

If you’ve ever seen the movie Gangs of New York, you know residents in The Empire State don’t take kindly to others setting foot on their turf.  Although “The Butcher” no longer looks to control the five points in Lower Manhattan, two rival ice cream truck drivers recently battled for territory in Gloversville, and it ended when one of the drivers was arrested.

According to the police report, Joshua Malatino and his girlfriend Amanda Scott, who own a line of Sno Kone Joe trucks, were arrested earlier this week for stalking and harassing Phillip Hollister, an operator of a “rival” Mr. Ding-A-Ling truck.

The frosty relationship first began earlier in the year.  Authorities said Malatino began threatening and taunting Hollister, telling him “You don’t have a chance.  This is my town.”  Malatino also called Mr. Ding-A-Ling’s regional headquarters, telling the company “I own this town.”

Tensions were anything but vanilla on Tuesday when Malatino and Scott pursued Hollister’s truck in their own vehicles.  As Hollister would stop, the Sno Kone Joe operators would blast their music at a high volume and yell “free ice cream” in hopes of stymieing Hollister’s business.

“He [Malatino] had two vehicles. Two ice cream trucks and they were both engaged in that course of conduct,” said Gloversville Police Captain John Sira.

In what must have been a sight to see, officers were alerted of Maltino’s actions when they spotted a Sno Kone Joe truck tailing the Mr. Ding-A-Ling truck.

“One of our officers actually witnessed one of the ice cream trucks following the other ice cream truck,” said Sira.

Despite serving Good Humor products, the incident was no laughing matter.  In fact, this wasn’t the first time authorities had spoke to Malatino about his aggressive behavior.

“We have addressed issues similar to this with Mr. Malatino and his legal counsel, cautioning him against this type of behavior in the past,” Sira said.

Authorities officially charged the pair with second-degree harassment and fourth-degree stalking.  The harassment charge is only a monetary violation, but the misdemeanor stalking charge could land them in jail for three months.  Talk about cold, hard time.

How would it play out in Minnesota?

Had “Ice Cream Wars” taken place in Minnesota, Malatino and Scott would likely have faced a similar fate.  According to Minnesota law, stalking occurs when a person:

“engages in conduct which the actor knows or has reason to know would cause the victim under the circumstances to feel frightened, threatened, oppressed, persecuted, or intimidated, and causes this reaction on the part of the victim regardless of the relationship between the actor and victim.”

A person may also be arrested for harassment if they “follow, monitor, or pursue another, whether in person or through any available technological or other means.”

The potential penalties for stalking and harassment may be more severe had the case occurred in Minnesota.  Gross misdemeanor penalties for harassment in Minnesota include:

• Up to one year in jail
• Fines in excess of $1,000

Related source:  ABC News

When people began running red lights, city officials installed red light cameras to catch suspects and issue tickets without being on scene.  Could a similar system soon be in place to prevent bus-arm violations in Minnesota?

While such measures have yet to be seriously considered in the state, bus cameras are becoming more popular across the country in hopes of keeping school children safe as they enter and exit a school bus.

Some bus camera recordings have made their way onto the Internet, and they highlight the dangers some kids face when drivers fail to stop.

In the above video, three cars speed by a stopped bus with its stop-arm engaged.  A child is seen waving at some classmates while crossing in front of the stopped bus when the third car narrowly avoids hitting the kid.  Thankfully the child was unharmed in the video, but incidents like this happen all across the county on a daily basis.

One county in Georgia decided to equip their school buses with cameras, and in just over four months of monitoring traffic Cobb County had issued 412 tickets for failing to stop for a bus.  Not only are they catching perpetrators, but the cameras also act as a deterrent.

“I’ve noticed [people] are stopping more than they have in the past. I think now the word is out, so they know they had better stop,” said Brenda Turner, a bus driver in Cobb County.

Unlike the video above, the cameras in Cobb County aren’t recording during the entirety of the trip.  The cameras, which are located in the front and back of the bus, automatically turn on when the driver activates the flashing stop sign that signals the bus is coming to a stop.

“Once the stop arm is out, this camera is activated,” said Cobb Police Lieutenant Hawk Hagebak.

Stop-Arm Penalties

Although the state doesn’t have cameras on buses, stop-arm violations in Minnesota can be an expensive ticket for someone who intentionally or unintentionally passes a stopped bus.

According to Minnesota Statute 169.444:

When a school bus is stopped on a street or highway, and is displaying an extended stop-signal arm and flashing red lights, the driver of a vehicle approaching the bus shall stop the vehicle at least 20 feet away from the bus. The vehicle driver shall not allow the vehicle to move until the school bus stop-signal arm is retracted and the red lights are no longer flashing.

In addition, subdivision 1a of MS 169.444 reads “no person may pass or attempt to pass a school bus in a motor vehicle on the right-hand, passenger-door side of the bus when the school bus is displaying the pre-warning flashing amber signals”.

A stop-arm violation in Minnesota is punishable by a minimum fine of $300.  Any subsequent violations could result in increased fines, possible jail time, or both.

Related source: 11Alive.com

According to findings by the Minnesota Public Radio News and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, African-Americans in Minnesota are 12 times more likely to be the victim of a homicide by firearm than Caucasians.  The report also found that whites are much more likely to commit suicide with a gun than black Minnesotans.

The findings were first reported on Minnesota Public Radio after analysts looked into gun violence data between 2008 and 2010.  The report detailed numerous findings that provide an interesting look at how firearms are used across racial lines.  Some of the findings in the report include:

• Over the three-year period, 73 African-Americans died from gun-related homicides, while 78 Caucasian Minnesotans were killed by guns.  When adjusted for demographics, this meant that 7.3 blacks per 100,000 were killed by firearms while only 0.6 whites per 100,000 were killed by guns.

• During the same time period, 800 white residents committed suicide with a firearm, compared to 17 black Minnesotans.

• Most African-American gun homicide victims were boys or men in urban areas, while most white suicide victims were men in rural areas.

• African-Americans are less likely to own firearms than Caucasians.
• According to a separate report by the Pew Research Center, more than 70 percent of blacks said controlling gun ownership is more important than protecting second amendment rights, while only 43 percent of whites felt the same way.

Analyzing the Findings

The findings paint a contrasting picture of gun ownership and violence across racial lines.  Roxann Storms, a clinical social worker in St. Cloud, said many factors influence gun violence across different demographics.

“It’s a multifactored, complex problem,” said Storms

She offered some possible reasons behind the findings, saying:

• Rural, white suicides may be more prevalent because they have easier access to firearms and less access to mental health services.

• Research found that African-Americans in urban areas tend to be more closely connected with their family or social networks, which lessens the likelihood of suicide.

Varying Reasons for Gun Ownership

Based on the findings in the Pew report which highlighted the difference in opinion regarding controlling gun possession, it is evident that white and black communities are affected differently by firearms.  Mad Dads President V.J. Smith, who works towards curbing drug and gun crimes in Minneapolis, said stricter gun laws may help lower crime in urban areas.

“Most of our families don’t have guns in our homes for recreational use. Those guns come in from the streets and they come in from the mob; they come in from drug deals; they come in from different things,” Smith said.

Smith added that the influx of weapons through illegal activities simply spurs more illegal behavior.

“Those guns get used to rob people,” Smith said.

Gun control regulations at the state and national level are expected to continue to be hot-button issues in the coming months as legislators decide if stricter gun laws are necessary.

Related source MPR News