The Minnesota Court of Appeals has reversed a lower court's decision that dismissed felony charges against Trevon James Mattson for impersonating a peace officer. The ruling clarifies the definition of "violation" in the context of Minnesota law, impacting how similar cases may be prosecuted in the future.
This decision affects Mattson, who faced charges after allegedly using an unmarked SUV equipped with emergency lights to pull over other drivers. The court's ruling emphasizes the importance of statutory language in determining legal outcomes.
The case began when law enforcement received reports in July 2025 about a Chevrolet Tahoe that appeared to be impersonating a police vehicle. The SUV was reported to have multicolored lights and was attempting to pull over drivers on Interstate 94. Upon stopping the vehicle, police found Mattson inside, wearing a vest with law enforcement-like equipment and claiming to work for a security agency.
Mattson was charged with four counts of impersonating a peace officer under Minnesota Statutes section 609.4751. One of the charges was a felony, based on the claim that he had previously violated the same law within five years. However, the district court dismissed the felony charge, stating that a "violation" required a formal adjudication of guilt, which the state could not prove.
The state appealed this dismissal, arguing that the district court misinterpreted the word "violation". According to the state, the term should encompass any failure to comply with the law, not just instances where a person has been formally convicted.
The court ruled that the word "violation" in the felony-enhancement provision of section 609.4751 includes conduct that fails to comply with the statute, not just formal adjudications of guilt. The court stated, "The word 'violation' as used in the felony-enhancement provision of Minnesota Statutes section 609.4751, subdivision 3, includes a failure to comply with the requirements of the statute and is not limited to a formal adjudication of guilt." This ruling was made by Judge Cochran, with a dissent from Judge Smith.
The court's decision means that the felony charge against Mattson will be reinstated, and the case will be sent back to the lower court for further proceedings. This outcome is significant as it clarifies how the law will be interpreted in similar cases moving forward, particularly regarding the definition of violations in criminal statutes.
The ruling could have broader implications for future cases involving impersonation of law enforcement, as it establishes that prior conduct, even without a conviction, can be considered in charging decisions. This may lead to more stringent enforcement of laws against impersonating officers and similar offenses.
As for what comes next, the case will return to the district court, where the felony charge will be addressed. There is also the possibility that Mattson could appeal this ruling to a higher court, but details on any such plans were not available in the court filing.