The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled on August 19, 2026, that requiring Chad Loran Siegel to register as a predatory offender after being acquitted of kidnapping violates his substantive due process rights. This decision impacts individuals charged with predatory offenses but later acquitted, clarifying their registration obligations under Minnesota law.
In this case, Siegel was charged with kidnapping, attempted murder, and assault in connection with a violent incident in 2013. After a trial, the court acquitted him of the kidnapping charges, but he was convicted of assault. Despite his acquittal, the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) mandated that he register as a predatory offender based on the initial charges. This ruling from the state’s highest court has significant implications for how the law treats individuals in similar situations.
The parties involved in this case are Chad Loran Siegel, the appellant, and Drew Evans, the respondent, who is the Superintendent of the BCA. The dispute arose from Siegel's requirement to register as a predatory offender under Minnesota Statutes section 243.166, despite being acquitted of the charges that triggered this registration. The case reached the Minnesota Supreme Court after Siegel challenged the registration requirement, arguing it violated his due process rights.
Siegel's legal battle began after he was charged with two counts of kidnapping, attempted second-degree murder, and first-degree assault in 2013. The trial court acquitted him of the kidnapping charges, and the jury found him guilty of assault. Following his conviction, the BCA required him to register as a predatory offender based on the kidnapping charges, which led to his appeal. Siegel argued that the registration requirement was unconstitutional and violated his rights.
The Minnesota Supreme Court's ruling reversed the decision of the court of appeals, which had previously upheld the BCA's requirement for Siegel to register. The court concluded that requiring registration after a judgment of acquittal on the predatory offense violated Siegel's substantive due process rights under the Minnesota Constitution. Justice Thissen stated, "Requiring a person to register as a predatory offender based on a predatory offense for which the person was charged but subsequently acquitted... violates that person’s substantive due process rights." The court emphasized that an acquittal signifies that the individual is to be treated as innocent of the crime charged.
The ruling also highlighted that Minnesota's law is unique in imposing registration requirements on individuals charged with predatory offenses, regardless of conviction. The court noted that this approach could lead to unjust consequences for those acquitted of such charges. The judges involved in the ruling included Justice Thissen, along with Justices McKeig and Moore, who concurred in part and dissented in part.
This decision has significant implications for the future of predatory offender registration in Minnesota. It clarifies that individuals who are acquitted of predatory offenses cannot be required to register based on those charges. This ruling may lead to changes in how the BCA and other authorities interpret and enforce the registration requirements, potentially affecting many individuals in similar situations.
Going forward, this ruling may prompt legislative changes to clarify the registration requirements under Minnesota law. Additionally, it raises questions about the potential for appeals or further legal challenges regarding the statute of limitations, as the court remanded the case to the court of appeals to address whether Siegel's claim was barred by the statute of limitations. This aspect of the case remains to be determined, and it could influence future cases involving predatory offender registration.