of Appeals Office of Appellate Courts
C. Backstrom, Dakota County Attorney, Phillip D. Prokopowicz,
Chief Deputy County Attorney, Helen R. Brosnahan, Assistant
County Attorney, Hastings, Minnesota, for appellants Leslie
and State of Minnesota.
Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Saint
Paul, Minnesota, for respondent.
Swanson, Attorney General, Michael Everson, Assistant
Attorney General, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for amicus curiae
Minnesota Attorney General.
Nelson, Legal Director, American Civil Liberties Union of
Minnesota, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for amicus curiae American
Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota.
district court exceeded its lawful authority when, in a
criminal proceeding and without the authorization of any rule
or statute, it granted a motion and issued an order to
restrain a non-party to that proceeding.
writ of prohibition issued.
January 14, 2016, the Dakota County Attorney, on behalf of
the State of Minnesota, charged Respondent John David Emerson
with second-degree assault with a dangerous weapon.
See Minn. Stat. § 609.222, subd. 1 (2016). The
district court found there was probable cause for the charge
and Emerson was arrested. At Emerson's first appearance,
and upon his counsel's oral motion, the district court
issued an oral order restraining Timothy Leslie, the Dakota
County Sheriff (the Sheriff), from collecting Emerson's
deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) for law enforcement
identification purposes under Minn. Stat. § 299C.105,
subd. 1(a)(1)(iii) (2016). See also Minn. Stat.
§ 299C.155 (2016). The district court's oral order
was followed by its written findings of fact, order, and
supporting memorandum, which rejected an argument by the
State that the district court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction to hear and decide Emerson's
Sheriff filed a petition for a writ of prohibition, asking
the Minnesota Court of Appeals to prohibit the district court
from enforcing its order against the Sheriff. The court of
appeals denied the Sheriff's petition, concluding that
the district court had subject matter jurisdiction and did
not abuse its discretion or commit an error of law in
granting Emerson's motion. The Sheriff then filed a
petition for review, which we granted. We now reverse.
there are issues of law, we review the court of appeals'
decision to deny an extraordinary writ using a de novo
standard of review. State v. Hart, 723 N.W.2d 254,
257 (Minn. 2006). A writ of prohibition may be issued only
(1) an inferior court or tribunal [is] about to exercise
judicial or quasi-judicial power; (2) the exercise of such
power [is] unauthorized by law; and (3) the exercise of such
power [will] result in injury for which there is no adequate
State v. Deal, 740 N.W.2d 755, 769 (Minn. 2007)
(alterations in original) (quoting Minneapolis Star &
Tribune Co. v. Schumacher, 392 N.W.2d 197, 208 (Minn.
1986)). We ...