County District Court File No. 23-CR-15-871
Swanson, Attorney General, Karen B. McGillic, Assistant
Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Brett A. Corson,
Fillmore County Attorney, Preston, Minnesota (for respondent)
Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender,
Jennifer Workman Jesness, Assistant Public Defender, St.
Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Bratvold, Presiding Judge;
Schellhas, Judge; and Jesson, Judge.
the Minnesota predatory-offender-registration statute,
Minnesota Statutes § 243.166 (2014), is not a penal
statute, compliance with the requirements of that statute
does not implicate the Fifth Amendment privilege against
Adam LaFountain appeals his felony conviction, arguing that
the requirement of the Minnesota
predatory-offender-registration statute that he inform law
enforcement of his address change violates his Fifth
Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Because the
predatory-offender-registration act is not a penal statute,
it does not implicate the constitutional privilege against
self-incrimination. Further, because LaFountain's
statements to the investigator were made when he was not in
custody, they are not covered within the scope of that
privilege. We therefore affirm.
who was convicted of third-degree criminal sexual conduct in
2006, was required to register as a predatory offender under
Minnesota law. See Minn. Stat. § 243.166, subd.
1b(a)(1)(iii). He completed the necessary registration
paperwork at that time. On October 15, 2015, however,
LaFountain, who had a history of violating conditions of
release, was convicted of felony failure to register. See
id., subd. 5(a). He received a 24-month stayed sentence
and was required to continue to fulfill registration
thereafter, on November 9, 2015, Fillmore County
sheriff's deputies confirmed with LaFountain's former
landlord that, three weeks earlier, he had moved from the
address he had listed on the predatory-offender registry. A
deputy visited LaFountain's employer listed on the
registry and learned that LaFountain had not been employed
there for two weeks.
November 17, 2015, LaFountain entered the law enforcement
center in Preston and told a sheriff's investigator that
he needed to update his predatory-offender-registration
information. LaFountain accompanied the investigator to a
computer to access the registry. Examining the dates in the
system, the investigator noticed that LaFountain appeared to
have moved from his listed address more than a few days
earlier. He mentioned this to LaFountain, who responded that
he had been evicted from that address and was supposed to
leave on October 16, but he still had some items there and
had not moved until four or five days earlier. The
investigator told LaFountain that a report had been forwarded
to the county attorney's office, based on possible
noncompliance with registration due to his failure to notify
law enforcement of his address change at least five days
before moving to that address. See Minn. Stat.
§ 243.166, subd. 3(b).
state charged LaFountain with violating the
predatory-offender-registration statute by failing to timely
notify law enforcement of his change of address. LaFountain
moved to suppress evidence of his statements on his
predatory-offender-registration paperwork to the
investigator, arguing that they were made in violation of his
Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
evidentiary hearing on the motion, the investigator testified
that LaFountain volunteered that he knew that he was supposed
to change his address in the system at least five days before
moving to a new address. The investigator did not
Mirandize LaFountain because no arrest was made.
See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444-45, 86
S.Ct. 1602, 1612 (1966).
testified that he had provided his new address because it was
"either supply the information or be charged
criminally." He acknowledged that he understood that, if
he did not register, he could be charged with felony failure
to register. He testified that "life doesn't happen
by the book with[in] five days, " and he believed he was
doing the right thing by coming in to update his
district court issued an order denying the motion to
suppress. The district court held that LaFountain's
statements in his Bureau of Criminal Apprehension file
acknowledging that he understood the registration
requirement, as well as his statements to the investigator,
did not violate his Fifth Amendment privilege against
self-incrimination. The district court concluded that the
predatory-offender-registration statute was civil and
regulatory, rather than penal, so that the two elements
required for the Fifth Amendment to apply-compulsion and
incrimination-were not present, and that LaFountain's
statements were not protected by the Fifth Amendment.
LaFountain waived his right to a jury trial, the district
court found him guilty of failure to register as a predatory
offender and sentenced him to a presumptive 30-month
sentence. This appeal follows.
the predatory-offender-registration statute a civil and
regulatory statute, rather than a penal statute, so that
LaFountain's statements relating to its registration
requirements do not give ...