The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled this week that wishing harm on another person does not constitute a terroristic threat.
It’s a somewhat surprising ruling, as its not often that appeals courts overturn cases of free speech. However, that’s exactly what they did in the case of Gregory Allen Olson. According to case details, Olson was pulled over on his way to Chiasgo City after a night of heavy drinking. Olson was physically and forcefully removed from the car after refusing to exit the vehicle, and he was placed under arrest on suspicion of driving under the influence after deciding not to participate in field sobriety tests. After being placed in the squad car, Olson made some questionable yet protected remarks to the arresting officer, stating:
“It is no wonder people are killing you guys. . . . I truly hope that you are one of the cops that gets their head blown off. . . . I truly hope that because I have done nothing wrong. I stopped to make a f—ing phone call because I got beat up. You guys are ***holes.”
The comments continued as he was taken to the hospital for medical care, allegedly saying:
“I hope someone puts a slug in your head, you loser. It is no wonder people are shooting you guys all the time. You see it all the time. There is going to be a lot more.”
Slew Of Charges
Olson was eventually charged with a number of different offenses, including fleeing a peace officer, test refusal, fourth-degree DWI, obstructing legal process, failure to obey a peace officer, fifth degree assault and making terroristic threats. He was eventually convicted on all counts, but he later appealed the charge of making terroristic threats, stating that his words did not meet the legal definition of a threat, which states that “a threat must communicate that the person will act accordingly.”
Here’s what the chief judge Edward Cleary said in the 3-panel decision:
“Olson did not say that he would kill the trooper. Olson’s statements conveyed his hope that the trooper would have his head blown off, or that someone would put a slug in the trooper’s head, and generally predicted more violence against police officers. But Olson’s statements did not communicate direct threats that Olson would act accordingly.
In contrast, Olson did not engage in either verbal or physical conduct that indirectly communicated a threat that he would commit future crimes of violence. The record reflects that Olson was confused, whether from drinking or a head injury, and frustrated with his arrest. Although Olson was verbally abusive and his statements were offensive, those statements did not indirectly communicate that Olson had the purpose to commit those acts. Olson’s statements did not amount to indirect threats to commit a future crime of violence.”
Olson also argued that he shouldn’t be be sentenced for both DWI and test refusal because Minnesota law does not allow two sentences for the same behavioral incident. The Court of Appeals agreed, and they threw out his 90-day DWI conviction and sent his refusal case back to a lower court so they could adjust that sentence.
