Like many states, North Dakota criminalizes statements or conduct that are referred to as terrorizing. These threats are serious crimes that can have far-reaching consequences.
You might wonder, What is terrorizing? In this article, the Fargo, North Dakota criminal defense lawyers of Arechigo and Stokka will help you get a better understanding of the laws surrounding such threats.
The state of North Dakota treats these alleged incidents very seriously. You’ll find yourself facing serious penalties if you are accused of making an alleged terrorizing statement.
It is vital to seek the advice of a criminal lawyer immediately. To get started, contact us online or call 701-645-5836.
What Is Terrorizing?
Terrorizing is a criminal act that involves using threats or intimidation to create fear in a person or a group of people with the intention of causing harm or destruction.
In North Dakota, terrorizing is defined under the state’s criminal code as the act of threatening to commit a violent crime with the intent to:
- Terrorize the general public;
- Cause the evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation;
- Cause severe disruption to the operations of any governmental entity; or
- Cause severe disruption to the operations of any business, commercial enterprise, or educational institution.
It’s important to note that not all threats of violence rise to the level of a terrorizing offense. A threat must meet the elements above to constitute terrorizing.
Penalties
The severity of the charges and penalties for terrorizing depends on the specific circumstances of the incident.
In North Dakota, the offense is treated ais a Class C felony, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
For more severe offenses, such as those that involve the use of a deadly weapon or result in a severe disruption to public services, the penalty may be up to 20 years in prison and a fine of up to $20,000.
The severity of the penalty for terrorizing in North Dakota depends on the specific circumstances of the case.
For example, if the threat was made with a deadly weapon, the penalty may be more severe than if no weapon was involved.
Additionally, if the threat causes the evacuation of a building or disrupts a business or public service, the penalty may also be more severe.
Contact Us Today
Threats of Violence
Even if a threat doesn’t rise to the level of terrorizing, it can have serious consequences.
For example, threatening to harm another person verbally or through physical actions can also be a criminal offense.
Depending on the severity of the threat and whether any harm was caused, the penalty for this type of offense can vary from a fine to several years in prison.
It’s important to note that even if a threat of violence is not considered a terrorizing under North Dakota law, it can still be a serious offense with significant legal consequences.
Charges Dismissed: Threats of Violence and Harassment
THE CASE: Client was charged with one count of Felony Conspiracy to Commit Threats of Violence and one count of Misdemeanor Harassment. The charges stemmed from five very brief Snapchat videos that the state alleged our client conspired with J.C. to send to A.B. A.B. had a protective order against J.C. at the time the videos were sent. The videos were largely of J.C. Music was playing in the background of the videos. The state alleged the music contained certain lyrics that it interpreted to be threatening to A.B.THE DEFENSE: The lack of evidence to support the charges was clear from the beginning of the case. It appeared that J.C. and A.B. had their own history and the state was trying to rope our client into these latest allegations. Several free speech issues always exist in cases where the state alleges song lyrics were intentionally conveyed as a threat to harm another individual. In this case, the state alleged that our client knew and intended the lyrics to convey a threat to commit a crime of violence against A.B. We quickly filed a Motion to Dismiss for a Lack of Probable Cause arguing free speech issues and insufficient evidence to support the charges.
THE RESULT: Despite the state’s efforts to convince the Judge that it had sufficient evidence to prosecute our client, the Judge disagreed. The Judge rightfully determined that there was not evidence to support an accusation that our client conspired with J.C. to threaten A.B.’s safety and did not harass A.B.
The Judge fully dismissed our client’s felony case. We’re now in the process of sealing our client’s records.