6 days Ago By Tom Olsen
DULUTH — The city’s police department has an “almost endless” workload when it comes to internet crimes against children, Chief Mike Ceynowa said. There were at least 90 active cases involving abuse material or other allegations at last check earlier this month — a crunch similarly felt by members of the St. Louis County Sheriff’s Office.
ADVERTISEMENT But investigations have essentially ground to a halt in recent months, officials said, as a result of a change in judicial practice that has left authorities unable to search the contents of electronic devices. “These investigations are just stopped dead in their tracks,” St. Louis County Attorney Kim Maki said.
“We can't do anything to further those investigations and get them ready for prosecution.” The issue is a matter of jurisdiction. Since 2011, the Duluth and Superior police departments and St.
Louis and Douglas County sheriff’s offices have pooled their resources to streamline investigations involving digital technology. The Lake Superior Forensic Technology and Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force is physically housed at the Superior Police Department — and judges in Minnesota’s 6th Judicial District no longer believe they have the authority to order searches that occur in Wisconsin. But the abrupt change in longstanding practice came with little explanation, leaders said, and it has left law enforcement and prosecutors scrambling to find legal remedies.
“This has had a major impact on some of our worst cases,” Sheriff Gordon Ramsay said. “It's dire, and we're trying to figure out solutions to not cause any further delays.” How the lab works The task force was born out of a growing demand for the analysis of electronic data.
Most serious crimes involve some use of technology, officials noted, and the distribution of child sexual abuse material is prevalent online. ADVERTISEMENT Superior had already established a forensic lab, and law enforcement on both sides of the bridge saw efficiency and cost savings in bringing highly specialized and expensive technology under one roof — while also allowing for a much quicker turnaround than sending devices to their respective state labs. The lab houses seven staff members from the four agencies and Homeland Security Investigations, with multiple computers for each investigator connected to restricted government networks and a secure, independent server.
“You're talking about a very expensive proposition for communities, and communities our size, to have a lab that deals with child sexual abuse material,” Ceynowa said, “because there are special considerations and requirements of where and how that data can be stored so it doesn’t get back out onto the internet. ..
. And I think it speaks to all of us being financially cognizant to our taxpayers, being able to collaborate to go after dangerous offenders who are exploiting our most vulnerable.” The task force has two primary functions.
First, it investigates the possession, distribution and production of child sexual abuse material, as well as child solicitation, child exploitation and child sex trafficking. Second, the lab is responsible for processing devices seized in hundreds of investigations across the Northland every year — homicides, robberies, burglaries, drug sales and assaults — and returning that data to the lead investigator in the respective agency. “It's been a model across the country,” Ramsay noted.
“We’ve had agencies all over the country asking how it works, how we got the money — and we got significant federal funding as well as state funding to build it.” Judges: No jurisdiction While the practice was routine for the past 14 years, Maki said, late last year the Duluth bench suddenly stopped granting search warrants for electronic devices when the extraction would occur at the Superior lab. ADVERTISEMENT The county attorney said numerous attempts have been made to clarify the basis for the decision, but officials have only been told that the judiciary “unanimously decided” based on undisclosed training.
The police chiefs, sheriffs, city attorneys and county attorney and district attorney on either side of the border sent a seven-page letter in March to all 16 judges of the 6th District requesting a reversal of the decision. The leaders outlined the history and procedures of the task force and cited statutory authority that they said allows for the joint powers agreement, noting all investigative activities are conducted by licensed Minnesota police officers. “Members of the St.
Louis County Attorney’s Office have spent countless hours researching the law and have sought the bench’s insight but to date have been unable to find legal support for the bench’s refusal to sign these warrants,” the officials wrote. “This reversal from the previous 14 years of jurisprudence does not appear to be prompted by any change in legal authority, statute or appellate case law.” Chief Judge Leslie Beiers issued a one-paragraph response, stating that judges “simply do not have jurisdiction to order searches in another state” and indicating warrants must be obtained in Douglas County.
“I appreciate your concerns and the difficulties you are experiencing,” Beiers wrote. “As you know, technology and the law is a rapidly changing field. As judges, we are bound to follow the law.
Our judges have received extensive training on a state and national level with regard to this issue, and we are acting consistently with our training.” In response to questions from the News Tribune, the Minnesota Judicial Branch additionally cited 2020 legislative changes to statutes governing police searches and interception of communications. ADVERTISEMENT “These amendments, coupled with recent judicial training by national experts in digital communication case law, prompted the change,” spokesman Kyle Christopherson wrote in an email.
Christopherson said he could not speak to whether any past cases could be reopened and challenged due to judges authorizing searches that occurred in Wisconsin. He reiterated that Minnesota authorities need to present warrant applications to judges in Douglas County to use the Internet Crimes Against Children lab. “Minnesota judges do not have jurisdiction to sign a Wisconsin search warrant, just as judges in Wisconsin do not have jurisdiction to sign a Minnesota search warrant,” Christopherson wrote.
“A judge in the state where the search warrant will be executed must sign the search warrant.” Legal moves ahead The interpretation, officials said, has placed the agencies in a cross-border tug-of-war while stalling major investigations. Douglas County District Attorney Mark Fruehauf said he isn’t yet convinced that Wisconsin judges have the authority to review and grant warrant applications from Minnesota officers for Minnesota crimes that have no connection to Wisconsin.
ADVERTISEMENT “Another thing is just the workload concern, and maybe that can be managed,” he said. “But, I mean, it sounds like a pretty sizable number of warrant applications monthly and yearly, and we’re a two-judge county.” While Maki and Fruehauf’s offices are continuing legal research, the unusual rift between the judiciary and local law enforcement and prosecutors may end up at the Minnesota Court of Appeals.
If the situation cannot be resolved, Maki said the county attorney’s office intends to submit the backlog of warrant applications. Assuming they’ll be denied, or told the data can only be extracted in St. Louis County, the office could then seek a writ of mandamus — a rare order directing government officials, in this case the district judges, to perform a specific duty.
Minnesota has statutes outlining the process for other evidence that can cross state lines, such as warrants that are routinely obtained for Google or Facebook records, as well as for wiretapping. It’s not as clear cut for data stored directly on cellphones and other devices, but Maki said her office’s belief is that judges have authority because the data is located within St. Louis County when warrants are obtained.
It’s not uncommon for other evidence to be sent out of state for forensic analysis, she noted. For example, the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension sends devices to an outside forensics company called Cellebrite, and local authorities have used a lab in Pennsylvania to analyze blood samples in drug overdose cases to determine if murder charges should be filed. “So we're kind of surprised by this, that they're taking this stance,” Maki said, “because it really could have a statewide effect and put a huge damper on public safety.
” ADVERTISEMENT Decision has major effects Law enforcement leaders said establishing a forensic lab in Duluth would not be a simple proposition. Aside from finding adequate space, it would take six months to a year to build and cost an estimated $500,000-$1 million to staff over three years, while Superior and Douglas County could no longer afford to maintain their own lab. Moving the whole operation across the bay would pose significant hurdles as well, officials said, due to obligations under the federal and state grants that help fund the lab.
Ceynowa said workarounds could be established for evidence in many case types, but there are stringent requirements for the handling of evidence related to child sexual abuse material. There is “no shortage of work,” he said, and delays can amount to a “denial of justice.” “There are people out there victimizing the most vulnerable among us,” the chief said.
“We’re in a place in time where kids are all over social media and being influenced and exploited on some of these platforms. And to be paralyzed to react because we’re unable to obtain this electronic data is very concerning.” Ramsay added that offenders sharing or receiving material online are often found to be abusing children in the community.
“For our investigators, it’s also demoralizing to them,” the sheriff said. “They pour their heart and soul into these cases.”.
