Minnesota House Bill HF559

Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/13/25
• Refer: 2/13/25

Caption

Restitution for public agencies and victims affected by the reporting of fictitious emergency provided.

Summary

HF559 amends Minnesota’s fictitious emergency statute to require restitution when a person is convicted of reporting a fake emergency. Under the bill, a sentencing court must order the offender to pay full and complete restitution to the public agency that responded, covering the reasonable costs of the emergency response, and to any direct victim harmed by the false report. The bill also clarifies that restitution ordered under this section does not prevent additional civil liability. In other words, paying court-ordered restitution would not limit a victim’s or agency’s ability to seek greater damages through a separate civil action or proceeding. The measure is focused on public safety, emergency response costs, and compensation for those directly affected by hoax emergency reports.

Impact

HF559 would add a new restitution requirement to Minnesota Statutes section 609.78, which addresses false or fictitious emergency reports. It would make restitution mandatory in cases involving the reporting of a fictitious emergency, shifting emergency response costs from public agencies and victims to the offender. The bill affects criminal sentencing, restitution orders, and potential civil claims by preserving separate liability beyond the restitution amount.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be framed as a public safety and accountability bill with no recorded committee debate or vote history in the provided materials. The caption and language suggest a straightforward effort to ensure that those who trigger emergency responses through false reports bear the financial consequences. There is no evidence in the supplied record of organized opposition or amendments, but the absence of transcripts means sentiment can only be inferred from the bill’s purpose.

Contention

The main policy issue is whether restitution should be mandatory and whether it should cover both public agency response costs and direct victim losses. Another possible point of contention is the bill’s statement that restitution does not limit civil liability, which could be viewed as preserving full remedies for harmed parties but also increasing the financial exposure of offenders. No specific legislators, agencies, or advocacy groups are identified in the provided materials as supporting or opposing these provisions.