How Minnesota defines fourth-degree arson

Section 609.5631 has two subdivisions. Subdivision 1 defines the two covered settings. Subdivision 2 creates the crime and its gross-misdemeanor penalty. Unlike the felony arson statutes, fourth degree is expressly limited to personal property located inside a qualifying building.

The statute uses three verbs: a person must “set fire to,” “burn,” or “cause to be burned” personal property by fire or explosives. The State does not need to prove that the object was destroyed. A partial burn or intentional ignition can be enough when the remaining elements are established.

The prosecution must also prove that first-, second-, and third-degree arson were not committed. That limitation is substantive. Fourth degree is meant for intentional personal-property fires in sensitive shared or public settings that do not satisfy the property, building, occupancy, flammable-material, or value requirements of the felony degrees.

A classic allegation is a person intentionally igniting paper in a school wastebasket without proof of felony-level intended or foreseeable damage. Other examples can include clothing in an apartment laundry room, bedding in a dormitory, decorations in a restaurant, papers in a courthouse, or personal property in a hospital. Examples are not automatic convictions; the State still must prove identity, intent, property, location, and the absence of a higher-degree offense.

The general permit exclusion in Minn. Stat. § 609.564 (2026) expressly names first-, second-, and third-degree arson and the principal wildfire offense, but it does not name fourth degree. A claimed authorization in a fourth-degree case must therefore be analyzed through the offense’s intent and unlawfulness issues, the scope of consent, and other applicable law rather than assuming section 609.564 directly disposes of the charge.

Elements the State must prove

A fourth-degree arson prosecution ordinarily requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that:

1. The accused intentionally set fire to, burned, or caused personal property to be burned by fire or explosives.
2. The personal property was inside a multiple-unit residential building or public building as the statute defines those terms.
3. The conduct did not amount to first-, second-, or third-degree arson.
4. The offense occurred in the charged county and within the applicable time period.

Identity is not a formality. A person who reports smoke, discovers matches, appears in a hallway video, or was present near the object is not necessarily the person who ignited it. The evidence must connect the accused to the act through reliable witness, physical, digital, statement, or circumstantial evidence.

Intent must be proved. Accidentally dropping a lit match, failing to extinguish smoking material, causing an electrical overload, or mishandling a permitted device is not the same as intentionally burning personal property. A grossly negligent fire can be criminal under a different statute, but negligence cannot simply replace the mental state enacted for fourth degree.

Location must be proved as it existed when the conduct occurred. A business open to customers, a closed restaurant after hours, a school during vacation, a vacant apartment building, or a private event facility can raise classification questions. The statutory definitions and the building’s actual use should be examined.

Fourth-degree arson is not specifically listed with a longer limitations period in Minn. Stat. § 628.26 (2026). The statute’s residual three-year period generally applies, subject to any statutory exclusion that changes the calculation.

What is a multiple-unit residential building?

The statute defines a multiple-unit residential building as “a building containing two or more apartments.” Apartment buildings are the clearest example. The definition focuses on apartments, not simply on the number of people living in the structure.

A duplex can contain two apartments and fall within the text. A single-family home with several residents does not become a multiple-unit residential building merely because unrelated people share it. A house divided into separately occupied apartments may qualify even if it looks like one house from outside.

The legal status and physical use of the units can matter. Separate kitchens, bathrooms, entrances, leases, mail delivery, utility accounts, locks, addresses, and occupancy records may show whether the building actually contains two or more apartments. A basement bedroom is not necessarily a separate apartment.

Condominium ownership does not automatically answer the question. The relevant inquiry is whether the building contains apartments within the statutory meaning, not whether residents hold leases or deeds. A condominium building with separate residential units can fit ordinary usage, but counsel should examine the record rather than rely on the property’s marketing label.

Common areas are still inside the building. A hallway, laundry room, stairwell, lobby, mailroom, trash room, community room, or shared storage area can satisfy the location element if the structure itself contains two or more apartments. The personal property need not be inside the accused’s own unit.

A fire inside a dwelling can also implicate first-degree arson if the building itself is intentionally damaged. Fourth degree applies only when the first three degrees were not committed. The State and defense must distinguish burning an item inside an apartment building from intentionally damaging the residential structure.

Which public buildings are covered?

The statute lists hotels, hospitals, motels, dormitories, sanitariums, nursing homes, theaters, stadiums, gymnasiums, amusement-park buildings, schools and other educational buildings, museums, restaurants, bars, correctional institutions, places of worship, and other buildings of public assembly.

The list is illustrative but extensive. The final phrase—“other building of public assembly”—calls for comparison with the listed uses. A courthouse, community center, convention facility, meeting hall, library, auditorium, or event building may qualify depending on its function. A privately owned structure can still be a public building; ownership by government is not required.

Conversely, a building owned by a public entity is not necessarily a “public building” for this offense if it is neither one of the named uses nor a building of public assembly. A locked maintenance shed, utility structure, or equipment garage may raise a different issue from a courthouse or public gymnasium.

Businesses named by the statute remain within the definition even though they are privately owned and can exclude individuals. A restaurant or bar does not stop being a listed public building when it closes for the night. Actual building use and the statutory text are more important than whether the public was physically present at the moment.

Schools receive special attention. The definition covers a “school or other building used for educational purposes,” which can include public and private schools and other facilities actually used for education. The particular building, not the broader campus name, should be identified. A detached storage structure may not have the same use as a classroom building.

Correctional institutions and places of worship are expressly listed. A jail-cell fire involving bedding, paper, or clothing can produce a fourth-degree allegation when higher arson is not committed. Likewise, intentionally burning personal property inside a church, mosque, synagogue, temple, or other place of worship can fit the statute, apart from any bias-related or property-damage investigation.

The statute covers personal property—not the building itself

In 1999, the legislature clarified fourth-degree arson by limiting it to personal property and specifying that the first three degrees were not committed. The official House Research summary explains that the change eliminated the former reference to real property and preserved fourth degree for personal-property fires in multiple-unit residential and public buildings.

Personal property includes movable items rather than the real estate and structural building components. Paper, trash, clothing, bedding, furniture, merchandise, books, decorations, equipment, and other objects can qualify. The State should identify the specific property rather than charge “the building” under a statute that does not cover structural real property.

The distinction can become difficult when an item is attached. Built-in cabinets, carpeting, wall coverings, fixtures, and permanently installed equipment may be treated differently from freestanding furnishings. Installation method, intended permanence, ownership, and ordinary property-law treatment can matter.

If the accused intentionally damages the building itself by fire, second-degree arson may apply regardless of the building’s value, and first degree may apply depending on dwelling status, another person’s actual or reasonably possible presence, or defined flammable material. A complaint that alleges structural ignition but cites fourth degree deserves close scrutiny.

Fourth degree does not state a dollar threshold. That does not make value entirely irrelevant. The object must be property, and evidence of condition and worth can affect whether a higher degree applies, whether the item was actually damaged, restitution, credibility, and negotiation. But the prosecution does not have to establish the more-than-$300 third-degree bracket to prove fourth degree.

Smoke, water, sprinkler, and suppression damage to other property may change the analysis. If foreseeable unintended damage reaches the third-degree threshold, the statute says fourth degree applies only when third degree was not committed. Investigators must account for the full event, not only the object first ignited.

Why first-, second-, and third-degree arson must be ruled out

Fourth degree is not simply a lower penalty chosen whenever the prosecutor prefers. Its text makes the absence of the first three degrees part of the offense’s scope. The charging decision should therefore include a degree-by-degree review.

First degree. Minn. Stat. § 609.561 (2026) can apply when a dwelling or connected structure is intentionally damaged, when a nonparticipant is present in a non-dwelling building and the accused knows it, when presence is a reasonable possibility, or when defined flammable material starts or accelerates a non-dwelling building fire.

Second degree. Minn. Stat. § 609.562 (2026) applies to a non-first-degree building regardless of value or to other real or personal property worth more than $1,000. If the evidence proves intent to damage a wall, floor, door, or other building component, the matter may not remain fourth degree.

Third degree. Minn. Stat. § 609.563 (2026) reaches specified intended property worth more than $300 but less than $1,000, foreseeable unintended property damage of $300 or more, and a qualifying aggregate. A small intended fire that triggers extensive foreseeable sprinkler or smoke damage can raise this issue.

Fourth degree. The gross misdemeanor remains when personal property is intentionally burned in a covered setting but none of those felony degrees is committed. A common example is low-value personal property intentionally ignited and quickly extinguished without qualifying structural or foreseeable additional damage.

Fifth degree. Minn. Stat. § 609.5632 (2026) is a misdemeanor for intentionally burning real or personal property of value. The key difference from fourth degree is the protected setting. Fifth degree can apply outside a multiple-unit residential or public building, while fourth degree addresses personal property inside one.

Intentional burning versus accident or negligence

Fourth-degree arson requires intentional burning conduct. A person need not intend a major fire, but the State must prove the person intentionally set fire to, burned, or caused personal property to be burned. Carelessness is not enough.

A student may strike a match as a joke, a tenant may leave a candle too close to fabric, a restaurant employee may mishandle cooking flame, or a resident may discard smoking material. The conduct can be dangerous and still require analysis of whether the property burning was intended, grossly negligent, or accidental.

Minn. Stat. § 609.576 (2026) separately criminalizes certain grossly negligent fires that get out of control and cause injury or property damage. Gross negligence is not a lesser word for intent. A negotiated reduction from arson to negligent fire can reflect a genuine difference in the proven mental state.

Intent is often inferred from actions: repeated ignition attempts, placing flame directly against an object, selecting combustible materials, using a lighter after a warning, adding fuel, moving the object to conceal the flame, walking away, or admitting the act. Those facts must be considered in context.

Children and adolescents may use imprecise language about intent. Saying “I lit it” does not necessarily answer what the child intended to burn, whether the child expected ignition, or whether the statement resulted from suggestion. Age does not eliminate responsibility, but it matters to interrogation, waiver, credibility, juvenile procedure, and disposition.

Fire experimentation and curiosity are not defenses by name. They may bear on intent and appropriate juvenile intervention. When the evidence proves deliberate property ignition, claiming curiosity alone does not erase the act; the legal and dispositional response still depends on the facts.

School fires, student questioning, and juvenile cases

Fourth-degree arson frequently appears in schools because a school is expressly defined as a public building and students can have access to paper, wastebaskets, restrooms, lockers, laboratories, art supplies, and ignition devices. School discipline and juvenile delinquency are separate proceedings with different rules and consequences.

A principal, school resource officer, fire investigator, and police detective may question a student in sequence. Statements to each can be compared and used. Whether Miranda warnings were required depends on custody and law-enforcement interrogation; whether any statement was voluntary depends on the totality of circumstances.

Relevant circumstances include the child’s age, maturity, intelligence, education, disability, prior experience, whether a parent was present, the setting, interview length, number and roles of adults, whether the child could leave, requests for a parent or lawyer, promises, threats, and the child’s ability to understand.

A school official does not automatically become a police agent whenever the official asks questions, and a uniformed officer’s presence does not automatically decide custody. The sequence and coordination matter. Counsel should obtain school video, office logs, emails, notes, reports, body-camera footage, audio, written statements, and policies.

Minn. Stat. § 609.5633 (2026) creates a separate petty misdemeanor when a student uses an ignition device inside an educational building under circumstances presenting an obvious fire risk and first- through fourth-degree arson was not committed. Authorized use is excluded. The difference between using a lighter and intentionally burning property can determine whether the allegation is a petty offense or gross misdemeanor.

A juvenile case can result in diversion, programming, restitution, probation, placement, or other dispositions depending on age, history, needs, damage, risk, and local options. Early assessment of mental health, developmental disability, trauma, impulse control, and fire-setting behavior can be important without conceding the charged elements.

Evidence police, schools, and prosecutors use

Video and access records. Hallway cameras, door access, class attendance, hotel keys, employee badges, apartment entry systems, and witness observations may establish who could reach the location. Camera time drift, blind areas, image quality, and missing footage must be checked.

Ignition devices. Matches, lighters, torches, fireworks, batteries, or chemicals may be recovered. Possession is not the same as use. Fingerprints, DNA, purchase records, residue, location, ownership, and whether others had access can affect weight.

Scene evidence. Investigators document the item, origin, damage, surrounding combustibles, smoke detectors, sprinklers, suppression, ventilation, burn patterns, debris, and possible accidental sources. Quick extinguishment may preserve unusually useful evidence.

Statements. Admissions, denials, jokes, threats, texts, searches, and social-media messages may be offered as intent or identity evidence. The original recording and full conversation are more reliable than a paraphrased report.

Witnesses. Students, residents, employees, patrons, staff, firefighters, and building managers may describe odors, smoke, timing, behavior, prior disputes, property condition, and access. Group discussion can contaminate memory, especially in school investigations.

Property evidence. The State must show personal property was burned. Photographs, the item itself, ownership testimony, receipts, and repair or disposal records can matter. Structural damage, sprinkler loss, and smoke damage must be identified separately because they can affect the charged degree.

Digital evidence. Phone location, messages, photographs, search history, shared videos, and account activity can be relevant. Attribution matters when devices and passwords are shared or a post has been forwarded, edited, or stripped of context.

Defenses to fourth-degree arson

No intentional burning. The fire may have resulted from accident, ordinary negligence, an electrical or mechanical failure, or gross negligence rather than intent. The prosecution bears the burden of proving deliberate property ignition.

Mistaken identity. Presence near smoke, ownership of a lighter, or discovery of the fire does not prove who started it. Video, witness reliability, opportunity, alibi, physical evidence, and alternative suspects must be examined.

The location was not covered. The building may contain only one residence, lack two apartments, or not be a named public use or building of public assembly. The State should prove actual building use rather than rely on a broad label.

The item was not personal property. If the allegation concerns only land or a structural building component, section 609.5631 may not fit. That issue can also expose a higher charge, so it should be evaluated strategically rather than raised in isolation.

No property was burned. Using a lighter or match under risky circumstances does not necessarily mean an object caught fire. A student may instead face the petty-misdemeanor ignition-device statute if its elements are proved.

A higher degree was not properly excluded. The State has to use instructions consistent with the statute and the proven property. Confusion among structural damage, personal property, intended value, and foreseeable unintended loss can make the charging theory legally incoherent.

Statement evidence should be suppressed or given little weight. Custody, warnings, voluntariness, juvenile understanding, requests for a parent or lawyer, school-police coordination, threats, promises, and interrogation tactics may affect admissibility or reliability.

Evidence lacks foundation. Video, digital records, laboratory results, photographs, prior acts, and hearsay must satisfy evidentiary requirements. A school rumor or investigator’s conclusion is not a substitute for admissible proof.

Group conduct, accomplice liability, and attempt

Group incidents are common in schools, dormitories, correctional facilities, bars, and apartment common areas. Minnesota does not make every person in the group guilty because one person lights an object.

Under Minn. Stat. § 609.05 (2026), the State may pursue accomplice liability when a person intentionally aids, advises, hires, counsels, conspires with, or otherwise procures another to commit the offense. The prosecution must prove intentional assistance, not mere presence, laughter, friendship, filming, or failure to report.

Supplying a lighter with knowledge of the plan, encouraging the ignition, blocking a door, acting as a lookout, selecting the property, or helping conceal evidence may support an aiding theory depending on context. A person who merely happens to be there or learns of the fire afterward is not automatically an accomplice.

Jury instructions must explain how liability for another person arises. A vague instruction that someone may be liable for another’s act without the statutory requirements risks conviction based on association.

Minn. Stat. § 609.17 (2026) governs attempts. Whether an unlit pile of paper, a failed ignition, or interrupted conduct constitutes a substantial step toward fourth-degree arson depends on intent, acts beyond preparation, location, and the identified personal property.

Jail exposure, probation, restitution, and disposition

Fourth-degree arson is a gross misdemeanor. The maximum sentence is 364 days in jail, a $3,000 fine, or both. The 364-day maximum is stated in the offense statute and is consistent with Minn. Stat. § 609.03(2) (2026).

Minnesota’s felony Sentencing Guidelines grid does not set a presumptive prison term for this gross misdemeanor. District courts consider the offense, criminal history, victim impact, damage, safety risk, acceptance of responsibility, treatment needs, restitution, negotiated agreement, and other lawful factors.

Under Minn. Stat. § 609.135 (2026), a court can stay imposition or execution and place a person on probation with appropriate conditions. Conditions may include jail, home detention, monitoring, treatment, counseling, restitution, fines, community work service, no contact, or restrictions involving the building.

Restitution can include damage directly caused by the offense. Even a small ignited item can trigger sprinkler discharge, smoke cleanup, evacuation costs, damaged contents, or business interruption. The amount must be supported and causally connected; a defendant may challenge inflated, duplicative, speculative, or unrelated losses.

A conviction can also violate school discipline, employment policy, lease terms, probation in another matter, or professional rules. Those consequences may exceed the immediate jail sentence. A resolution should be evaluated for its effect on housing, education, licensing, immigration, and future background checks.

Juvenile dispositions are governed by the juvenile system rather than adult gross-misdemeanor sentencing. The court may consider accountability, public safety, treatment, family circumstances, development, school needs, restitution, and programming. The delinquency adjudication still matters and should not be treated as inconsequential.

Criminal record, employment, housing, and expungement

A gross-misdemeanor arson conviction appears in criminal-history searches and can concern landlords, schools, employers, insurers, licensing boards, and organizations responsible for public or residential buildings. The offense label may carry weight beyond the actual size of the fire.

Employment involving schools, health care, vulnerable people, corrections, hospitality, property management, security, maintenance, or access to facilities may involve statutory or employer background-review rules. The effect depends on the position, disposition, time since discharge, and governing law.

A noncitizen should obtain immigration advice before a plea. The state classification as a gross misdemeanor does not decide federal immigration consequences. Plea language, admitted facts, and sentence can matter.

Expungement is more available than it is for many felony arson convictions. Minn. Stat. § 609A.02, subd. 3(a)(4) (2026) permits a petition after a gross-misdemeanor conviction when the petitioner has not been convicted of a new crime for at least three years since discharge of the sentence. Eligibility does not guarantee relief; the court applies the statutory process and balancing standards.

A favorable resolution, diversion, stay of adjudication, dismissal, or delinquency matter may present different sealing rules and timelines. Court records, executive-branch records, school records, private databases, and online material do not all respond identically. Counsel should analyze the exact disposition.

Because expungement timing runs from discharge of the sentence for a conviction-based petition, completing probation and financial obligations matters. Keep the sentencing order, discharge document, restitution proof, and final case register.

What official Minnesota opinions show

In re Welfare of C.R.C., No. C9-01-500, slip op. at 2–6 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2001) (nonprecedential), arose from a middle-school restroom wastebasket fire. A fourteen-year-old student was questioned by administrators, a school liaison officer, and an arson investigator. The State initially alleged fourth-degree arson and negligent fire; the case resolved as a negligent-fire adjudication.

The Court of Appeals assessed voluntariness under the totality of circumstances, including age, maturity, intelligence, education, experience, parental presence, and comprehension. It concluded the statements were voluntary on that record. The court also noted that the student conceded he was not technically in custody. The decision demonstrates why the precise setting and questioning sequence matter.

C.R.C. is nonprecedential and applied the law and record before the court in 2001. It should not be read as permission to question every student without warnings, a parent, or counsel. A modern case requires its own custody, voluntariness, disability, and agency analysis.

State v. Williams, 759 N.W.2d 438, 443–46 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009), is a published arson decision addressing liability for another person’s conduct. The court reversed because the jury was permitted to consider another person’s act without being instructed on the law of accomplice liability. It stated: “Mere presence at the scene of a crime does not, by itself, prove liability for the crime of another.”

Williams matters when a group is present in a restroom, dormitory, apartment common area, restaurant, or other public setting. The State must prove which person acted or establish intentional assistance under a valid legal theory; it cannot convict the group by association.

The opinions reinforce two practical points. Statements from a school investigation can decide the case, so admissibility and reliability must be examined early. And when several people are present, the instructions must keep identity and accomplice liability separate.

What to do after a fourth-degree arson allegation

Do not discuss the facts in a group chat. Messages sent after the event can look like story coordination or concealment. Preserve the thread and obtain advice before responding to accusations.

Save video quickly. Schools, apartments, hotels, restaurants, and businesses may overwrite surveillance within days. Identify every camera, request preservation through counsel, and note any device that captured the area.

Preserve the item and scene information. Obtain photographs of the burned property, surrounding area, smoke detectors, sprinklers, structural condition, and cleanup. Do not enter a restricted area or remove evidence.

Document the building’s use. Leases, floor plans, occupancy records, business information, event schedules, and photographs may matter if the statutory location is disputed.

Separate school discipline from criminal questioning. A student and parent should understand who is asking questions, whether police are involved, whether the student can leave, and how the statement may be used. A request to speak with counsel should be made clearly.

Do not guess. Times, locations, who held a lighter, what first burned, and who was present can be reconstructed from video and records. An inaccurate guess may later be portrayed as a lie.

Address underlying needs without conceding guilt. Fire-safety education, mental-health care, substance-use treatment, impulse-control work, or developmental assessment may be valuable. Counsel can help present treatment responsibly without turning it into an admission.

Obey building and witness restrictions. Follow school exclusions, trespass notices, release conditions, and no-contact orders. Challenge or modify them through proper procedures rather than returning without authorization.