## Facts

- Curtis Lowell Grover was the principal of an elementary school and a mandated reporter under Minn. Stat. § 626.556 (1986).
- The State charged Grover with two misdemeanor counts of failing to report suspected child abuse under Minn. Stat. § 626.556, subd. 6 (1986).
- The charges stemmed from a 1987 police investigation into allegations that a teacher at Grover’s school sexually abused students.
- Police learned of parental complaints made directly to Grover that he did not report to law enforcement or social services, including:
  - Spring 1986: a mother reported the teacher had pinched her son’s buttocks twice.
  - Late 1986: another mother reported the teacher had squeezed her 11-year-old son’s buttocks.
- The State also noticed other-acts evidence (Minn. R. Evid. 404(b)) of alleged nonreporting:
  - February 1984: a mother reported the teacher choked her son, leaving marks on his neck.
  - September 1984: a mother reported the teacher patted her daughter’s buttocks and nearly choked her son in a bathroom.
- Grover moved pretrial to dismiss, asserting the reporting statute was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad and violated the First Amendment by compelling speech.
- The district court dismissed the charges on constitutional grounds; the State appealed, and the Minnesota Supreme Court took the case by certification.

## Issues

1. Whether Minn. Stat. § 626.556, subd. 6 (1986) is unconstitutionally vague because it fails to provide fair notice of when a report is required and permits arbitrary enforcement.
2. Whether the statute is unconstitutionally overbroad and violates the First Amendment by compelling mandated reporters to communicate allegations of abuse.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held the statute is not unconstitutionally vague because it provides adequate notice of the reporting duty and workable standards for enforcement.
- The court held the statute is not unconstitutionally overbroad and does not violate the First Amendment because it regulates professional duties and does not compel endorsement of allegations’ truth.

## Legal Principles

- A statute is void for vagueness only if it fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence reasonable notice of the required or prohibited conduct or encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.
- Mandated-reporting statutes may constitutionally require covered professionals to report when they “know or have reason to believe” a child is being abused or neglected.
- A reporting requirement directed to child protection is treated as regulation of professional conduct; any communicative element is incidental and does not, without more, create unconstitutional compelled speech.
- Requiring a report based on “knowledge or reason to believe” does not force the reporter to attest that the allegations are true; it requires transmitting information so authorities can investigate.

## Conclusion

The Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Minnesota’s child-abuse reporting law, rejecting vagueness and First Amendment overbreadth challenges, and reinstated the misdemeanor failure-to-report charges for further proceedings.


State v. Grover, 437 N.W.2d 60 (Minn. 1989)