Minnesota fire-alarm charge defense
False Fire Alarms and Fire-Alarm Tampering in Minnesota
Minnesota Statutes section 609.686 is not one undifferentiated fire-alarm offense. Subdivision 1 reaches an intentionally false alarm and several forms of unlawful interference, damage, removal, or disturbance. Subdivision 2 elevates only a violation committed “by tampering” when the accused knew or had reason to know the tampering created a potential for bodily harm, or when the tampering actually resulted in bodily harm. The statutory definition of tampering adds intentional conduct and knowledge that a covered system or device will be disabled or rendered inoperable. A careful defense therefore begins with the exact theory, the exact component, the system’s real event history, authorization, mental state, risk, and causation—not with the broad accusation that someone “messed with an alarm.”
You will work directly with me.
If you hire me, I identify the charged clause and component, obtain the native alarm and monitoring records, reconstruct access and authorization, separate technical system states from legal conclusions, and test intent, knowledge, risk, injury, and causation. I do not assume an alarm-company label or incident-report shorthand proves the elements.
The statutory framework
The misdemeanor and felony provisions overlap but are not interchangeable. The words “by tampering” and the subdivision 3 definition do important work in a felony prosecution.
- Subdivision 1
- Intentional false alarm or specified unlawful conduct involving a covered fire-alarm or fire-protection system, device, component, support, or auxiliary appliance.
- Subdivision 2
- A felony only when the subdivision 1 violation is by tampering plus bodily-harm potential known or reasonably knowable to the person, or an actual bodily-harm result.
- Statutory tampering
- Intentionally disabling, altering, or changing a listed system or device with knowledge that it will be disabled or rendered inoperable.
- Maximums and fine framework
- Misdemeanor: 90 days and/or $1,000, with a $300 § 609.101 starting fine. Felony: five years and/or $10,000, with a $3,000 starting fine. No universal custody minimum appears in § 609.686.
The two felony alternatives have different current severity levels
The current Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines offense-severity table ranks the subdivision 2 potential-for-bodily-harm theory at severity level 1 and the results-in-bodily-harm theory at severity level 3. Those rankings do not replace offense-date research. The applicable Guidelines edition, convicted theory, criminal-history score, disposition rules, departures, and other sentencing law determine the presumptive framework; the five-year maximum is an outside ceiling, not a prediction. Section 609.101 separately supplies a $300 minimum-fine starting figure for the misdemeanor theory and $3,000 for the felony theory. A lower uniform schedule, hardship reduction to at least $50, community work service, or installments may apply under that section.
Official sources for the framework
- Minn. Stat. § 609.686 — misdemeanor theories, felony aggravation, and tampering definition
- Minn. Stat. § 609.02 — misdemeanor, bodily-harm, and mental-state definitions
- Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines § 5.B — current felony severity reference
- Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines archive — offense-date editions
Offense date matters: the statute’s present text has 1971 and 1993 history, while sentencing and collateral-consequence law has changed over time. A current summary should not be applied mechanically to an older allegation.
The misdemeanor theories must be charged and proved separately
Intentionally false alarm
The state must prove an alarm of fire was false and intentionally given, not merely mistaken or accidentally activated.
Unlawful tampering or interference
The conduct must involve a listed alarm system, protection device, station or signal box, or auxiliary fire appliance.
Unlawful damage or removal
Breaking, injuring, defacing, or removing a listed system, device, box, or station is a separate textual theory.
Connected parts and supports
The statute also lists damage, disabling, inoperability, or disturbance of connected wires, poles, supports, and appliances.
An alarm can be wrong without being intentionally false
A person may activate an alarm because of smoke, odor, heat, sparks, a perceived threat, faulty information, or a good-faith belief that fire exists. A system can activate through malfunction, construction dust, steam, water flow, a power event, maintenance, or another trigger. Section 609.686 does not state that every alarm occurring without a confirmed fire is criminal. The false-alarm clause uses “intentionally,” and chapter 609 defines that mental state. Complete witness accounts, video, emergency calls, messages, building conditions, detector history, and what the person could perceive at the time may distinguish deception from mistake or reasonable caution.
“Unlawfully” is part of the system-conduct language
The interference, damage, removal, and connected-component clauses use the word “unlawfully.” Authorized inspection, testing, repair, replacement, renovation, emergency action, or system administration can require touching or temporarily changing alarm equipment. Authority can depend on ownership, contract, work order, job scope, timing, notice, code procedure, and actual permission. A job title alone does not prove authorization, but a policy violation, incomplete form, or technical mistake does not by itself establish the criminal conclusion. The state must prove the charged statutory alternatives beyond a reasonable doubt.
The covered object should be identified, not generalized
The statute names a fire alarm system, fire protection device, alarm station or signal box, auxiliary fire appliance, and certain connected wires, poles, supports, or appliances. Modern buildings can contain detection, notification, suppression, monitoring, security, access, elevator, ventilation, and building-control equipment. Some components communicate with one another, but that does not make every building device a fire-alarm component as a matter of assumption. Plans, inspection records, manufacturer material, device addresses, alarm-company records, and qualified testimony may be needed to explain what the object was and how it functioned.
Interference, damage, and tampering are not perfect synonyms
Subdivision 1 contains several verbs. The felony, however, refers specifically to a violation “by tampering,” and subdivision 3 provides a narrower definition for that term. A complaint based on removal, defacement, disturbance, or interference should not simply label the act felony tampering without addressing intentional disabling, alteration, or change plus the required knowledge of inoperability. The distinction can affect the degree, jury instructions, plea analysis, and sentencing exposure even if the same physical event supports a misdemeanor theory.
What turns the allegation into felony tampering
The felony analysis has layers. First, the state must prove a subdivision 1 violation. Second, that violation must be committed by “tampering” as subdivision 3 defines it. Third, the state must prove at least one aggravating alternative: the accused knew or had reason to know the tampering created potential for bodily harm, or the tampering resulted in bodily harm.
| Required question | Statutory focus | Evidence that can matter |
|---|---|---|
| Was there statutory tampering? | Intentional disabling, alteration, or change of a listed system or device. | Panel exports, device state, physical inspection, video, commands, work records, and expert explanation. |
| Did the person know it would be disabled or rendered inoperable? | Knowledge of the effect, not merely contact with equipment. | Training, warnings, messages, sequence, prior tests, display prompts, duration, and restoration attempts. |
| Was bodily-harm potential known or reasonably knowable? | The potential theory and the accused’s knowledge or reason to know. | Occupancy, location, system role, duration, hazards, notice, redundancies, and surrounding circumstances. |
| Did tampering result in bodily harm? | Physical pain or injury, illness, or impairment of physical condition caused by the tampering. | Medical records, witnesses, timing, alternative causes, fire/evacuation evidence, and expert causation analysis. |
Disable, alter, or change describes conduct, while knowledge describes its understood effect
Subdivision 3 does not stop at proof that equipment changed state. It describes an intentional disabling, alteration, or change and adds knowledge that the system or device will be disabled or rendered inoperable. A person who presses an authorized test control, follows a mistaken instruction, disconnects the wrong wire, or causes an unintended state presents a different mental-state question from a person who deliberately prevents a detector or notification circuit from operating. The facts determine the answer; system logs alone may show the command but not who issued it or what that person understood.
“Has reason to know” does not erase the need for evidence
The potential theory can be alleged without actual injury, but it is not strict liability. The state must identify the bodily-harm potential and prove that the accused knew or had reason to know the tampering created it. Training, warning labels, prior incidents, the location, occupancy, hazard, obvious function, length of disablement, and statements may be relevant. So may evidence that the person reasonably believed the component was isolated, redundant, already out of service, under supervised testing, or unrelated to life safety. The guide does not invent a universal rule for when potential exists; that is a fact- and system-specific issue under the statutory language.
A false alarm by itself is not subdivision 2 tampering
The first clause of subdivision 1 criminalizes intentionally giving a false alarm. Subdivision 2 does not say that every subdivision 1 violation with risk or injury becomes a felony; it says a violation “by tampering.” If a prosecutor relies on a pulled station, transmitted signal, or panel command as both the false alarm and the tampering act, the evidence still must satisfy subdivision 3’s definition and the chosen aggravating alternative. The legal labels should follow the proven conduct rather than substitute for it.
Preserve the native system record
Fire-alarm investigations are often summarized through a building manager, technician, or police report. The native record can be much more precise. I seek the central-panel event history, device address and zone, monitoring-center signals and audio, administrator and installer logs, inspection and test exports, network or cloud records where applicable, time settings, firmware and configuration information, and the original format rather than only screenshots. Acknowledgment, silence, reset, bypass, trouble, supervisory, test, alarm, and disabled conditions can mean different things technically. Those labels help explain the system but are not themselves the statute’s elements.
Reconstruct access and attribution
Badge records, keys, login credentials, installer codes, camera footage, witness observations, device fingerprints where meaningful, work assignments, tenant access, phone data, and timing can show who had opportunity. Shared credentials, unlocked cabinets, common areas, remote access, inaccurate clocks, overwritten video, and incomplete administrator logs can create uncertainty. An account name may identify a credential without proving who used it. Physical proximity may show opportunity without proving the charged act or mental state.
Connect the local component to the larger system
A detector cover, sprinkler valve, pull station, annunciator, speaker circuit, control module, panel, monitoring approach, or power supply may have a specific role. The prosecution should establish what the identified component did, whether it was operational, what changed, what areas were affected, how long the condition lasted, and whether another system or component continued to function. A qualified fire-alarm professional may be necessary; a generic assertion that “the alarm was disabled” can hide important distinctions.
Compare every timeline
Dispatch and CAD records, fire-department arrival, monitoring calls, panel timestamps, access-control events, video, texts, work orders, and medical events may use different clocks. I preserve the originals and account for clock drift, time zones, daylight-saving settings, export conventions, manual entries, and later edits. A reliable synchronized timeline can test identity, intent, duration, warning, restoration, response, and causation.
Potential for bodily harm and actual bodily harm require different proof
The statute uses Minnesota’s bodily-harm definition
Section 609.02, subdivision 7 defines bodily harm as physical pain or injury, illness, or any impairment of physical condition. The subdivision 2 result theory therefore does not require substantial or great bodily harm, but it does require bodily harm and a supported causal connection to the tampering. A frightened reaction or inconvenience should not be relabeled as physical harm without evidence fitting the statutory definition.
The potential theory requires a concrete theory of risk
A building’s occupancy, sleeping residents, mobility limitations, industrial hazards, cooking or ignition sources, fire-watch procedures, time of day, affected zone, duration, notification coverage, suppression function, alternate alarms, staffing, and the reason for the system can all matter. The presence of redundant protection may affect the magnitude and foreseeability of risk but does not create an automatic defense. The absence of an actual fire or injury also does not automatically defeat a potential-for-bodily-harm allegation. The question is the potential created by the proved tampering and what the accused knew or had reason to know.
The result theory requires causation, not chronology alone
An alleged injury may occur during evacuation, investigation, fire response, exposure, panic, restoration, or another event. The state should identify the harm and explain how the tampering resulted in it. Medical records, patient history, EMS observations, surveillance, witness accounts, building conditions, timing, fire development, response decisions, and alternative causes may matter. If the injury would have occurred independently, followed a separate intervening event, or is supported only by a later uncorroborated summary, causation requires careful review.
Current Guidelines distinguish the alternatives
Under the current offense-severity reference, felony tampering that results in bodily harm is severity level 3, while felony tampering involving potential for bodily harm is severity level 1. The complaint, verdict form, plea basis, and conviction record should identify the theory. A negotiated or litigated resolution that changes the supported alternative can affect the presumptive sentencing framework even though both alternatives share the five-year statutory ceiling.
Questions that can narrow or defeat the allegation
The alarm was not intentionally false
Smoke, odor, steam, heat, sparks, confusing signals, a reported threat, an uncertain condition, a drill, or another fact may explain activation. The defense should reconstruct what the accused perceived and knew at the moment rather than judging the decision only after responders found no fire. Accidental contact, prank attribution based on rumor, and a malfunction also require proof beyond the mere occurrence of an alarm.
The conduct was authorized or within a legitimate function
Inspection, testing, repair, replacement, demolition, renovation, cooking operations, event management, emergency response, and owner-directed work can produce alarm or trouble conditions. Authority can be limited, and careless work can have consequences, but criminal liability should not be inferred solely from a temporary bypass or missing notice. Work scope, instructions, notice, code procedure, supervision, and restoration steps should be documented.
The identified item does not fit the charged category
A security sensor, access device, network cable, ordinary appliance, unrelated control, or component outside the system may not be the object described in the complaint. Conversely, a small device may genuinely be part of a listed protection system. The defense should use plans, manufacturer information, inspection records, and qualified testimony rather than relying on appearance or a witness’s vocabulary.
No statutory tampering occurred
The event may involve interference, disturbance, damage, removal, or a false alarm without an intentional disabling, alteration, or change made with knowledge that the system would be disabled or rendered inoperable. That distinction may leave a misdemeanor issue, another offense, a civil dispute, or no proved crime, depending on the facts. It is particularly important when the felony count merely repeats the incident description without explaining subdivision 3.
Identity or attribution is uncertain
Many people may have building access; credentials may be shared; cameras may not show the critical act; panel times may not match video; and technicians may infer a cause after the state has changed. I compare every access source with the system event, preserve alternative users, and investigate whether later maintenance changed the evidence before inspection.
The required knowledge is missing
A person may intentionally touch, remove, alter, silence, or reset something without knowing it will disable or render the covered system inoperable. The accused may misunderstand the component, believe it is deactivated for maintenance, expect redundancy to preserve operation, or follow incorrect instructions. The reasonableness and credibility of the explanation must be tested against training, prompts, warnings, experience, messages, and conduct before and after the event.
The bodily-harm alternative is unsupported
The potential theory may be abstract rather than tied to the affected area or function, or the evidence may not prove the accused knew or had reason to know of the alleged risk. The result theory may lack bodily harm within § 609.02 or a causal connection. System topology, occupancy, duration, fire-watch measures, alternate protection, medical evidence, and intervening events can change that analysis.
Evidence may be incomplete, inadmissible, or technically unreliable
Reports can omit exculpatory events, screenshots can conceal neighboring entries, timestamps can be wrong, exports can be overwritten, and an unqualified witness can overstate what a code means. Search, seizure, interrogation, authentication, hearsay, expert foundation, completeness, preservation, and lost-evidence rules may affect what reaches a jury. Technical complexity does not lower the state’s burden.
What Minnesota appellate authority does—and does not—decide
Public-source research for this audit found sparse direct modern precedent and did not locate a precedential Minnesota appellate criminal opinion comprehensively construing section 609.686’s covered-object language, “unlawfully,” potential-for-bodily-harm alternative, or result causation. The statute, chapter definitions, offense-date law, current Guidelines reference, and the actual evidence therefore carry particular importance. The absence of a comprehensive opinion is not permission to invent a bright-line rule.
In In the Matter of the Welfare of W.A.H., a 2002 Minnesota Court of Appeals decision involving a juvenile and the separate vehicle-tampering statute, the court examined legislative uses of “tampering.” It cited section 609.686’s definition—intentional disabling, alteration, or change—as an example supporting the general observation that statutory tampering definitions focus on change or alteration. The case was not a prosecution under section 609.686 and did not decide what objects the fire-alarm statute covers, what makes conduct unlawful, when bodily-harm potential exists, or how causation is proved. It should be used for that limited interpretive context only.
Before final advice, the current CRIMJIG, charged offense date, statutory version, Guidelines edition, intervening published decisions, and any local evidentiary or procedural issue must be checked. A guide can organize the analysis; it cannot substitute for the complaint, discovery, and controlling law in the actual case.
Restitution, related charges, multiple punishment, and expungement
Restitution must be tied to loss caused by the offense
A building owner, monitoring company, public agency, resident, worker, insurer, or injured person may claim repair, replacement, response, medical, relocation, lost-income, or other expense. Section 611A.04 supplies the restitution procedure, but the amount and legal recoverability should not be assumed. The defense should review invoices, labor records, betterment, depreciation, insurance, offsets, duplicate recovery, response policy, medical causation, and whether the claimed loss resulted from the offense of conviction.
Related offenses retain their own elements
The same episode may lead investigators to consider criminal damage to property, arson, burglary or trespass, disorderly conduct, emergency-call offenses, assault, obstruction, or another charge. A damaged detector is not automatically criminal damage at a particular degree; a false alarm is not automatically a fictitious emergency-call offense; and alarm tampering is not arson. Each statute has its own act, mental state, classification, and proof. The defense should map overlap without allowing one label to prove another.
Section 609.035 can affect punishment without erasing separate charges
Minnesota Statutes section 609.035 can limit multiple punishment for offenses arising from a single behavioral incident, subject to its text and exceptions. That analysis considers more than simultaneous timing and does not automatically merge counts or prevent the state from pleading alternatives. The conduct, objectives, place, time, victims, statutory exceptions, and ultimate convictions should be reviewed before predicting the effect.
Current law provides possible expungement theories
Section 609A.02 currently identifies section 609.686, subdivision 2 among felony offenses that may qualify for statutory expungement after the applicable waiting period and other conditions. The misdemeanor theory is analyzed under the current misdemeanor framework. Eligibility is not an automatic sealing order: sentence discharge, later convictions, notice, excluded records, agency positions, burden, public-safety findings, and the law when relief is sought all matter.
Employment and licensing effects depend on the disposition
A fire-alarm case can affect work involving building access, property management, fire protection, construction, electrical or low-voltage systems, security, health care, schools, housing, insurance, or public trust. Background checks and licensing rules vary. Immigration and firearm consequences also require their own legal analysis; this page does not claim that every conviction triggers the same result. Advice should use the precise disposition rather than the arrest title.
Minnesota false-alarm and alarm-tampering charges
Is every false fire alarm a felony?
No. Intentionally giving a false alarm is a misdemeanor under subdivision 1. The felony requires a subdivision 1 violation committed by statutory tampering plus either known or reasonably knowable potential for bodily harm or a bodily-harm result.
What is “tampering” under section 609.686?
Subdivision 3 defines it as intentionally disabling, altering, or changing a listed fire-alarm system or device with knowledge that it will be disabled or rendered inoperable. The exact object and effect still must be proved.
Can I be charged if no fire and no injury occurred?
Potentially. The misdemeanor theories do not require a fire or injury. The felony potential-for-bodily-harm theory can apply without actual injury if its conduct, risk, and knowledge requirements are proved. Absence of fire or injury remains relevant evidence but is not an automatic defense.
What does bodily harm mean?
Section 609.02 defines bodily harm as physical pain or injury, illness, or impairment of physical condition. The felony result theory also requires proof that the tampering resulted in that harm.
Is silencing or resetting a panel automatically tampering?
No automatic rule follows from the technical label. The state must prove the charged statutory conduct, covered system or device, intentional disabling, alteration, or change where felony tampering is alleged, the required knowledge, and the aggravating alternative. Authorization and the actual system effect matter.
What records should be requested quickly?
Native panel event history, monitoring-center signals and audio, dispatch and fire records, video, access logs, administrator records, work orders, inspections, bypass and test records, component identification, prior trouble history, and communications are often time-sensitive.
What are the maximum penalties?
A subdivision 1 misdemeanor carries up to 90 days and/or $1,000. A subdivision 2 felony carries up to five years and/or $10,000. Section 609.686 states no mandatory minimum, and the felony’s presumptive sentence requires the correct Guidelines edition, theory, and criminal history.
Can a section 609.686 conviction be expunged?
Current section 609A.02 expressly lists subdivision 2 among felonies that may be eligible, and qualifying misdemeanors have a separate theory. Eligibility does not guarantee sealing; waiting periods, discharge, later convictions, notice, exclusions, burden, and court findings must be checked under current law.
A lawyer’s file review of False Fire Alarms; Tampering with or Injuring Fire Alarm System in Minnesota
The first pass through a criminal file should be exact, not dramatic. I want the statute and subdivision, the alleged date, the conduct the State says satisfies each element, and the source for every fact that raises the degree or punishment.
Read the count as a set of propositions the State must prove
For False Fire Alarms; Tampering with or Injuring Fire Alarm System in Minnesota, the governing text begins with Minn. Stat. §§ 609.686, 609.02, 609.035, 611A.04, and 609A.02; Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines § 5.B. That citation matters because a familiar charge name can contain several statutory routes, definitions, and sentencing rules. I read the exact count, the alleged date, and every incorporated definition before deciding which facts are material and which allegations are simply part of the narrative.
Next, I connect each material fact to evidence the prosecution can actually present. The source might be a witness, a recording, a certified record, laboratory work, device data, or an admissible inference—but it should be identifiable and testable. That approach shows whether the real dispute concerns what happened, how evidence was obtained, whether it is admissible, or whether it proves the required element at all.
The evidence I would ask for first
For False Fire Alarms; Tampering with or Injuring Fire Alarm System in Minnesota, I would not begin with a canned list of defenses. I would begin with the source file: the charging paper, every police report, uncut recordings, witness interviews, warrants and returns, device and account records, photographs with metadata, expert or laboratory material, certified prior records, court orders, and any document the prosecution relies on to prove an element or increase the classification. A police summary can identify what an officer or witness says happened, but it cannot substitute for the recording, photograph, data, or document being summarized. The same is true of a complaint. It identifies the prosecution’s theory at the start of the case; it does not prove the theory.
I put those materials on one chronology. That lets me see what was known at each decision point, which account was contemporaneous, what appeared only after people spoke with one another, and where the record is silent. It also keeps an admissibility question separate from a factual one. A fact can be disputed even if the evidence was lawfully obtained. Evidence can also be accurate yet inadmissible for a particular purpose. Those are different arguments and should not be blurred together.
Read the charging document against the offense date
The alleged date matters because statutes, penalty thresholds, definitions, sentencing rules, and published decisions change. I save the version in force on that date and read the session-law history when the current online text is different. I also check whether a later amendment was merely clarifying or made a substantive change; that is a legal question, not an assumption. The same discipline applies to prior convictions and administrative events. A prior must fit the definition the charged statute actually uses, fall within any stated lookback period, and be proved by a reliable record.
I then compare the formal count with the probable-cause narrative and the discovery. If the prosecution’s theory shifts, I want the amended pleading and enough detail to prepare. If several factual alternatives are alleged, I identify whether they are separate elements, alternative means, enhancement facts, or merely evidentiary details. That distinction affects notice, motions, jury instructions, unanimity arguments, and how a verdict form should be read.
Separate an evidentiary weakness from a suppression issue
Not every troubling fact produces a motion to suppress. Suppression ordinarily requires a constitutional, statutory, or rule-based violation with a remedy that reaches the evidence at issue. A weak identification, an incomplete investigation, or a witness inconsistency may be powerful at trial without making evidence inadmissible. By contrast, a stop, search, interrogation, identification procedure, warrant, or test can raise a legal issue even when the resulting evidence appears incriminating. I analyze both tracks and do not promise dismissal simply because one problem exists.
For a search issue, I reconstruct what officers knew before each intrusion and what authority they claimed. For a statement, I examine custody, questioning, warnings, voluntariness, recording, and the complete context. For scientific or technical evidence, I request the method, underlying data, quality-control material, uncertainty information, and chain of custody. For hearsay or confrontation questions, I identify the actual statement, its purpose, the declarant, and the proposed foundation. Specificity matters; “the evidence is bad” is not a motion.
Prepare negotiation and trial at the same time
A plea decision should be compared with the case the State could present at trial, not with the complaint’s maximum penalty in isolation. I want to know the strongest admissible proof, the weakest required element, the realistic motion practice, the likely instructions, and the consequences of every proposed disposition. That includes custody, probation, treatment, restitution, driving, firearm restrictions, registration, employment or licensing, immigration consultation, family-court effects, and record consequences when they are actually triggered. I avoid telling a client that every collateral consequence applies to every conviction.
Trial preparation gives negotiation its credibility. Witness interviews, exhibit review, motions in limine, expert consultation, demonstrative evidence, jury instructions, and a clean theory of the case force both sides to confront what can be proved. Negotiation can continue while that work is underway. The two tracks are not opposites.
A case-law point worth keeping in its proper place
Appellate decisions matter, but a quotation should not be detached from the issue the court was deciding. In State v. Fleck, 777 N.W.2d 233, 236 (Minn. 2010), the Minnesota Supreme Court described sufficiency review as viewing the evidence “in the light most favorable to the conviction.” That is an appellate-review rule, not a reduction of the State’s trial burden. At trial, the prosecution still must prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt. I cite the case for the proposition it actually decided and then return to the charged statute, the jury instructions, and the admissible evidence in the present file.
What I would want you to understand before choosing an outcome
You should be able to identify the exact charge, the facts that set its level, the disputed elements, the evidence that matters most, the motions that have a legal basis, the realistic trial issues, and the concrete effect of each proposed resolution. If an answer depends on a missing report, recording, expert opinion, or certified record, I will say so. An honest answer about what remains unknown is more useful than a confident guess.