In-depth legal guide
Minnesota Kidnapping and False Imprisonment Defense
Minnesota restraint offenses require careful separation of kidnapping, false imprisonment, consent, authority, age, movement, confinement, purpose, and release facts.
You will work directly with me.
If I take your case, I begin with the actual papers and evidence, not the shorthand label attached to the charge. We will go through what the prosecution must prove, what the penalty language means in your circumstances, and which facts or legal issues may shape your options. You should understand both what is known and what still needs to be investigated before making an important decision.
How the statute applies
Compare the degrees and related charged alternatives
Felony
- Maximum or consequence
- Up to 40 years/$50,000 when the victim is not released safely or suffers great bodily harm; otherwise up to 20 years/$35,000.
- Minimum or mandatory provision
- No single minimum applies to every kidnapping theory; weapon and other sentencing statutes can change the floor.
- Elements and classification facts
- The state must prove confinement or removal without consent or lawful authority and the specific statutory purpose.
The section contains one or more offense-specific penalty provisions. The complaint’s exact subdivision and the facts used to select a tier control the charge level.
- Maximum or consequence
- The section contains multiple ceilings, including up to three years and/or $5,000; up to 364 days and/or $3,000; up to two years and/or $4,000; up to five years and/or $10,000. The charged subdivision controls.
- Minimum or mandatory provision
- This section does not state one minimum sentence for every theory. The charged subdivision, criminal history, Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines, and any separate mandatory-sentence statute must be checked.
- Elements and classification facts
- The prosecution must prove the specific prohibited act and mental state required by Minn. Stat. § 609.255. The evidence must address: the precise prohibited act and required mental state; statutory definitions, exceptions, and incorporated provisions; identity, timing, context, and witness reliability; and classification, history, and penalty-setting facts. Any definition, cross-reference, prior offense, or other fact used to increase the class or penalty also requires proof.
Why this matters for Minnesota Kidnapping and False Imprisonment Defense: the issues shown above—movement restraint or confinement, lack of consent or lawful authority, purpose age and safe-release facts, communications location and witness evidence—may change the applicable theory, classification, or sentence. The offense date and the statute effective on that date must be checked before relying on any summary.
Why the maximum is not the likely sentence
Sentencing context for Minnesota Kidnapping and False Imprisonment Defense: The statutory maximum for a Minnesota felony is the outer ceiling—not a prediction. The applicable Guidelines grid uses the conviction offense’s severity level and the person’s criminal-history score to identify a presumptive disposition and duration, subject to mandatory statutes and lawful departures.
Official sources for this summary
- Minn. Stat. § 609.25 — kidnapping acts, four purposes, release-based penalties, injury, and age alternatives.
- Minn. Stat. § 609.251 — effect of kidnapping on conviction and punishment for other crimes.
- Minn. Stat. § 609.255 — false imprisonment and unreasonable restraint of a child.
- Minn. Stat. § 609.02 — injury and offense definitions.
- 2026 Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines — current kidnapping and false-imprisonment severity levels.
- Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines archive — offense-date editions.
Important: This summary of Minnesota Kidnapping and False Imprisonment Defense cannot calculate a sentence or replace a review of the complaint. Before advising you, I verify the exact subsection, effective date, definitions, enhancements, criminal history, guidelines or class rules, and controlling decisions.
Start with the statute, not the label
Kidnapping requires a listed purpose. False imprisonment centers on intentional unauthorized restraint or the specialized caretaker-child provision.
Separate grading facts from core elements
Safe release, great bodily harm, age, caretaker status, duration, cruelty, and injury level determine different alternatives.
Preserve the sequence
Complete messages, video, location data, door and vehicle evidence, medical records, and witness timing can test the restraint narrative.
Minnesota kidnapping and false imprisonment answer different legal questions
Both statutes concern liberty, but they do not criminalize the same conduct. Kidnapping under § 609.25 requires confinement or removal without the consent identified by the statute and a purpose to hold for ransom, reward, shield, or hostage; facilitate a felony or flight; commit great bodily harm or terrorize; or hold the person in involuntary servitude. False imprisonment under § 609.255, subdivision 2, requires intentional confinement or restraint while knowingly lacking lawful authority and without the legally relevant consent. Subdivision 3 creates a separate child-restraint offense for a parent, legal guardian, or caretaker.
The first defense decision is therefore not “how long did it last?” It is which statute and subdivision were charged, who was allegedly restrained, whose consent controlled, what legal authority existed, whether movement as well as confinement is alleged, and whether the state claims a kidnapping purpose. Age, injury, safe release, caregiver relationship, and weapon findings then determine separate elements, grading alternatives, sentencing levels, and collateral consequences.
| Charge approach | Distinctive proof | Maximum | 2026 severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kidnapping—safe release, no great bodily harm | Confinement or removal, required absence of consent, one of four listed purposes, safe release, and no great bodily harm. | 20 years / $35,000 | Level 6 |
| Kidnapping—not released in a safe place | The kidnapping elements plus failure to release the person in a safe place. | 40 years / $50,000 | Level 8 |
| Kidnapping—great bodily harm | The kidnapping elements plus great bodily harm during the kidnapping. | 40 years / $50,000 | Level 9 |
| Kidnapping—person under 16 | The kidnapping elements and proof that the person kidnapped was under 16. | 40 years / $50,000 | Level 8 |
| False imprisonment—subdivision 2 | Intentional confinement or restraint, knowledge that lawful authority was absent, and the required absence of consent. | 3 years / $5,000 | Level 3 |
| Child restraint—subdivision 3(a) | Covered caregiver, child under 18, and intentional unreasonable physical restraint for a prolonged period in a cruel and excessive manner. | 364 days / $3,000 | Gross misdemeanor |
| Child restraint—demonstrable harm | All subdivision 3(a) elements plus resulting demonstrable bodily harm. | 2 years / $4,000 | Level 3 |
| Child restraint—substantial harm | All subdivision 3(a) elements plus resulting substantial bodily harm. | 5 years / $10,000 | Level 4 |
The comparison table states statutory ceilings and the felony severity levels effective August 1, 2026. A maximum is not a prediction. The offense-date Guidelines edition, convicted approach, criminal-history score, statutory ceiling, custody status, any mandatory law, and lawful departure issues determine the sentencing analysis. The gross-misdemeanor child-restraint approach is not ranked on the felony grid.
The age threshold and source of consent change by statute
| Situation | Whose consent or authority matters | Records and facts to examine |
|---|---|---|
| Kidnapping, person age 16 or older | The restrained person’s consent; the state must also prove one of § 609.25’s four purposes. | Initial agreement, scope, withdrawal, threats, force, deception, exits, communications, movement, and purpose evidence. |
| Kidnapping, person under 16 | Consent of a parent or legal custodian, not merely the child’s apparent willingness. | Age, parentage, custody and guardianship orders, placement authority, permission, theory, destination, and purpose. |
| False imprisonment subdivision 2, someone else’s child under 18 | Consent of the child’s parent or legal custodian, plus proof the accused knowingly lacked lawful authority. | Age, legal custodian, custody documents, delegated authority, permission, accused’s knowledge, and mechanics of restraint. |
| False imprisonment subdivision 2, any other person | The restrained person’s consent, plus proof of intent and knowing lack of lawful authority. | Words and conduct, ability and attempt to leave, doors, threats, physical control, emergencies, and claimed legal authority. |
| False imprisonment subdivision 3 | The issue is not simply consent. The state must prove a parent, guardian, or caretaker intentionally imposed the specifically prohibited child restraint. | Care relationship, physical method, reason, duration, cruelty, excessiveness, alternatives, monitoring, and any resulting injury. |
An invitation into a house or car does not necessarily authorize later restraint. Consent may be limited or withdrawn. Conversely, a later disagreement does not make every earlier movement nonconsensual. When a child is involved, the applicable age threshold and identity of the parent or legal custodian must be established from records, not assumption. State v. Niska, 514 N.W.2d 260 (Minn. 1994), illustrates the importance of legal-custodian consent and the relationship between kidnapping and false imprisonment.
Kidnapping requires a purpose that false imprisonment does not
A kidnapping count must identify why the person was confined or removed. Clause (1) concerns ransom, reward, shield, or hostage. Clause (2) concerns facilitating a felony or flight after a felony. Clause (3) concerns committing great bodily harm or terrorizing the person or another. Clause (4) concerns involuntary servitude. The state may use words, demands, planning, destination, companion conduct, communications, and post-event actions as circumstantial evidence, but the purpose must accompany the confinement or removal.
False imprisonment subdivision 2 does not require one of those four purposes. A case may contain evidence of intentional restraint without proof of a kidnapping purpose. Subdivision 3 asks a different question again: whether a covered caregiver intentionally imposed unreasonable physical restraint on a child for a prolonged period and in a cruel manner excessive under the circumstances. The statutes should not be arranged as a simple ladder based only on distance or seriousness.
Short movement can still matter, but not every forceful act becomes a separate kidnapping
In State v. Budreau, 641 N.W.2d 919 (Minn. 2002), the Minnesota Supreme Court rejected a fixed substantial-time or substantial-distance requirement for kidnapping. Decisions including State v. Smith, 669 N.W.2d 19 (Minn. 2003), and State v. Welch, 675 N.W.2d 615 (Minn. 2004), address whether restraint or movement was more than conduct completely incidental to another alleged offense. These principles are complementary: the statute has no mileage rule, but the state must still establish legally sufficient, separately punishable kidnapping conduct in context.
The chronology should identify restraint before, during, and after any alleged assault, robbery, sexual conduct, or other companion offense. Moving a person to another place, extending restraint after the companion offense could have ended, creating a separate danger, or using confinement for an additional objective may support a distinct theory. Force inseparable from another offense presents a different question. The correct analysis uses the complaint, evidence, jury instructions, and actual appellate holdings.
Alternative purposes and multiple distinct acts are different unanimity questions
State v. Pendleton, 725 N.W.2d 717 (Minn. 2007), treated the four kidnapping purposes as alternative means on the record before it. State v. Keyes, No. A23-1400 (Minn. 2026), clarified that when a single count is supported by multiple distinct acts, each independently capable of proving an element, a properly requested specific-unanimity instruction is required as to the distinct act. A case involving one restraint and several descriptions of purpose differs from a case involving separate restraints in different rooms, vehicles, or time periods.
Safe release, injury, age, caregiver status, and weapon findings do different legal work
Kidnapping’s two statutory ceilings depend on release, injury, and age. When the person is released in a safe place without great bodily harm, the maximum is 20 years and/or $35,000. The ceiling becomes 40 years and/or $50,000 if the person was not released in a safe place, suffered great bodily harm during the kidnapping, or was under 16. “Safe place” requires facts about who ended the restraint, the location, time, weather, isolation, access to help, the person’s condition, and any continuing danger. Escape or rescue is not automatically the same as release.
False imprisonment’s child-restraint theory uses different injury terms. Demonstrable bodily harm produces the two-year subdivision 3(b) felony. Section 609.255 does not separately define that phrase, so it should not be rewritten as another injury category. Substantial bodily harm produces the five-year subdivision 3(c) felony and is defined in § 609.02 as temporary but substantial disfigurement, temporary but substantial functional loss or impairment, or a fracture. Great bodily harm is a still different definition used in the kidnapping penalty approach.
| Issue | Kidnapping | False imprisonment |
|---|---|---|
| Core act | Confinement or removal without required consent and for one of four listed purposes. | Subdivision 2 intentional restraint while knowingly lacking authority, or subdivision 3’s prohibited caregiver-child restraint. |
| Age effect | Under 16 changes the source of consent and independently selects the 40-year / $50,000 approach. | Under 18 changes the source of consent in subdivision 2 and is required in subdivision 3; age alone does not select an injury tier. |
| Injury effect | Great bodily harm selects the 40-year / $50,000 approach and severity level 9 in the 2026 Guidelines. | Demonstrable harm selects subdivision 3(b), level 3; substantial harm selects subdivision 3(c), level 4. |
| Release effect | Safe release without great bodily harm selects the 20-year approach; unsafe release selects the 40-year approach. | Release location does not create the same statutory penalty division, though duration and how restraint ended remain relevant evidence. |
| Weapon statute | Section 609.11 lists kidnapping and contains weapon, firearm, fact-finder, minimum-term, and departure provisions. | Section 609.11 also lists false imprisonment; the charged subdivision, statutory maximum, required finding, and offense date must be reconciled. |
| Registration | Section 243.166 includes felony kidnapping in its charge-and-conviction framework. | False imprisonment is not listed in that same kidnapping clause; registration cannot be assumed from the offense label alone. |
| Firearm-law classification | Felony kidnapping is within § 624.712’s crime-of-violence definition. | Felony convictions under § 609.255 are within that definition; the gross-misdemeanor child-restraint approach is not a felony conviction. |
| Domestic-offense classification | Section 609.02, subdivision 16, lists kidnapping as a qualified domestic violence-related offense. | The same definition lists false imprisonment; later use still depends on the governing statute, relationship, disposition, and record. |
The 2026 severity table confirms why the exact approach matters
For offenses on or after August 1, 2026, kidnapping is ranked at severity level 6 for safe release without great bodily harm, severity level 8 for failure to release in a safe place, severity level 9 for great bodily harm, and severity level 8 when the person kidnapped was under 16. False imprisonment subdivision 2 and subdivision 3(b) are severity level 3; subdivision 3(c) is level 4. Subdivision 3(a) is a gross misdemeanor and is not placed on the felony grid.
The severity level is only one input. The conviction offense and criminal-history score locate a presumptive grid cell, subject to the statutory maximum, custody-status rules, any mandatory statute, multiple-count rules, and lawful departures. An earlier alleged offense requires the Guidelines edition effective on that date. The current table cannot be applied backward by default, and the 364-day gross-misdemeanor maximum should not be substituted for an older version without checking the effective law.
Section 609.11 requires an actual finding, not merely weapon language in a report
Section 609.11 lists kidnapping and false imprisonment among applicable offenses. It includes terms for qualifying nonfirearm dangerous-weapon use and firearm possession or use, requires the fact finder to determine the qualifying fact at verdict or plea, and contains a departure mechanism with limitations. The specific offense, maximum, item, manner of use, timing, accomplice theory, prior record, notice, finding, and offense-date statute all require review. An officer’s description of an object as a weapon does not itself establish the mandatory-sentence prerequisites.
Companion convictions, registration, and firearm consequences should be evaluated before a plea
Section 609.251 provides that kidnapping prosecution or conviction is not a bar to conviction or punishment for another crime committed during the kidnapping. It does not prove any companion offense or resolve every multiple-offense and sentencing issue. Assault, robbery, criminal sexual conduct, threats, firearm offenses, interference with an emergency call, or another count must stand on its own elements and evidence.
Section 243.166’s kidnapping theory is charge-sensitive: it reaches a person charged with felony kidnapping and convicted of that offense or another offense arising from the same circumstances. A plea to an amended offense may therefore leave a registration issue. False imprisonment does not appear in that kidnapping clause, so registration should not be claimed merely because the final offense involved restraint. Another independent registration basis could still require analysis in a particular case.
Section 624.712 includes felony convictions for kidnapping and false imprisonment in its crime of violence definition for Minnesota firearm law. The definition is used by other statutes and does not state the entire prohibition or restoration analysis. Section 609.02, subdivision 16, separately lists both offenses as qualified domestic violence-related offenses. Those classifications make the final offense level, relationship, disposition, offense date, prior record, federal law, and Minnesota restoration rules important.
Child-restraint allegations require a different evidence horizon
A subdivision 3 false-imprisonment case may require evidence covering days, weeks, or repeated incidents rather than one short encounter. The state must prove a covered parent, guardian, or caretaker; a child under 18; intentional unreasonable physical restraint; prolonged duration; a cruel manner; excessiveness under the circumstances; and any charged injury result. Tying, locking, caging, and chaining are statutory examples, not an exclusive list.
Care plans, custody and placement records, home or facility video, smart-lock history, photographs, school attendance, medical records, food and medication access, incident reports, training, supervision, device timestamps, and witness observations may show what actually occurred. Safety or therapeutic authority can be relevant, but a plan or policy does not automatically make every method reasonable. The precise authorization, emergency, monitoring, duration, alternatives, and accused’s knowledge matter.
A synchronized chronology is more reliable than a collection of accusations
For an acute event, I preserve complete message threads, original recordings, 911 audio, dispatch logs, body-camera and squad video, building surveillance, door and access data, vehicle telematics, rideshare records, phone-location information, photographs, medical records, and neutral witness accounts. Original files and metadata help establish time and sequence. A short clip can omit an invitation, a threat, a later attempt to leave, or what ended the restraint.
Each item should be assigned to a proposition. Location data may show movement but not consent or purpose. Medical records may show injury but not who caused it or whether it resulted from the restraint. A custody order may establish authority but not reasonableness of a particular method. A statement may reveal purpose but require a voluntariness or context analysis. This prevents one dramatic fact from being used as proof of every element.
The defense chart should show the decision consequences of every supported approach
For kidnapping, the rows are identity, confinement or removal, consent, selected purpose, incidental-restraint doctrine, distinct acts and unanimity, safe release, great bodily harm, age, companion offenses, weapon findings, registration, and restitution. For subdivision 2 false imprisonment, the rows are intentional act, knowledge of lacking authority, identity of the relevant consent-giver, and mechanics of restraint. For subdivision 3, the chart adds relationship, physical method, duration, cruelty, excessiveness, injury category, and causation.
That chart allows a proposed resolution to be evaluated by more than the number of months in an offer. It shows felony or gross-misdemeanor status, maximum, Guidelines rank, firearm classification, domestic-offense status, registration exposure, no-contact or custody implications, immigration or licensing questions, and restitution. Section 611A.04 permits qualifying itemized losses caused by the offense, with notice and an opportunity to respond. Restitution is separate from a criminal fine.
Frequently asked questions about Minnesota restraint charges
What is the central difference between kidnapping and false imprisonment?
Kidnapping requires confinement or removal without the required consent for one of four purposes listed in § 609.25. False imprisonment subdivision 2 requires intentional restraint while knowingly lacking lawful authority but does not require one of those purposes. Subdivision 3 is a separate caregiver-child restraint offense.
Does Minnesota kidnapping require movement over a long distance?
No fixed minimum distance or duration appears in § 609.25. Budreau rejects a substantial-distance rule, while Smith and Welch require analysis of whether restraint was more than conduct completely incidental to another offense.
Why do ages 16 and 18 both appear in restraint cases?
Kidnapping uses parent or legal-custodian consent for a person under 16, and under-16 status also selects a higher penalty approach. False imprisonment uses parent or legal-custodian consent for someone else’s child under 18, and subdivision 3 applies to a child under 18.
How does safe release affect a kidnapping charge?
Release in a safe place without great bodily harm carries a maximum of 20 years and/or $35,000. Failure to release in a safe place, great bodily harm, or a person under 16 selects the 40-year and/or $50,000 approach.
What must the state prove for unreasonable restraint of a child?
The accused must be a parent, legal guardian, or caretaker who intentionally imposed unreasonable physical confinement or restraint on a child under 18 for a prolonged period and in a cruel manner excessive under the circumstances. Any injury enhancement requires additional proof and causation.
What are the 2026 severity levels?
Kidnapping is level 6 for safe release without great bodily harm, level 8 for unsafe release, level 9 for great bodily harm, and level 8 for a person under 16. False imprisonment subdivision 2 and subdivision 3(b) are level 3; subdivision 3(c) is level 4.
Can an amended plea still have major collateral consequences?
Yes. A felony kidnapping charge may trigger § 243.166’s charge-and-conviction registration framework even after conviction of another offense from the same circumstances. Felony convictions under either restraint statute are included in § 624.712’s crime-of-violence definition, and both offenses are listed as qualified domestic violence-related offenses.
A lawyer’s file review of Minnesota Kidnapping and False Imprisonment Defense
A useful defense analysis starts by slowing the case down. The title of the charge is not an element, and the largest number in a penalty provision is not a prediction. I read the count, the incorporated definitions, and the alleged facts side by side before I tell a client what I think.
Read the count as a set of propositions the State must prove
To understand Minnesota Kidnapping and False Imprisonment Defense, I start with Minn. Stat. §§ 609.25 and 609.255 and the version of the law in effect on the alleged date. The offense classification sets the outer framework, but it does not tell us what happened or what the state can prove. I then identify every fact that could change the charge or sentence and look for the record, testimony, or forensic evidence that supports—or contradicts—each one.
From there, I build a proof map. For every required element, I identify the witness, recording, document, test result, or admissible inference the prosecution would rely on, then compare that source with the rest of the file. This separates a disputed fact from a search, statement, or admissibility issue and keeps the analysis focused on problems that can actually affect the case.
The evidence I would ask for first
For Minnesota Kidnapping and False Imprisonment Defense, 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.