Establishing secure connection…Loading editor…Preparing document…

Minnesota Rules Chapter Revisor of Statutes

This template is fully customizable. Edit the text, fill out the fields, and send it for signature. Give it a try!

FUGITIVE COMPLAINT

CRIMINAL FORM 9-805

First Discussion Draft

February 25, 1999

9-805

[For use with Magistrate Court Rule 6-810 and
Metropolitan Court Rule 7-810]

STATE OF NEW MEXICO

COUNTY OF ] COURT No.

STATE OF NEW MEXICO

V.


Defendant

FUGITIVE COMPLAINT

The State of New Mexico alleges that the above-named defendant is subject to
extradition from this state to the State of

(check applicable alternative)

The defendant is charged in the State of with the crime of

The defendant has been convicted in the above state of the crime of
and has

escaped from confinement.

violated terms of release or bail.

violated terms of probation.

violated terms of parole.

The reason I believe that the defendant is the person identified in the fugitive warrant
is:

(check all that apply)

a copy of an NCIC message, teletype, warrant, indictment, information, affidavit,
       judgment of conviction or sentence so indicating is attached.

the mode of transportation of the defendant.

the physical description of the defendant.

the date of birth of the defendant.

the name of the defendant.

Other:

(set forth other aspects showing that the defendant is the person sought in the
other state)

The crime with which the defendant was charged or convicted is punishable in the
above state by death or by imprisonment of more than one year.

CRIMINAL FORM 9-805

First Discussion Draft

February 25, 1999

The defendant was arrested on at and is
confined in the [county] [city] jail.

I SWEAR OR AFFIRM UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THIS
FUGITIVE COMPLAINT IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY INFORMATION
AND BELIEF. I UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE
SUBJECT TO THE PENALTY OF IMPRISONMENT TO MAKE A FALSE
STATEMENT IN A FUGITIVE COMPLAINT.

Date

Officer's signature

Title

USE NOTE

This form may be used only if the defendant is charged with
a felony. If the defendant is charged with a misdemeanor a
complaint and arrest warrant must be used.

[Adopted, effective October 1, 1996.]

Enter text✕
Prepare your document for signing right on this page
  • 01 Edit the text and complete the fields
  • 02 Click Sign Now and on the next screen add recipients and signature fields in SignNow
  • 03 Start your free trial to sign and send your doc
Sign Now

What the Minnesota Rules Chapter Revisor of Statutes Covers

The Minnesota Rules Chapter Revisor of Statutes refers to the procedural and editorial framework used to prepare, update, and publish rule and statute text under Minnesota law. It covers the revisor's role in drafting statutory language, maintaining consistent numbering and formatting, and coordinating technical corrections. This chapter guides how statutory edits are recorded, how legislative amendments are reflected in official codification, and how revisions are presented for publication to ensure legal clarity and alignment with legislative intent and existing statutory structure.

Why the chapter matters for drafting and publication

Clear revisor procedures reduce drafting errors, speed integration of amendments, and ensure statutes remain internally consistent. Proper use of the chapter avoids conflicting language and supports reliable publication of the official code for courts, agencies, and the public.

Why the chapter matters for drafting and publication

Who relies on the revisor chapter and when they engage

Use the chapter whenever formal edits affect statutory text, numbering, or cross-references to ensure official publication follows Minnesota revisor standards.

  • Legislative staff preparing bill language for introduction and codification
  • State and local agency counsel submitting rule changes or technical corrections
  • Private counsel and law firms drafting legislative fixes or statutory enactments

Typical signatories and roles

Revisor of Statutes

The Revisor's office reviews proposed statutory language for technical accuracy, numbering, and drafting style; the Revisor certifies final text for publication and maintains the official codification of Minnesota statutes.

Agency Counsel

Agency attorneys submit proposed amendments or corrections, coordinate with legislative staff and the Revisor for precise wording, and ensure statutory changes reflect policy while complying with drafting rules.

Core elements of a compliant revisor submission

Effective submissions follow a standard structure that highlights the change, provides exact language, and explains scope. Consistency here prevents downstream interpretation issues and speeds codification.

Clear amendment text

Provide exact strike-through and underlined replacement language or a precise plain-language replacement so the Revisor can adopt the change without interpretation.

Statute citation

Cite the exact Minnesota Statute section number targeted for amendment to avoid misapplication and to guide correct placement within the code.

Legislative intent note

Optional explanatory language clarifies purpose and scope of change and assists the Revisor when reconciling technical drafting needs with policy goals.

Effective date

State the intended effective date using MM/DD/YYYY format or descriptive language tied to enactment; ambiguous dates impede codification scheduling.

Cross-reference updates

Identify related sections or definitions that must be revised to maintain internal consistency across the statutes.

Formatting instructions

Indicate desired formatting conventions, capitalization, and numbering changes to match official publication standards.

Step-by-step: preparing a revisor submission

Follow a clear sequence: draft precise text, confirm citations, include rationale, choose effective date, and route to Revisor for technical review.

  • 01
    Draft precisely: Write exact language to be inserted or removed.
  • 02
    Verify citations: Confirm section numbers and cross-references.
  • 03
    Add rationale: Provide a short explanation of purpose.
  • 04
    Submit to Revisor: Send formatted text and contact details for review.

Configuring an electronic workflow for submissions

Set up your workflow to track drafts, approvals, and the final certified text before sending to the Revisor for publication.

Field Configuration
Upload Document PDF or DOCX with tracked changes and clean formatting
Assign Role Drafter, reviewer, agency head, Revisor
Authentication Method Email link, SMS code, or organization SSO
Notification Settings Enable reminders for outstanding reviews

Technical considerations for eSubmission

Confirm retention and export policies so the finalized, certified text can be archived and reproduced for public access and legal reference.

  • File formats: PDF, DOCX supported
  • Integrations: Commonly integrates with government records systems
  • Security: TLS in transit, AES-256 at rest

Typical electronic submission flow

A standardized eSubmission path reduces administrative friction: authoring, internal review, approval, Revisor review, certification, and publication.

  • Authoring: Create precise amendment text
  • Internal review: Legal and policy checks
  • Approval: Authorized sign-off recorded
  • Revisor review: Technical verification and codification

Timing considerations and publication windows

Plan submissions around legislative sessions, agency publication schedules, and codification cycles to avoid missed updates.

Legislative session cutoffs:

Submit before session or committee deadlines to affect current session

Agency rule schedules:

Coordinate with agency publication calendars for concurrent updates

Revisor processing time:

Allow time for technical review and formatting

Publication batch cycles:

Certified text is released on scheduled codification cycles

Emergency changes:

Expedited handling may be available for urgent statutory corrections

Key milestones from draft to official codification

Track the major stages so responsibilities and timing remain visible across stakeholders during the revision process.

01

Draft Completion

Finalize exact replacement language and citations

02

Internal Approval

Obtain agency or sponsor sign-off

03

Revisor Submission

Send formatted file and contact details

04

Publication

Revisor certifies and publishes the updated statute

Common mistakes that delay codification

  • Using vague replacement text instead of exact insert/delete language causes interpretive queries and slows revisor processing.
  • Failing to list related sections leaves cross-references unchanged and results in inconsistent citations across the code.
  • Incorrect or missing section citations force the Revisor to seek clarifications, creating administrative back-and-forth and schedule delays.
  • Omitting an effective date or using ambiguous timing language prevents accurate placement in the publication schedule and can create legal uncertainty.

Security and compliance expectations for electronic submissions

Encryption: AES-256 encryption at rest
Transport: TLS 1.2/1.3 in transit
Audit Trail: Comprehensive action logs
Certifications: SOC 2 Type II available
Privacy Standards: HIPAA support with BAA
Accessibility: WCAG 2.0 Level AA compliance

Consequences of incorrect or incomplete submissions

Delay in codification: Statutory publication delayed
Legal ambiguity: Wider litigation risk
Administrative burden: Requires corrective drafting
Loss of effect: Intended change may not take effect
Inconsistent code: Cross-reference errors persist
Increased costs: Requires staff time to fix

How the Minnesota revisor submission differs from related filings

Compare the revisor submission to other government filings to clarify required elements and processing differences.

Criteria Revisor Submission Administrative Rule Filing
Primary purpose codification rulemaking
Required citation statute section rule chapter number
Effective timing per statute per rule adoption schedule
Technical review revisor office agency counsel and revisor

eSignature vendor pricing and capability snapshot

Typical vendor pricing and capabilities for eSignature platforms used to prepare and submit statutory text; signNow is listed first for comparison.

signNow DocuSign Adobe Sign PandaDoc HelloSign
Starting Price $8/user/mo $15/user/mo $14/user/mo $19/user/mo $15/user/mo
Free Trial 7-day trial Varies Varies Varies Varies
Bulk Send Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Audit Trail Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
HIPAA Compliant Yes Yes Yes No No

Real-world examples of revisor submissions

These brief case arcs show how different organizations used the chapter to implement precise statutory updates.

Optica Ventures LLC

A private firm corrected a cross-reference in a tax credit statute to restore intended eligibility language.

  • The Revisor adopted the exact replacement text supplied.
  • The correction eliminated interpretive uncertainty and prevented erroneous denials of credits for multiple taxpayers.

Agency technical correction

A state agency filed a technical correction to align numbering after a recent codification.

  • The submission included precise strike-and-insert language.
  • The Revisor published the correction on schedule, preserving regulatory clarity for regulated entities and stakeholders.

Frequently asked questions and solutions

Answers to common questions about preparing, submitting, and tracking revisor filings to reduce back-and-forth and processing delays.


Need help? Contact support

Explore Templates

Response to Security Deposit Challenge Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons Notice, Consent, and Order of Transfer Subpoena to Testify at a Hearing or Trial in a Criminal Case Intake Sheet Form Indemnity Agreement
be ready to get more
Join over 28 million airSlate SignNow users
Sign Now
Company
Forms
Pricing
Resources
Knowledge base
Other Products
© 2026 airSlate Inc. All rights reserved.