Jennifer Lynn Tran was arrested by Hastings police Wednesday, Sept. 16, and booked into the Dakota County Jail on a probable-cause allegation of financial transaction card fraud.
Tran was arrested at approximately 6:38 p.m., according to booking information. The jail record lists the Hastings Police Department as the arresting agency and identifies the allegation as financial transaction card fraud involving use of a card without the cardholder’s consent. A separate public booking record lists Tran’s booking number as 2606448 and confirms the Sept. 16 arrest time and Hastings Police Department involvement.
The initial booking information lists the matter as a gross misdemeanor-level probable-cause arrest. It also listed $0 bail and scheduled court-related reviews for Friday, Sept. 18.
Publicly available information about the circumstances that led to Tran’s arrest remained limited as of Monday, Sept. 21. A search of available Dakota County and other public records did not locate a criminal complaint describing where the alleged card use occurred, how much money was involved, who owned the card or how Hastings police developed probable cause for the arrest.
The Dakota County Attorney’s Office maintains an online criminal complaint search. The county describes a criminal complaint as the formal document that begins a criminal case and provides both the charges and the alleged facts surrounding an offense. The county also cautions that charges contained in a complaint are allegations and are not evidence of guilt.
Minnesota law defines financial transaction cards broadly. They can include credit cards, debit cards, bank service cards, electronic benefit cards and other instruments or account information used to obtain money, property, services or other items of value.
Under Minnesota Statute 609.821, financial transaction card fraud can occur when someone uses or attempts to use a card without the cardholder’s consent while knowing that permission was not given. The statute also covers several other types of conduct involving cards, including certain uses of forged, false or improperly obtained cards.
The specific booking entry for Tran identifies the allegation as use without consent, rather than one of the statute’s other forms of financial transaction card fraud. However, without a criminal complaint or other detailed law enforcement account of the incident, there is not enough public information to determine what Hastings police allege Tran did or the value of any transaction involved.
Those details can be important because Minnesota law treats financial transaction card fraud differently depending on the circumstances of a case. The booking classification reflects the allegation recorded when Tran entered the jail and does not by itself establish the final charge that may be filed in Dakota County District Court.
The booking information initially listed a 36-hour review for noon Sept. 18 and a 48-hour review for 6:38 p.m. that day. Such entries are associated with the time limits governing the continued detention of someone arrested without a warrant while authorities determine whether charges will be filed and whether continued custody is appropriate.
The public booking information also listed the court location as the jail court in Hastings. Dakota County District Court handles criminal cases filed within the county, with the Judicial Center located in Hastings.
The available records do not establish whether Tran remained in custody after the listed Sept. 18 reviews, whether prosecutors filed a formal complaint following the arrest, or whether the original probable-cause allegation was changed after the booking process. The Dakota County Attorney’s Office directs members of the public to its criminal complaint search, Minnesota Court Records Online or Dakota County Court Administration when a complaint is not available through the county’s online system.
Tran’s arrest record is a booking record, not a determination that she committed the alleged offense. The financial transaction card fraud allegation remains an accusation unless it is proven in court, and the available booking information does not provide enough detail to independently establish the circumstances behind the allegation.