David Arnebeck: Setting The Legal Record Straight


2013: Unfortunately, certain individuals & unscrupulous business competitors have attempted to spread incorrect & misleading information over the internet & social media regarding David Arnebeck. Even though these individuals have absolutely no way of really knowing what did or did not happen, they obviously DO know that their actions may cause real trauma to innocent family members & children including Mr. Arnebeck’s ll year old daughter. 

Their total disregard of the FACTS that don’t support their view, along with their blatant opportunistic behavior at the expense of others, probably damage their own reputation and character far more than anyone else.

This originated from a Star Tribune reporter who obviously had no intention of providing verified, accurate and complete information to his readers. The reporter, without knowing the full facts, decided to go ahead and publish damaging and defamatory information regarding David Arnebeck based ONLY on the unsubstantiated allegation of a 15 year old girl – even before the truth or falsehood of that allegation had a chance to be fully investigated. 

Following are the facts to set the record straight…

Fast Forward to the End.

The Hennipin County Judge (the Honorable Judge Jay M. Quam) after hearing all of the facts in this case has determined and ruled that there is no evidence of “danger to minors” and no need to place ANY type of restrictions on Mr. Arnebeck’s ongoing contact with ANY minor. Mr. Arnebeck has absolutely NO RESTRICTIONS concerning his contact with MINORS at ANYTIME… ANYWHERE! 

The Truth Based on the Facts!

The following FACTS are based on direct observation/knowledge of various family members and/or court-police records.

FACT: David Arnebeck, his wife Carolyn and their 11 year old daughter took this 15 year old into their home on almost a weekly basis, and helped take care of her for more than 10 years, because her single parent mother needed help raising her due to both financial and time restrictions. 

A few days before Christmas, on December 21, 2012, this 15 year old girl was overheard by family members complaining to David Arnebeck’s daughter that she gets to spend Christmas with BOTH her parents, but the 15 year could not because her parents are divorced. (Unfortunately, statements like this from the 15 year old comparing her lifestyle with Mr. Arnebeck’s daughter were not unusual.)

A few hours after this, later that night (early morning), is when the 15 year old claims that David Arnebeck touched her inappropriately over her clothes while she was sleeping. Other than her story, there is absolutely no evidence that this actually occurred. 

Then, on December 22, 2012, on the same day she made her allegation, this 15 year old stated to family members including her own mother that she still wanted to come over to David Arnebeck’s residence, however, she didn’t want him to attend the yearly Christmas party with his daugher, Mrs. Arnebeck, and the rest of the family at grandma’s house.

So this was the first Christmas that Mr. Arnebeck did not spend with his daughter.

Of course, in addition to the obvious implication of possible motive, it also begs the question that if she felt safe and wanted to visit Mr. Arnebeck’s residence, then why would visiting David Arnebeck at Christmas (among even more family members) be a problem? 

FACT:  The police detectives that interviewed the 15 year old decided there was no need to exercise their right to apprehend or arrest David Arnebeck at any time during or after their investigations into this case, which they could have done at any time. This would have been done if law enforcement had any evidence that Mr. Arnebeck posed a threat to society, to minors, or even his own daughter.

FACT: David Arnebeck is a father and of course completely supports law enforcement’s attempts to protect our children! However, there are significant problems on how this case was investigated.

It is standard police procedure to always get recorded testimony from an alleged victim in a case like this. This is almost always done by just ONE interview, and normal procedure is that interview is always recorded! 

However, in Mr. Arnebeck’s case, TWO separate detectives on TWO separate occasions interviewed the 15 year old. The first attempt at getting a recorded interview reportedly resulted in a “mechanical failure” of the recording device. Then, during the 2nd interview, there was not even an attempt to record that interview according to police records! David Arnebeck’s attorney (who has over 25 years experience) stated that he has never experienced nor heard of anything like this happening in a case such as this. 

Unfortunately, it would seem logical that the claim of “mechanical failure” followed by NO ATTEMPT to record their 2nd interview means the unedited version of the 15 year old’s story damaged their own case, so they chose not to include the recordings or attempt to record the 2nd interview for the official police report.

FACT: The police detectives made no attempt to interview several key family members that were in contact with the 15 year old immediately after she told her story, and then observed her for several days afterward. Those family members that were NOT contacted for interviews heard various statements from the 15 year old that raised serious questions concerning her story.

FACT:  In the recorded statements from family members obtained by David Arnebeck’s attorney, one family member confirmed that when the 15 year old was asked if a particularly unbelievable part of her story was true, the 15 year old stated, “not really”.

FACT: When a family member pressed the 15 year old on what David Arnebeck was wearing that night, her information was not correct according to Mrs. Arnebeck who observed what Mr. Arnebeck was wearing that night, what he slept in, and what he woke up in.

FACT: Mrs. Arnebeck talked to the 15 year old on the morning of December 22nd alone and the 15 year old did not report anything unusual. In fact, the 15 year old did NOT want to go home to her mother, instead, she wanted to spend more time with the Arnebeck family!

FACT: In the days immediately following the allegation by the 15 year old. Many of the family members found it odd that, while the entire family was distressed & confused by the allegation, the 15 year old seemed to be in an unusually good mood, better than normal, even her social media posts seemed unusually positive. 

FACT: In the weeks following December 23rd, the 15 year old continued to call Mrs. Arnebeck seeking rides from school as she had always done in the past, and Mrs Arnebeck stated that it seems the 15 year old did not really grasp what she was accusing Mr. Arnebeck of, or what it could mean for the family. Mrs. Arnebeck had to have a talk with the 15 year old’s mother to explain that the situation had now changed and the Arnebecks could no longer provide the constant assistance in raising her child as was provided over the last 10 years.

FACT: A few months after the 15 year old made her allegation, David Arnebeck along with his wife and 11 year old daughter were planning a trip to the family cabin for a 3 day stay. Upon learning about this, the mother of the 15 year old requested that her 6 year old son go along with them! Mr. Arnebeck & his wife declined the mother’s request.

Any intelligent person would have to ask, does the mother of the 15 year old really believe her own daughter’s story if she feels comfortable having her 6 year old son stay in the same cabin as David Arnebeck for three nights?? 

FACT: David Arnebeck agreed to go through two full days of testing by a psychologist specializing in evaluating and determining if someone is, in any way, a threat to minors. That psychologist concluded that Mr. Arnebeck does NOT present any type of risk or threat to minors. Therefore, Mr. Arnebeck does not need any type of supervision during his ongoing interaction with underage females, and there is no justification for any type of sex offender treatment or reporting. After interviewing Mr. Arnebeck’s wife, the psychologist did not even find reason to recommend marital therapy due to an “ongoing positive marriage” where this situation has already been “resolved” for themselves and within their family.

FACT: At the very beginning of the legal process, Mike Freemen, (the head of the Hennipin County Attorny’s Office) stated: “After understanding all of the facts of the case, we didn’t think it was necessary to add the condition of no contact with children, all of the parties were aware we would not be seeking that condition.”

Now any intelligent person would stop and ask… Why would the prosecution START their case with a statement like that? He is stating, up front, that the facts show it is safe for Mr. Arnebeck to be unsupervised around children, anywhere, anytime! Perhaps the Star Tribune reporter was more interested in selling newspapers than the truth and protecting the innocent?

FACT: A signed letter from the Hennepin County Attorneys Office dated March 17, 2013 was sent to the family. This letter stated that Mr. Arnebeck’s case was reviewed by a County Attorney who decided that it would not be charged due to lack of evidence!!

That’s right, the standard review of the facts by their own office concluded there was no evidence to justify even charging the case. Based on this letter, David Arnebeck was not to be charged with any crime and the case was dropped.

However, we later learned the prosecutor in this case, Juanita Freeman, decided to ignore the findings of her own office and attempt to move forward anyway by offering a misdemeanor agreement that legally has nothing to do with minors, while at the same time threatening to increase the charge to a felony if the misdemeanor agreement is not accepted.

Mr. Arnebeck’s attorney (who has over 25 years experience) stated that he has never experienced or heard of a letter of dismissal such as the above being sent to the family and then being ignored and overturned by the prosecutor.

FACT: Contrary to misleading reports from the Star Tribune, David Arnebeck has NEVER stated that the allegations were in any way true! Unfortunately the Star Tribune reporter failed to research, understand and explain the full legal details and terminology. The process and legal options for defending oneself and ones reputation can be confusing and, at times, those options can be less than ideal. 

Mr. Arnebeck’s attorney advised him that even though there are a lot of problems with the 15 year old’s story, no one can guarantee what a jury will do. There is always that possibility that the jury could ignore the facts against the prosecutions case and simply believe the 15 year old. 

Going to trial could result in Mr. Arnebeck being separated from all contact with minors INCLUDING HIS OWN DAUGHTER for many years! This of course would cause significant trauma to his daughter!! 

Although Mr. Arnebeck would of course prefer to go to court in order to defend his reputation, protecting his family and especially his daughter was much more important. He was not going to “roll the dice” on the well being of his own daughter. 

Mr. Arnebeck’s attorny advised him to accept what is called a misdemeanor Norgaard agreement. Upon careful examination of the law books, accepting this agreement ONLY requires that Mr. Arnebeck acknowledge that it is possible that the prosecution could win. A Norgaard agreement IS NOT a statement of guilt! In fact, when being questioned by the prosecutor in front of the Judge, Mr. Arnebeck corrected her when she tried to imply otherwise! 

FACT: During the final ruling by the Judge, the prosecutor attempted to ignore the initial position stated by her supervisor, Hennepin County Attorney, Mike Freemen.  She decided to argue for restrictions on Mr. Arnebeck’s contact with minors and also that sexual offender treatment be enforced. The judge REJECTED all of the prosecution’s arguments based on the facts!

The Honorable Judge Jay M. Quam, after hearing all of the facts in this case has determined and ruled that there is NO evidence of “danger to minors” and no need to place ANY type of restrictions on Mr. Arnebeck’s ongoing interactions with ANY minor. Mr. Arnebeck has absolutely NO RESTRICTIONS concerning his contact with MINORS at ANYTIME… ANYWHERE! 

Unfortunately, there are a few unscrupulous business competitors who still continue to defame Mr. Arnebeck in a shameless attempt to make money off  this situation. Again… Their total disregard of the FACTS that don’t support their view, along with their obvious opportunistic behavior at the expense of others, probably damage their own reputation and character far more than anyone else! 

Fortunately, all the attempts at character assassination have failed. The Arnebeck family continues to live their lives as normal. Mr. Arnebeck’s daughter continues to excel in school and sports and Mr. Arnebeck’s businesses continue to grow and thrive by helping hundreds of members improve themselves and their lives through various self-development programs and training.