Are the roadblocks setup in MN against the law

1. What happened on the ground and how officials responded

On Jan. 2, 2026, neighbors converted an intersection at 32nd Street and Cedar Ave into a makeshift roundabout by placing debris and other materials in the roadway as a citizen-organized “roadblock” aimed at deterring U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement activity; Minneapolis Public Works and police cleared the materials and removed the block shortly thereafter ^[1].

2. What Minnesota precedent says about official checkpoints

Minnesota precedent bars law-enforcement sobriety checkpoints: state constitutional protections against arbitrary investigative stops have led courts to rule that spot, random roadblocks used to stop many drivers without individualized suspicion are not permissible (Ascher v.; discussion summarized by NORML and state caselaw reporting) ^[2]. That line of authority constrains what police can do when they set up investigative roadblocks, but it addresses government action rather than private citizens’ conduct ^[2].

3. Private roadblocks are treated differently in reporting and practice

The news coverage records city crews and police removing the citizen-created blockade rather than endorsing it, which signals municipal officials viewed the action as a public-safety or public-rights-of-way problem rather than a lawful assemblage to alter traffic patterns ^[1]. The supplied sources do not quote the specific statutes used by authorities in that response, so reporting establishes the fact of removal but not the precise legal basis invoked by the City of Minneapolis ^[1].

4. Lawful limits and likely legal exposure — what reporting implies

Because Minnesota courts have rejected broad, suspicionless law-enforcement checkpoints, the state’s legal framework prioritizes protection against arbitrary stops when government actors are involved, but that same constitutional reasoning does not automatically legalize private citizens creating obstructions; local government and public-safety rules routinely prohibit obstructing public rights-of-way and creating hazardous traffic conditions, and the immediate removal by city crews indicates municipal rules or public-safety concerns were at issue ^{[2] [1]}. The sources provided do not include the exact criminal or civil statutes—such as obstruction of a highway, disorderly conduct, or municipal code provisions—that may be used against someone who erects a roadblock, so a definitive list of charges cannot be cited from these materials ^{[1] [2]}.

5. Conflicting values and political context

Residents framed the roadblock as a community safety measure and a form of resistance to federal immigration enforcement, an expression of local political alarm and grassroots organizing ^[1]. Officials, in contrast, removed the physical obstruction citing city responsibilities for maintenance and traffic safety; that clash reflects an implicit agenda tension between community self-help and municipal/legal order, and the reporting documents both the residents’ motivation and the government’s corrective action without resolving the underlying legal question in statute or case law contained in the supplied sources ^[1].

6. Bottom line: are these roadblocks “against the law”?

Based on the reporting provided, improvised private roadblocks were dismantled by city crews and police, and Minnesota law forbids government-run suspicionless checkpoints—but the supplied sources do not quote the specific statutes used to prohibit or prosecute private citizen roadblocks, so it is accurate to say such citizen-made roadblocks are treated as unlawful or impermissible in practice in this incident, while a full legal determination (what exact statutes apply, what defenses may exist, and how courts would rule) cannot be concluded from these materials alone ^{[1] [2]}.