Minnesota DA’s Choice Draws Heat: No Charges for Tesla Vandal

Empty courtroom with scales of justice in foreground.

The decision by Minnesota’s District Attorney not to pursue criminal charges against a state employee for vandalizing cars has sparked widespread outrage.

Key Insights

Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty chose not to charge Dylan Bryan Adams for vandalizing Teslas.
Instead of facing charges, Adams will undergo a diversion program to ensure restitution for the victims.
Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara expressed frustration over the decision.
Over $20,000 in damages was caused, affecting at least six victims.

Decision Not to Charge Sparks Controversy

Mary Moriarty, Hennepin County’s Attorney, opted against criminal charges for Dylan Bryan Adams, accused of damaging six Teslas causing $20,000 in damage. Instead, her office will pursue a diversion strategy typically applied to property crimes. The approach emphasizes restitution and pre-emptive diversion to achieve accountability while allowing the accused to maintain employment. This choice has faced backlash due to the severe financial impact on car owners and the perceived leniency toward the accused, Adams.

Adams, a government employee, is accused of property crimes involving significant financial losses to victims. As a fiscal policy analyst for Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, Adams was allegedly captured on surveillance video keying Teslas. The decision for diversion, rather than criminal charges, has raised questions about its sufficiency given the circumstances. The extensive nature of the damage and the clarity of the evidence have made this decision particularly contentious.

Law Enforcement’s Response

Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara voiced frustration about the decision. The police department had invested substantial resources to investigate and arrest Adams, identifying him as the suspect behind the vandalism spree. They argue that the case warranted criminal charges given the number of victims and the damages incurred. The decision lands solely on the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office, which has led to disappointment among both officers and affected citizens.

“The Minneapolis Police Department did its job. It identified and investigated a crime trend, identified, and arrested a suspect, and presented a case file to the Hennepin County Attorney Office for consideration of charges,” said Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara.

Despite police efforts, Moriarty’s focus remains on securing restitution and preventing future offenses without pursuing criminal justice outcomes. This method is argued to support offenders maintaining employment and reducing repeat offenses but is not seen as sufficient by those expecting stricter consequences for felony-level damage.

Public Outcry and Political Backlash

The decision has also drawn the attention of political figures. Critics highlight Moriarty’s previous leniency on cases deemed severe by public standards, sparking further debate on her prosecutorial decisions. Moriarty, supported financially by philanthropist George Soros, has faced scrutiny for her methods since taking office in January 2023. Her prioritization of diversion over prosecution in such cases fuels ongoing discourse over the boundaries of discretion in property crime cases.

.@MaryMoriarty There is NO Justice in Minnesota anymore. https://t.co/CBGm6bkahc Evidently it is okay now to vandalize 4 Tesla's to the tune of 20,000 $ in damage and not be charged. This person should be charged federally for a hate crime and thrown in prison. @MinnesotaMiners

— Minnesota Miners (@MinnesotaMiners) April 22, 2025

“Our main priorities are to secure restitution for the victims and hold Mr. Adams accountable. As a result, we will file for pre-charge diversion to best facilitate both of those goals. This is an approach taken in many property crime cases,” according to a statement from the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office spokesperson Daniel Borgertpoepping.

This case epitomizes broader concerns regarding the balance between justice and rehabilitation within the criminal justice system, questioning its effectiveness when substantial evidence justifies a firmer judicial response.