If Curt Rude’s felony charge is dropped from his record as expected at sentencing, he will not be getting special treatment because he’s a cop, several local lawyers say.

The on-leave Austin police captain was found guilty of felony drug possession and gross misdemeanor interfering with property in official custody on Thursday by an Olmsted County jury.

However, that felony could be dropped if Judge Kevin Lund uses state statute 152.18 at Rude’s Dec. 21 sentencing, as he indicated he would after the verdict.

That statute is designed to give first-time, fifth-degree drug offenders — like Rude — the chance to earn a clean slate. It is also used quite often in Mower County, assistant county attorney Jeremy Clinefelter said.

Clinefelter, who was not addressing any specifics of Rude’s case or commenting on the appropriateness of 152.18 in it, said the statute is often used during plea agreements before trials because most fifth-degree drug possession cases don’t go to trial.

He said it is a “treatment-designed” law, meaning that it is in place for first-time offenders who truly show remorse and a need for help.

“You want to work with people who take accountability,” not necessarily send them to jail, Clinefelter said.

As part of the conditions of 152.18, an offender is subject to probation and any drug treatment deemed necessary by the court — other elements that Clinefelter said speak toward it as a treatment tool.

Clinefelter, who handles local drug cases, said 152.18 makes sense in many instances.

“We use it frequently in first-time offenses,” he said.

Dan Donnelly, an Austin-based defense attorney, also said the statute is used often locally.

“If you looked at individuals with fifth-degree (drug possession) as the top charge, I bet almost to a person they got 152.18,” he said.

In Rude’s case, he said the statute would be applied as it would be to almost every other first-time offender.

“No, he was not (given special treatment),” Donnelly said.

Local defense attorney Evan Larson also said 152.18 is often presumed to be the right and fair thing to do in the case of a first-time offender.

“It gives a person making their first pass through the system a chance to earn their way out of a problem,” he said.

Attorney Brandon Lawhead said that although no one is guaranteed 152.18 privileges because judges ultimately use discretion in applying it, the statute is common in drug cases.

Lawhead also said it would fit the former captain’s case.

“It would make a lot of sense to use it in Rude’s case,” he said.

William Bodensteiner, another Austin-based attorney, said the statute makes sense given what he thinks are overly harsh drug laws — most likely a result of the national “war on drugs” in recent decades.

For example, he said drug possession is often treated more strictly than armed robbery.

“I think (drug laws) are absurd,” he said.

To combat this, Bodensteiner said attorneys and judges often turn to 152.18.

“If I’m a judge, I’d use it every time I could,” he said.

And in Rude’s case, the attorney thinks the statute is appropriate.

“I don’t think the judge is playing favoritism,” Bodensteiner said. “This (statute) is meant for people like Rude.”