A single allegation of sexual misconduct on a college campus can start two separate legal processes. One is run by the school under Title IX. The other is run by law enforcement and prosecutors under criminal law. The two processes follow different rules, use different standards of proof, and can reach different outcomes, yet they often overlap in time. If you’ve been accused of sexual assault or abuse on campus, you’ll likely need to defend yourself in both processes at once.
Two Separate Processes with Different Rules
A Title IX case is administrative. The school’s Title IX Coordinator, investigators, and decision-makers determine whether a policy violation occurred. A criminal case is brought by the government, and a court decides whether a crime was committed.
Title IX Process | Criminal Case | |
Who runs it | The school | Police, prosecutors, and the court |
Question decided | Whether school policy was violated | Whether a crime was committed |
Standard of proof | At least a preponderance of the evidence at covered Minnesota institutions, or clear and convincing evidence if the school chooses under the federal rule | Beyond a reasonable doubt |
Possible outcomes | School discipline for students, or employment action for employees | Fines, jail or prison, probation, registration, and other court-ordered conditions |
Who can start it | A report to the school or a complaint signed by the Title IX Coordinator | A report to police and a charging decision by a prosecutor |
Because the standards of proof differ, the same set of facts can lead to different results in each process. Minnesota law also treats sexual assault as criminal sexual conduct, divided into five degrees, so the criminal exposure depends on the specific allegations.
How a Title IX Case and a Police Investigation Connect
A person who reports sexual misconduct can report to the school, to law enforcement, or to both. Minnesota law lets a reporting party decide whether to report to police and whether to take part in a campus process. A school that receives a report does not need to wait for police to act, though.
Information can also move between the administrative and criminal tracks. Under Minn. Stat. § 135A.15, covered institutions must enter into agreements with local law enforcement that require information sharing, within applicable privacy laws, about certain crimes, including sexual assault. The statute also directs campus authorities to help law enforcement obtain and preserve evidence.
Under Minn. Stat. § 135A.15, subd. 2a, a school must proceed with its grievance process alongside a criminal investigation if the reporting party requests it. The school may temporarily delay a Title IX investigation if law enforcement asks and the campus proceeding might impede the criminal investigation. The federal rule is similar. Under 34 C.F.R. § 106.45, good cause for a temporary delay can include concurrent law enforcement activity, and the school must give both parties written notice of the delay and the reasons for it.
In practice, a student or employee may have to decide how to respond to the school before knowing whether police will seek charges.
What You Say and Write During the Administrative Process
A school interview is not a police interview. School investigators are not police officers, and the warnings officers give before custodial questioning do not ordinarily apply to a school interview. The statements you make, the messages you send, your written response to the investigative report, and any hearing testimony become part of the school’s record. That record can reach law enforcement through an information-sharing agreement, through the other party, or through legal process.
This overlap creates tension and risks to you. The Fifth Amendment protects you from being compelled to incriminate yourself in a criminal case. Declining to answer a school’s questions can protect you in a criminal case, but it can also mean the school decides what to do without your account or knowing your side of the situation. The federal rule once contained language, vacated by a federal court in 2021, that barred decision-makers in such cases from drawing inferences from a party’s refusal to answer questions at a hearing. The Department of Education omitted that language when it recodified the 2020 regulations in September 2026. Each school addresses this issue through its own written procedures, so those procedures deserve a close read before you decide how to respond.
Before responding to a college or university Title IX board, consider these questions:
- Has a report been made to law enforcement, or has an officer contacted you or anyone connected to the case?
- What does the school’s policy say about declining to answer questions or submit a statement?
- What written materials will the school share with the other party and with the decision-maker?
- Who will have access to the school’s record after the process ends?
Both the federal rule and Minnesota law allow each party to have an advisor, and the advisor can be an attorney. At a live hearing under the federal rule, the advisor asks the questions that test the other side’s account. An attorney who also understands the criminal case can keep your statements at school consistent with your position in court, which is why speaking with an attorney early should be one of the first steps you take after a Title IX accusation.
Interim Measures and No-Contact Rules
A school can act before any finding is made. Under 34 C.F.R. § 106.44, the school may offer supportive measures to the parties, including mutual restrictions on contact. It may also remove a student from its programs on an emergency basis after an individualized safety and risk analysis, with notice and an opportunity to challenge the decision. A school may place an employee on administrative leave while the process is pending.
A court order is a separate matter. A harassment restraining order, an order for protection, or a domestic abuse no-contact order comes from a court. A violation of a court order can be charged as its own offense, while a violation of a school directive is handled under school policy. Schools prohibit retaliation against a reporting party, a responding party, or a witness, so indirect contact through friends or social media can create new problems. Indirect contact is also a violation when a no-contact order comes from a court. Following every no-contact term strictly is one of the simplest ways to avoid complicating a case.
Students and Employees Face Different Pressures
Students and employees go through similar processes, but the pressures differ.
For students, the immediate concerns are interim removal, housing, class access, and the possibility of discipline ranging from a warning to expulsion. The consequences of a Title IX finding can follow a student to later educational and career steps.
For employees, including faculty and staff, the process can involve administrative leave, employment contracts, tenure or collective bargaining procedures, and professional licensing concerns. The federal rule applies the same standard of evidence to formal complaints against employees as it does to students, and Minnesota requires a covered institution’s sexual misconduct policy to apply to both groups. Employees also face an added layer. An employer can require cooperation with an internal investigation, and refusing can carry employment consequences. That places the employee’s duties to the employer in tension with the right to stay silent in a criminal case. How that tension resolves depends on the employer, the employment contract, and whether the employer is a public institution.
Each Process Reaches Its Own Outcome
A result in one process does not decide the other. A prosecutor weighs evidence against a higher standard than a school applies, so a school can issue sanctions when no charges are filed. A criminal acquittal or a decision not to charge does not prevent a school from reaching its own finding, and a school finding does not decide a criminal case.
For example, public reporting on the controversial 2026 “Cornell 7” litigation shows how separate the tracks can be. Cornell has stated that its Title IX process resulted in a range of sanctions, including expulsions and suspensions. Local authorities initially declined to pursue criminal charges, and the governor later appointed the state attorney general as special prosecutor. Reporting indicates the criminal investigation has since been reopened. The students named in the lawsuit have denied wrongdoing, and the allegations have not been proven in any forum.
A Coordinated Defense Can Make a Difference
When a Title IX case and a criminal investigation run at the same time, a decision made in one can affect the other. A statement given at school, the timing of a response, and a choice about whether to appear at a hearing all carry consequences in both processes. This is why the legal team handling your Title IX defense case should look at both.
At Tamburino Law Group, our attorneys defend criminal cases and handle Title IX defense for students and employees of educational institutions. Several of us have worked as prosecutors, including in the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office, and we have taken hundreds of cases to jury trial. Attorney Joe Tamburino is a Minnesota State Bar Association Board Certified Specialist in Criminal Law. We have defended clients at colleges and universities across Minnesota and Wisconsin, and we handle sex crime allegations in court as well as in campus proceedings.
If you are facing a Title IX allegation, a police investigation, or both, call (612) 444-5020 for a free, no-obligation case evaluation. We accept calls 24 hours a day, seven days a week, so you can start your defense at any time.
