The prosecution of Zachary Klundt for his alleged role in the destruction of the All Families Healthcare clinic in Kalispell will be pursued only as a business burglary, not as a hate crime.

That decision, made at the Flathead County Attorney’s Office in the days following the March 3 vandalism, came as members of the community, some Inter Lake readers, and clinic owner Susan Cahill had pushed for the crime to be recognized as an act of hate deliberately committed against Cahill and her clinic.

Montana law, however, includes no specific hate crime statute. State statues instead cover the crime of malicious intimidation or harassment relating to civil or human rights.

“It’s an offense which occurs when somebody interferes with a person’s exercising of their civil or human rights or they are accosted because of race, creed or color,” Flathead County Attorney Ed Corrigan said. “Fortunately, in this part of the world, over the last 20 years since that law was enacted we’ve only had one incident of that actually being prosecuted.”

Corrigan said that involved an African-American woman who was accosted repeatedly by another woman due only to her race.

“In the Klundt case — and I know people are going to disagree with this, people are going to jump to the conclusion, maybe correctly so, that he destroyed this clinic because it was a clinic where people could get abortions — I don’t think access to medical care is the type of exercise of civil or human rights that’s envisioned by the statute,” he said.

Klundt, 24, from Columbia Falls, is accused of breaking into the clinic some time the night of March 3 and committing extensive vandalism: damaging art, furniture, medical instruments, medical supplies and file cabinets, breaking a sewer line and damaging the boiler system and a water heater as well as plumbing.

A fire extinguisher was also sprayed and powdered iodine spread throughout the clinic.

When Klundt was arrested March 4 after allegedly trying to break into another local business, Bob’s Bail Bonds, police found glass shards from the clinic in his pocket and his shoe tread pattern matched shoeprints found at the clinic.

A search of his home allegedly turned up several boxes of medical supplies and documents that belonged to the clinic.

Based on his understanding of the intentions of the malicious intimidation statute, Corrigan said the case will be treated only as a business burglary, but that is actually a more serious crime than the alternative.

With the charges Klundt faces — felony counts of burglary, criminal mischief, theft and attempted burglary — he could be sentenced to the Montana State Prison for up to 60 years and fined up to $200,000 if convicted.

A malicious intimidation conviction carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a maximum fine of $5,000.

“The penalty for the burglary should be a pretty good deterrent to anybody else doing something of this nature. This is, in my opinion, the better way to go,” he said.

If a person is not convicted of malicious intimidation but it is determined that a crime was committed because of the same circumstances — race, creed, religion, color, national origin or involvement in civil rights or human rights activities — the sentence can be enhanced by two to 10 years.

Because Corrigan has stated he does not believe those circumstances apply, a pursuit of such an enhancement is unlikely.

Cahill said she was disappointed that the hate-crime angle was not being pursued, but that she understood where Corrigan was coming from, particularly with regard to potential prison time.

“As far as I’m concerned, Zachary needs to stay in prison as long as possible, and Ed has said to us that he wanted to prosecute this to the fullest extent of the law,” Cahill said.

“It is a hate crime, I have no doubt about it, but legally I want them to do the best they can, so I have to trust their judgment on that,” she added.

Corrigan said there is a federal law providing for freedom of access to clinic entrances.

Under that law, a person can be charged for intentionally damaging or destroying the property of a facility or attempting to do so because the facility provides reproductive health services.

Such a conviction would require that the federal government prove that Klundt both committed the crime and that he did so because the clinic provided reproductive health services.

However, as with the state malicious intimidation conviction, anyone convicted of the federal charge can receive only a small maximum sentence — one year in prison and a fine of up to $15,000 as well as restitution for damages.

Similarly, a person convicted of violating the Civil Rights Act of 1968 who does not injure or kill anyone in the commission of the crime faces a maximum of one year in prison.

A violation of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act carries only a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison for someone convicted of injuring — but not killing — another person due to his or her actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison.

That law does not provide for action in any case involving only damage to property.

At the Montana office of the U.S. Department of Justice, Media Coordinator Carl Rostad would say only that Flathead County Sheriff Chuck Curry had indicated the case had been referred to the department.

“Our position is that we do not comment on cases that might be or might not be under consideration,” Rostad said. “We don’t comment at all until sentencing other than to say that charges have been filed.”

He explained that the way the federal government pursues cases is different than at the local level. Specifically, it does not take immediate action to protect a community the way a local law enforcement agency would in conjunction with the local judicial agencies.

“It’s common locally to put the person in jail while they build the case. We’re kind of on the flip side,” Rostad said. “We have to wait until we have enough evidence to go to trial, since we have to be ready for trial 70 days after the person is charged.”

Where the federal government does have more flexibility, he said, is in its discretion to pursue a case that already has been through the court system at the local level.

Rostad said the federal government is not bound by a double jeopardy clause and can pursue any case where the local result was inadequate in satisfying “significant federal interests.”

Reporter Jesse Davis may be reached at 758-4441 or by email at jdavis@dailyinterlake.com.