College Prof PEE’s on Students Backpack – Campus Explodes

College students walking on campus with books and backpacks — Photo: Roman Samborskyi / Shutterstock

Prosecutors say a former Macalester College professor tied to six campus urine incidents is now charged after a student’s backpack tested the limits of common decency and state law.

Story Snapshot

Ramsey County prosecutors charged Paul Jerome Fischer with first-degree property damage.
A student reported urine on her backpack outside Fischer’s office after a six-minute absence.
The complaint links six urine incidents across the Olin-Rice Science Center from 2024 to 2025.
The student itemized $2,070 in damaged items, clearing the felony cost threshold.

What investigators say happened in the science center

On December 5, 2025, a Macalester College student left her backpack for about six minutes in a common area near the office of former professor Paul Jerome Fischer. She told investigators he was the only person nearby. When she returned, she found her backpack wet and smelling like urine. Prosecutors later filed a felony count of criminal damage to property in Ramsey County District Court, naming Fischer as the defendant.

The complaint, as described in local reports, goes beyond one bag. It lists six urine-related events around the Olin-Rice Science Center over roughly a year. The document cites urine in trash cans, lab sinks, a student’s water bottle, and a professor’s office decorations. The backpack was the final straw that triggered the charge, according to the accounts of the filing. Reporters attribute each detail to the criminal complaint and campus safety records.

The charge and why the dollar figure matters

Minnesota law makes it a felony to intentionally damage another person’s property when losses top $1,000. The first-degree property-damage statute sets the penalty ceiling at five years in prison or a $10,000 fine, or both. That is why the student’s itemized $2,070 replacement and cleaning costs matter. The total places the case in felony territory if prosecutors prove intent to damage.

The student’s receipt list, reported by outlets that reviewed the complaint, crossed the $2,000 mark. That number lines up with the statute’s threshold. Prosecutors often lean on clear dollar amounts to meet the “value” element of property crimes. Here, the tally helps check that box. It does not, by itself, answer the question of whether any damage was deliberate, but it frames the possible sentence if a court finds intent.

Fischer’s reported admission and the issue of intent

Fischer reportedly told police he had developed a habit of urinating into a cup and then dumping it in campus trash cans or laboratory sinks. He also said he believed a cup had spilled near his office, which could explain the backpack exposure. That statement narrows the legal fight. The core question is whether he acted on purpose when the backpack was hit, or whether the spill was an accident.

Prosecutors often show intent through patterns, choices, and context when no one saw the act. Repetition can count. Some courts accept that repeated urination when toilets are available supports a finding of willful conduct. That logic tracks common sense and personal responsibility norms: adults know where waste belongs. If a person chooses another route again and again, a judge can see purpose in the pattern.

How the state could build its case

Prosecutors can point to the six reported urine events to argue this was not random. They can stress the location, the short window, and the proximity to Fischer’s office. They can cite his statement about routine cup use and disposal to argue he knew the risks. The state can then claim that choosing to empty urine near others’ property made damage practically certain, which meets the intent standard under similar property-damage cases.

ST. PAUL, Minn. – A former Macalester College professor faces a first-degree property damage charge after authorities say urine he spilled onto a student’s backpack caused more than $2,000 in damage.https://t.co/lpYc5rbuUF

— Twincitieslocalnews (@msp_local_news) October 10, 2026

The defense can focus on the six-minute gap, the lack of an eyewitness, and Fischer’s claim that a cup tipped while he tried to dump it. That stance asks the court to separate unsanitary habit from criminal intent. The statute punishes intentional damage, not clumsiness. The court will likely weigh the reported pattern and the easy alternative—a restroom—against the claim of accident. A single sentence caveat applies: a charge is an allegation, not a conviction.

Why this odd case hits familiar legal ground

The facts carry shock value, but the law is routine. This is a straight property case with an ugly vector. The felony hook is the $2,070 estimate. The hinge is intent. The state will try to show that repeated urine disposal in shared spaces, with toilets steps away, crosses from gross to willful. If the court agrees, the act becomes criminal damage. If not, the case narrows to poor judgment and civil costs.