Campus Urine Mystery Turns Felony For Professor

Police officers responding to a school emergency with students on the floor — Photo: Shutterstock

Police say a respected college chemist became the campus’s “serial sprinkler,” and a student’s soaked backpack is now a felony case.

Story Snapshot

Ramsey County charged a former Macalester College professor with first-degree property damage.
A student reported urine on her backpack outside the professor’s office after a brief absence.
Records tie six campus urine incidents to the same professor over roughly a year.
The student listed $2,070 in losses, crossing the felony dollar threshold.

The charge: a campus mess becomes a felony case

Ramsey County prosecutors filed first-degree criminal damage to property against Paul Jerome Fischer, a former Macalester College chemistry professor. The case stems from a December 5, 2025 report that a student’s backpack, left for about six minutes outside Fischer’s office in the Olin-Rice Science Center, was wet with what investigators described as urine. The student said Fischer was the only person in the area during that window, according to the complaint summaries reported by multiple outlets.

The charge rests on two pillars. First, Minnesota’s statute treats intentional damage over $1,000 as a felony. Second, the student submitted an itemized receipt of $2,070 for damaged items inside the bag, which prosecutors say clears the felony threshold. That dollar figure matters because it moves the case from a strange prank to a five-year felony exposure if a jury finds intent under Minnesota law.

What investigators say they found across campus

Complaint summaries describe a string of six urine incidents tied to the Olin-Rice Science Center between November 2024 and December 2025. Those reports include urine in trash cans, on or in students’ water bottles, and on a professor’s office decorations. The backpack incident landed last in the sequence. Prosecutors frame the pattern as proof that this was not a one-off spill but repeated misconduct on school property that damaged others’ belongings.

Reporters who reviewed the charging document say Fischer acknowledged a habit. He told police he had “developed a habit” of urinating into a cup and dumping it in campus trash cans or laboratory sinks. That admission, if credited, helps the state argue willful conduct when restrooms were available. Courts often weigh repetition and available sanitary options when deciding whether a person acted on purpose, not by mistake.

The professor’s account and the question of intent

Fischer reportedly told investigators he believed a cup of urine spilled while he tried to empty it into a trash can near his office, and that this spill could have hit the student’s bag. That statement rejects a claim of deliberate targeting and points to an accident. The student did not witness the act. She returned after six minutes to find the bag wet and drew a link to Fischer because he was nearby, the reports say.

The law still centers on intent. Minnesota’s damage-to-property statute requires proof the person meant to cause damage or knew it was practically certain from their act. The felony level also requires that the damage reduced the property’s value by more than $1,000 or caused reasonable repair or replacement costs above that mark. Prosecutors point to the $2,070 itemized losses and the reported pattern to argue both elements are met.

How a jury might read the facts

Jurors will likely weigh repetition, location, and common sense. Repeated disposal of urine in public work areas, when restrooms exist, can look purposeful. Courts have found that repeated urination despite an available toilet supports a finding of willful conduct. That logic tracks everyday standards of responsibility and respect for others’ property in shared spaces. It also aligns with basic conservative values about order, duty, and consequences for avoidable harm.

A student stepped away from her table for about six minutes. She came back to find urine on her backpack.

Now a former Macalester College professor is facing a felony charge.

Per the criminal complaint, Paul Fischer told police he'd developed a habit of peeing into a cup and…

— Oddity Drop | News & Culture (@OddityDrop) October 12, 2026

The defense can lean on the short absence, the lack of an eyewitness, and Fischer’s spill account. But the state can point to the six earlier reports, the location next to his office, and his own description of a steady routine. If jurors believe he knew or was practically certain that dumping urine around others’ belongings would cause damage, the statute’s intent standard is satisfied. The charge alone is not a conviction, but it signals prosecutors think the facts will carry.