|
The Minnesota Legislature is continuing to work on legislation during its 2025 session, and the Data Practices Office is tracking several bills about data practices (House bills; Senate bills) and the Open Meeting Law (House bills; Senate bills).
Stay tuned for our July FYi Newsletter, where we'll provide an overview of any new laws or statutory changes affecting data practices statutes and the Open Meeting Law.
Data Practices Potpourri: Body Camera Data Webinar
The Data Practices Office will be offering a free Data Practices Potpourri: Body Camera Data webinar on Tuesday, May 20 at 1 p.m. The webinar will provide an overview of data practices requirements and classifications related to body camera data. We'll also discuss the top questions we have recently received about body camera data and host a live Q&A.
More information about this free webinar is available on our website, and you can view recordings of past webinars on our YouTube Channel.
Voting During an Open Meeting
In Advisory Opinion 25-001, a member of the public asked whether a township board violated the Open Meeting Law when it selected a new supervisor outside of an open meeting. The Board filled scoring sheets for candidates during a meeting, and those sheets were later tabulated to select the individual to fill the open position. The Commissioner opined that because the interviews were conducted at an open meeting, the scoring sheets were required to be made public at the meeting.
Appropriate Meeting Notice
In Advisory Opinion 25-002, a member of the public asked whether a county board of commissioners violated the Open Meeting Law when all commissioners gathered to tour a county building with potential tenants. The Commissioner could not determine whether the board violated the OML because there was a factual dispute over whether the board held the tour immediately after it adjourned a regular meeting or the board announced the time and place of the tour, recessed its regular meeting, and reconvened its regular meeting for the tour. If the board adjourned its regular meeting, then the board violated the OML because it did not appropriately notice a special meeting of the commissioners gathering to tour the building. If the board announced the time and place where it would reconvene before recessing the meeting, then the board did not violate the OML because it met the requirements of section 13D.04, subdivision 4(a).
Alpha News v. City of Detroit Lakes, et al., A24-1138 (Minn. Ct. App., April 8, 2025)
Alpha News sought police body-worn and dash camera footage relating to an active criminal investigation involving a Minnesota state senator but was denied access to the data by a local law enforcement agency. Alpha News brought an action in district court under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subd. 7 to request an order for the not public data to be released. The district court denied Alpha News’ motion for disclosure. Alpha News appealed, arguing that district court improperly applied the balancing test required under section 13.82, subd. 7 by limiting the types of benefits to the public that could be considered.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals explained that a district court is authorized to release data under section 13.82, subd. 7 when it conducts a balancing test to determine whether “the benefit to the person bringing the action or to the public outweighs any harm to the public, to the agency or to the person identified in the data.” The Court held that the plain meaning of a “benefit … to the public” under subdivision 7 is that which has a helpful or useful effect on the community or people as a whole, or that which otherwise promotes or enhances the well-being of the community or people as a whole. The Court added that the “benefit … to the public” test in subdivision 7 is not constrained by the language of section 13.82, subd. 15 or any other provision of the Data Practices Act. Subdivision 15 permits a law enforcement agency to release active criminal investigative data if the agency determines that the access will aid the law enforcement process, promote public safety, or dispel widespread rumor or unrest.
However, the Court of Appeals could not determine whether the district court applied a meaning of “benefit… to the public” that was consistent with the Court’s interpretation. The Court noted that although the lower court correctly articulated the balancing test required under subdivision 7, the district court also determined that the asserted benefit articulated by Alpha News would not meet the standard set out in subdivision 15. As a result, the Court could not discern whether the district court impermissibly narrowed its considerations when applying the “benefit … to the public” balancing test.
The Court declined Alpha News’ request for a ruling on the underlying motion to release the data and explained that subdivision 7 tasks the district court with conducting the required balancing test in accordance with the law. Therefore, the Court reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the matter for reconsideration in light of its opinion.
Have questions about data practices or the Open Meeting Law? Contact us by email at info.dpo@state.mn.us or by phone at 651-296-6733. We are here to help!
|
