This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2019). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.

Note: In 2024, the legislature enacted Minnesota Statutes section 626.5534 subdivision 3, which provides that the BCA Use of Force Investigations Unit has primary investigative responsibility for officer-involved deaths.

Facts and Procedural History:

The City of Minneapolis (City) requested an advisory opinion from the Commissioner regarding the administration and classification of data pursuant to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (Chapter 13). The Commissioner invited the Minnesota Department of Public Safety (DPS) on behalf of the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) to submit comments. DPS did not submit comments. 

The City provided the following summary of the facts:

An officer-involved shooting occurred in the City of Minneapolis on December 15, 2019. The Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) responded to a report of a domestic with weapons. The incident resulted in shots fired by MPD officers and the ultimate death of the suspect. Body worn cameras were activated during this incident.

The MPD responds to calls for service within the City of Minneapolis and conducts criminal investigations as appropriate. Given the death of the suspect in the December 15, 2019 incident, the MPD is not actively investigating the underlying alleged offense. However, the MPD also investigates officer-involved shootings to determine, among other things, whether involved officers acted in violation of the criminal code or MPD policy. To avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, it has been the recent practice of the MPD to request that the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) conduct criminal investigations of MPD officer-involved shootings. The MPD does not have a written agreement with the BCA regarding such investigations. The BCA is not statutorily required to investigate MPD officer-involved shootings.

Upon the request of the MPD, the BCA has agreed to investigate the December 15, 2019 officer-involved shooting. The MPD provided copies of the body worn camera videos and other criminal investigative data related to the incident to the BCA for review as part of the investigation. The MPD also maintains access to the body worn camera data and other criminal investigative data.

Issues:

Discussion:

Issue 1: Which entity has “primary investigative responsibility” pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivision 7, when the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension investigates an incident on behalf of the Minneapolis Police Department?

Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivision 7, classifies active criminal investigative data collected or created to prepare a case against a person for a crime or offense, “for which the agency has primary investigative responsibility,” as confidential or protected nonpublic.

Here, the City received a data request for law enforcement data and body camera video, which asserted: “Please be aware that this data is not subject to the restrictions outlined in MN Stat. 13.82, subd. 7, because the Minneapolis Police Department is not the agency with ‘primary investigative responsibility.’”

The City wrote:

[T]he MPD has primary responsibility to respond to and investigate incidents relating to calls for service within the City of Minneapolis. The events resulting in the December 15, 2019 officer-involved shooting arose from such a call. The City retains primary investigative responsibility for investigating the underlying alleged offense as well as for investigating the MPD officers’ actions. The BCA is merely acting as an agent of the City while conducting its investigation into the December 15, 2019 incident.

The Commissioner agrees that the City’s position is reasonable. The City continues to have the primary investigative responsibility because the BCA is acting as the City’s agent in investigating an incident within the City’s jurisdiction.

Issue 2: What is the classification of certain law enforcement data, including body camera video, during an active investigation into an officer-involved shooting?

Minnesota Statutes, section 13.825 classifies “portable recording system data" – audio or video data collected by a portable recording system worn by a peace officer (commonly referred to as body camera data) – as private or nonpublic, with exceptions. Subdivision 2 provides:

Data collected by a portable recording system are private data on individuals or nonpublic data, subject to the following:

(1) data that document the discharge of a firearm by a peace officer in the course of duty, if a notice is required under section 626.553, subdivision 2, or the use of force by a peace officer that results in substantial bodily harm, as defined in section 609.02, subdivision 7a, are public;

…

3) portable recording system data that are active criminal investigative data are governed by section 13.82, subdivision 7, and portable recording system data that are inactive criminal investigative data are governed by this section.

Active criminal investigative data are classified as confidential or protected nonpublic. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivision 7.)

The City argues that the active criminal investigative data associated with the incident, including the body camera data, are confidential or protected nonpublic (excluding the “super public data” – arrest data, request for service data, and response or incident data – classified by section 13.82, subds. 2, 3, and 6). 

Based on the plain language of section 13.825, subd. 2(a)(3), body camera data that are part of an active criminal investigation are not classified by section 13.825. Instead, active investigative body camera data are classified by section 13.82, subd. 7. Once the investigation becomes inactive (see section 13.82, subd. 7(a)-(c)), inactive body camera data are classified as provided in section 13.825. 

Here, the body camera data are part of an active investigation into the actions of the officers responding to a call for assistance. Therefore, the body camera data and other law active investigative data are classified as confidential or protected nonpublic until the investigation is inactive.

The Commissioner notes that the City also argued that section 13.03, subdivision 4, the “travelling data” provision, applies to the circumstances here. However, because the BCA is acting as an agent of the City, the data did not travel to a different entity. Instead, the BCA is brought “within” the City for purposes of the investigation and sharing data.

Opinion:

Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issues raised is as follows:

1. The Minneapolis Police Department has the “primary investigative responsibility,” pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivision 7, when the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension investigates an incident on the City’s behalf.
2. Except for the data listed in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivisions 2, 3, and 6, when there is an active criminal investigation into an officer-involved shooting, law enforcement data, including body camera data documenting the incident, are confidential or protected nonpublic.

Signed:

Alice Roberts-Davis
Commissioner

March 5, 2020