This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2025). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.

Facts and Procedural History:

X (a pseudonym used according to section 13.072, subdivision 4) asked the Commissioner for an advisory opinion regarding a request they made to the City of Minneapolis (City) for certain data the City maintains under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (Data Practices Act).

X provided the following summary of facts:

This request arises from an incident in which officers from the Minneapolis Police Department forced entry into my home while I was on vacation with my family and recorded body-worn camera footage inside my private residence. I submitted multiple data requests to the City of Minneapolis seeking access to the footage and my requests were denied on the grounds that I was not physically present in the video and therefore was not considered a “subject” of the data under Minnesota statute 13.825.

However, my request includes portions of the footage recorded inside my home in which no individual - including the officers - is visible. In these portions of the recordings, the bodyworn [sic] camera captures only the interior of my private residence and my personal property, but does not depict any person who could be considered a “subject” in the recording.

The City of Minneapolis responded to the request for body camera data by stating:

With exception for use of force causing harm, body camera video is nonpublic or private data, accessible only to people seen or heard in the video. Since you were not present for this event, the data can't be provided to you, per MN statute13.825.

This request will be closed.

In response to the advisory opinion request, the City provided these additional facts:

On August 7, 2024, Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) officers responded to a call [at X’s residence]. [X]’s neighbor had called to request a welfare check because [X, their child, and dog] had not been seen in at least two weeks, which was unusual. Two officers responded to the home with their body worn cameras (BWC) activated. Officers examined the scene outside the home for about 30 minutes. They knocked repeatedly at both doors but received no answer. They found mail piling up and spilling out of the mailbox and a food delivery box on the front steps. They also heard a buzzing sound coming from inside of the house. Officers spoke with 6-7 neighbors at different points during this time, who are visible and audible on the camera footage, with additional neighbors visible in the background. The neighbors expressed concern about the fact that [X, their child, and dog] had not been seen for multiple weeks. One of these neighbors had a phone number for [X]. An officer called the number multiple times, but the calls went straight to voicemail, indicating to the officer that the phone may be out of battery life. Officers also checked vehicles in the vicinity of the home to determine if these vehicles were registered to [X and their child]. At some point, a supervisor joined the two officers on the scene. Based upon all of the available information, a decision was made to force entry into the home to check on the welfare of the residents. Officers forced entry, conducted a brief search of the home lasting between 4 and 4.5 minutes, and determined that [X, their child, and dog] were not in the home. The three MPD officers are seen and/or heard throughout the time inside the home on each other’s body worn cameras. After approximately 4 minutes and 15 seconds inside, the officers exited the home and one officer spoke again with the neighbors. Another officer waited until a fourth person (not a sworn officer) arrived to board up the damage caused by the forced entry. This board up person is also visible and audible on the BWC. Officers left a card with the pile of mail before leaving the home.

Issue:

Discussion:

The Data Practices Act presumes all government data are public, unless otherwise classified as not public. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)

Portable recording system data (commonly referred to as body camera video) are defined by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.825 as, “audio or video data collected by a portable recording system worn by a peace officer.” That section classifies data collected by a body camera as private or nonpublic, subject to limited exceptions not applicable to this opinion.

“Data not on individuals" are “all government data that are not data on individuals.” (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subd. 4.)

“Nonpublic data” are defined as “data not on individuals made by statute or federal law applicable to the data: (a) not accessible to the public; and (b) accessible to the subject, if any, of the data.” (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subd. 9.)

Data on individuals are defined as, “all government data in which any individual is or can be identified as the subject of that data, unless the appearance of the name or other identifying data can be clearly demonstrated to be only incidental to the data and the data are not accessed by the name or other identifying data of any individual.”

Section 13.825, subdivision 4, provides access to body camera data:

(a) For purposes of this chapter, a portable recording system data subject includes the peace officer who collected the data, and any other individual or entity, including any other peace officer, regardless of whether the officer is or can be identified by the recording, whose image or voice is documented in the data.

(b) An individual who is the subject of portable recording system data has access to the data, including data on other individuals who are the subject of the recording. If the individual requests a copy of the recording, data on other individuals who do not consent to its release must be redacted from the copy. The identity and activities of an on-duty peace officer engaged in an investigation or response to an emergency, incident, or request for service may not be redacted, unless the officer's identity is subject to protection under section 13.82, subdivision 17, clause (a).

In comments to the Commissioner, the City supported its decision to deny access to the requested body camera data:

Section 13.825 of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act provides a unique, format specific classification for a particular type of data – “portable recording system” data, more often called body worn camera (“BWC”) ….

First, subdivision 4(a) identifies who qualifies as a subject of BWC: the peace officer wearing the camera and any person (including peace officers) whose voice or image is documented in the footage. It does not matter whether the person is identified in the BWC footage; it matters only that the individual can be seen or heard in the BWC. Homes and personal property are mentioned nowhere in subdivision 4(a). As a result, they cannot be the subjects of BWC.

However, even if homes or personal property could be subjects of BWC, [X] still was properly denied access to the BWC in question because subdivision 4(b) is even more specific than subdivision 4(a). Subdivision 4(b) specifies who has access to BWC data and it provides that only “an individual who is the subject” has access (emphasis added). Individual “means a natural person.” Minn. Stat. § 13.02, subd. 8. As a result, only the natural persons who are seen or heard in the BWC have access to that footage. The legislature could have included in subdivision 4(b) a right for owners to access BWC documenting their property, but the legislature did not do so and no such right should be read into the statute.

The Commissioner agrees that section 13.825 establishes an alternative access scheme to the rest of the Data Practices Act. However, she does not agree with the conclusion the City reached in its analysis. Instead of arguing that X is not the subject of nonpublic data, the City argues that only individuals that are seen or heard may have access to body camera video. This is too narrow of a reading and impermissibly limits access by subjects of nonpublic data not on individuals.

Section 13.825, subd. 4(a) states that data subject “includes,” the subjects listed in that provision. It does not limit subjects to those identified. The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that “[t]he word ‘includes’ is not exhaustive or exclusive.” (See LaMont v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 728, 814 N.W.2d 14, 19 (Minn. 2012).) In paragraph (a), the Legislature identified additional data subjects who would have otherwise been considered incidental (see Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subd. 8) and would not have had access rights in other, non-body camera data contexts. Paragraph (a) serves as an exception to that general rule. Additionally, the language in 13.825, subd. 4(a) refers to “any other individual or entity,” which contradicts the City’s position.

Section 13.825, subd 4(b) provides access rights for data on individuals but does not, as the City contends, say that “only” individuals are entitled to access. Here again, the Legislature needed to specify access rights because a data subject in a body camera video is allowed to access (i.e., view or inspect) private data on other data subjects. A data subject is not allowed to access private data on others in almost every other data practices context. Thus, the provision does not limit access rights to only individual data subjects.

If the Legislature had intended for body camera data to be considered only data on individuals, it would have defined the data in that way and classified the data only as private. The City must give effect to the nonpublic classification by determining whether there is a subject of nonpublic data.

The definition of the nonpublic classification provides that it is, “accessible to the subject, if any, of the data.” While the City did not provide any analysis on how it would determine whether a requester is a subject of nonpublic data, the Commissioner believes the situation here is illustrative. The City police department received a call concerning X’s welfare. The police forced entry into X’s house, walked through the house to look for X, their child, and dog, contacted a company to board up the window, and closed the call. A portion of the requested videos includes only on-duty, non-undercover peace officers and images of X’s residence. Therefore, in these specific circumstances, X, as the owner and resident of the home depicted in the described videos, should have access to the 4-4.5-minute portion of the videos that portray only the search of the home and property but no other individuals except for on-duty officers. To decide otherwise would be to endorse an interpretation of 13.825 that allows law enforcement to create and maintain a collection of videos to which no one outside of the agency would have access.

In concluding its remarks, the City wrote, “if the legislature intended for Chapter 13 to provide access rights for persons whose homes or personal property are depicted in BWC, the Legislature left many critical questions entirely unanswered.” The Commissioner and the City are in full agreement. Many critical questions about implementing the classifications of section 13.825 have been left unanswered by the language and the Commissioner acknowledges that this advisory opinion provides an answer to only one question.

The Commissioner is acutely aware of the challenges that government entities and requesters face related to the administration of body camera data. Given the number of issues raised to the Data Practices Office on a weekly basis, it is her view that the section is overdue for reconsideration. Instead of resolving over time, these issues have compounded since the Legislature enacted the section in 2016, which has led to inconsistent application and widespread confusion. Thankfully, the Legislature now has a wider range of law enforcement agencies with experience using body cameras that can inform discussions about this section’s operations. She encourages the Legislature to revisit the policy and practical considerations of section 13.825 to determine whether revision and additional guidance are appropriate.

Opinion:

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

The City of Minneapolis did not respond appropriately to a request for body camera data, classified by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.825 as nonpublic, that document the requester’s home and personal property.

Signed:

Tamar Gronvall
Commissioner

April 23, 2026