This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2024). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.

Facts and Procedural History:

Isabella Nascimento, legal counsel for several media requestors (Media Requestors), requested an opinion regarding the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office’s (HCSO) response to requests for government data made under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (Data Practices Act). HCSO provided comments in response to the advisory opinion request.

The Media Requestors provided the following summary of the facts:

On June 16, 2025, KSTP’s Ryan Raiche requested “the 911 call transcript of the call made by Hope Hoffman to report the shooting of her parents by Vance Boelter.”… On June 17, KARE 11’s Lou Raguse submitted a similar request for the “[t]ranscript of all 911 calls related to the response to 8224 109th Place North, Champlin, MN 55316 regarding a shooting.”… On July 7, Star Tribune’s MaryJo Webster likewise requested “a copy of the transcript of a 911 call placed from within the home at 8224 109th Pl N in Champlin, on Saturday, June 14.”…

The County responded to all three requests with the same response:

The requested data is ‘criminal investigative data’ and is ‘confidential or protected nonpublic’ while the investigation is active pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 13.82, subd. 7. An investigation becomes inactive upon the occurrence of any of the events listed in this subdivision. Accordingly, the requested data cannot be disclosed while the investigation is active.

In response to KARE 11 and Star Tribune, the County also claimed that “much of the requested data cannot be disclosed pursuant to the Minnesota Health Records Act,” but failed to cite any particular provision of the law to support its denial.

KSTP appealed the denial of its request, but the County stood on its improper denial, again citing Minn. Stat. § 13.82, subd. 7. According to the County, “Subdivision 7 governs investigative data except for data in subdivisions 2, 3, and 6 of Section 13.82. The requested transcript falls under subdivision 4, and it is therefore confidential or protected non-public under subdivision 7 while the investigation is active.” It also added a reference to the Minnesota Health Records Act, still without citing to any particular provision therein. (Citations and references omitted.)

HCSO subsequently provided the Media Requestors with a redacted transcript, for which it charged the Media Requestors, and cited section 13.82, subdivision 7 and Minnesota Statutes, section 144.293 of the Minnesota Health Record Act (MHRA) for the redactions.

Issue:

Discussion:

1. Data Practices Act

Government data are public unless a state statute, federal law or temporary classification classifies the data as not public. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.) Some data that law enforcement collects and maintains are subject to this general, public presumption. When there is a criminal investigation however, Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82 and other statutes regulating law enforcement data classify the data. Certain law enforcement data are always public, certain data are always private, and certain data are temporarily confidential/protected nonpublic.

The following provisions of section 13.82 are relevant to this opinion:

Subdivision 3 provides:

The following data created or collected by law enforcement agencies which document requests by the public for law enforcement services shall be public government data:

(a) the nature of the request or the activity complained of.

Subdivision 4 provides:

The audio recording of a call placed to a 911 system for the purpose of requesting service from a law enforcement, fire, or medical agency is private data on individuals with respect to the individual making the call, except that a written transcript of the audio recording is public, unless it reveals the identity of an individual otherwise protected under subdivision 17. A transcript shall be prepared upon request. The person requesting the transcript shall pay the actual cost of transcribing the call, in addition to any other applicable costs provided under section 13.03, subdivision 3. The audio recording may be disseminated to law enforcement agencies for investigative purposes. The audio recording may be used for public safety and emergency medical services training purposes.

Subdivision 7 provides:

Except for the data defined in subdivisions 2, 3, and 6, investigative data collected or created by a law enforcement agency in order to prepare a case against a person, whether known or unknown, for the commission of a crime or other offense for which the agency has primary investigative responsibility are confidential or protected nonpublic while the investigation is active.

The Commissioner has previously opined on the classification of a 911 transcript. In Advisory Opinion 01-050, the Commissioner wrote:

Regarding the 911 transcript... It is the Commissioner's opinion that the transcript cannot be protected under subdivision 7 as criminal investigative data because it is not data that the Department collected or prepared in order to prepare a case against the caller. Rather, a call of this nature to a 911 center is a type of request for service data.

In Advisory Opinion 08-006, a County argued that it could withhold a 911 transcript based on section 13.82, subdivision 14, which allows a law enforcement agency to withhold public response or incident data (designated by section 13.82, subdivision 6) temporarily. The Commissioner wrote, “[t]he transcript of a call to a 911 system is request for service data, not response or incident data.”

Neither of the parties asserted that the call at issue in this advisory opinion included any identities protected by section 13.82, subdivision 17.

In their opinion request, the Media Requestors argued:

The data requested by the Media Requestors is public under the plain text of Minn. Stat. § 13.82, subd. 4…. That this data is public is bolstered by Subdivision 3, which makes public certain data “which document requests by the public for law enforcement services” (a 911 call is literally such a request). Id., subd. 3; id., subd. 4 (“a call placed to a 911 system for the purpose of requesting service from law enforcement … is private …, except that a written transcript of the audio recording is public” (emphasis added)). In other words, the transcript of a 911 call that requests law enforcement services is public data—which is precisely what the Media Requestors requested from the County here.

In response to the Commissioner, HSCO wrote:

Except for data defined in subdivisions 2, 3, and 6, under Minnesota Statutes § 13.82, subdivision 7, criminal investigative data is not public while the investigation is active.

…

Recordings and transcripts of 911 calls are not addressed in subdivisions 2, 3, or 6 of Minnesota Statutes § 13.82. They are instead addressed in subdivision 4. Subdivision 4 establishes that the audio of 911 calls is private, but that a written transcript of the call is public unless it would reveal the identity of certain protected individuals.

Under the plain language of Section 13.82, because a transcript of a 911 call is not addressed in subdivisions 2, 3, or 6, it is not public under subdivision 7 while it is active criminal investigative data.

The Commissioner agrees with the Media Requestors. It has been the Commissioner’s longstanding opinion that a 911 call is request for service data under 13.82, subd. 3. A 911 call communicates the “nature of the request or the activity complained of,” so relevant agencies can provide an appropriate response.

While the Data Practices Act generally classifies individual pieces of information or data elements, section 13.82, subd. 4 classifies an entire record as either private (“the audio recording”) or public (“a written transcript”). The classifications apply to a call placed to a 911 system “for the purpose of requesting services from a law enforcement agency, fire, or medical agency.” (Emphasis added.) As such, 13.82, subd. 4 acts as an exception to the always public classification of request for service data in 13.82, subd. 3, by creating a private classification of the audio recording while continuing to ensure public access to the call in the form of a transcript.

As the parties note, section 13.82, subd. 7 excludes “request for service data” from the not public classifications of active investigative data. Here, the Media Requestors requested a transcript of the June 14, 2025, 911 call. HCSO denied access to the transcript in whole, and then in part, stating the 911 call was active investigative data pursuant to section 13.82, subd. 7 and later, also citing the MHRA.

Therefore, HCSO did not respond appropriately because the transcript of the 911 call is public request for service data under section 13.82, subds. 3 and 4, rather than active criminal investigation data under section 13.82, subd. 7.

2. Minnesota Health Records Act

HCSO also argued that part of the 911 transcript is a health record under the Minnesota Health Records Act, Minnesota Statutes, sections 144.291-144.298, and cannot be provided to the Media Requestors.

For information to be a “health record” under the MHRA, it must relate to a “patient.” A patient is defined as “a natural person who has received health care services from a provider for treatment.” (Section 144.291, subd. 2(g).) (emphasis added). Individuals certified and regulated by the Office of Emergency Medical Services under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 144E are not included in the definition of a “provider.” (See section 144.291, subd. 2(i).)

HCSO provided the following:

Applying [the MHRA] to the present case, HCSO properly withheld a portion of the 911 transcript because it constitutes health records as they are defined under the Minnesota Health Records Act. A portion of the call captures communications with a medical dispatcher for the purpose of conveying health information regarding the injuries… to medical providers.

HCSO’s argument is not persuasive. When a government entity receives a health record directly from a provider, they are constrained from further dissemination by the MHRA. (Section 144.293, subdivision 2.) Documentation resulting from an individual sharing health-related information with a non-provider (e.g., law enforcement officers, EMT, emergency medical dispatch, etc.), is not subject to the MHRA. The exchange of information between the caller and dispatch here was to assess the nature of the requested service so that the proper response could be provided. As noted above, the transcript of this exchange documents a public request for service under section 13.82, subd. 3. Therefore, the MHRA is not an appropriate basis on which to deny access to a 911 transcript.

The Commissioner recognizes that the issue of access to 911 transcripts during an active investigation amplifies the inherent tension in the Data Practices Act among the three foundational policy considerations upon which the law rests: personal privacy, transparency, and government operations and efficiency. The legislature enacted section 13.82, subd. 4 (originally codified at subdivision 3a) in 1994 after the media requested and obtained a public recording of a 911 call during the active investigation of another tragic incident. In subsequently classifying the recording as private, the legislature acknowledged the caller’s right to privacy in the audio of their own voice in a sensitive and emotional situation.

The legislature also preserved the public’s right to obtain data necessary to observe and monitor government actions by requiring the creation of a transcript upon request, and it ensured that the recording could be accessed by the government entities that need it to do their jobs. If, in attempting to give effect to each of these competing interests, the legislature has not struck the intended balance, the Commissioner encourages the legislature to reconsider the language of section 13.82.

Opinion:

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

The Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office did not respond appropriately to data requests by the media for the transcript of a 911 call when it initially denied the request and when it subsequently provided a redacted transcript.

Signed:

Tamar Gronvall
Commissioner

September 23, 2025