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:

The City of Eden Prairie asked for an advisory opinion regarding data that its police department maintained under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (Data Practices Act).

The City provided the following summary of facts:

The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) is responsible for identifying records that qualify for Clean Slate Act expungement. Minn. Stat. § 609A.015, subd. 5(a). Upon identifying eligible records, the BCA must first inform the judicial branch and notify law enforcement agencies that their records may be affected. Minn. Stat. § 609A.015, subd. 5(g). A law enforcement agency “must not disclose records relating to an arrest, indictment or information, trial, verdict, or dismissal and discharge for any case in which the expungement relief was granted and must maintain the data consistent with the classification in paragraph (h).” Id. Paragraph (h), in turn, provides that “[d]ata on the person whose offense has been expunged under this subdivision, including any notice sent pursuant to paragraph (g), are private data on individuals as defined in section 13.02, subdivision 12.” Id., subd. 5(h).

The Eden Prairie Police Department is a law enforcement agency and governmental entity subject to both the MGDPA and the Clean Slate Act. The City has received notification from the BCA identifying records that have been automatically expunged. The City has since encountered several practical questions concerning how those expungements affect the classification and disclosure of data maintained by the City. While the Clean Slate Act prohibits disclosure of expunged records, it does not expressly address how those provisions interact with the classifications of law enforcement data under the MGDPA.

…

The City requests the Commissioner’s opinion on whether, when denying a request for data that have been automatically expunged under the Clean Slate Act, the City must cite Minn. Stat. § 609A.015 as the statutory basis for denying access to comply with Minn. Stat. § 13.03, subd. 3(f), or whether acknowledging the existence of an expungement by citing Section 609A.015 would itself constitute an impermissible disclosure under Minn. Stat. § 609A.01.

Issue:

Discussion:

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

If a government entity denies access to data that are classified as not public, then the entity must inform the requester of the specific legal authority that allows it to withhold the requested data. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3(f).)

Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82 governs data maintained by law enforcement agencies. Under section 13.82, subdivisions 2, 3, and 6, certain categories of arrest data, request for service data, and response or incident data are designated as being always public regardless of the status of a criminal investigation.

Meanwhile, section 13.82, subdivision 7 states that any other data created or collected 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.” Investigative data become public, with exceptions, when an investigation becomes inactive upon the occurrence of one of the specific events described under section 13.82, subd. 7.

The Minnesota Legislature enacted Minnesota Statutes, section 609A.015 (Clean Slate Act) in 2023. Minnesota Statutes, section 609A.01 describes the general public policy aims underlying expungements, generally, as well as the Clean Slate Act, stating:

This chapter provides the grounds and procedures for expungement of criminal records under section 13.82; 152.18, subdivision 1; 299C.11, where expungement is automatic under sections 609A.015 … . The remedy available is limited to a court order or grant of expungement under section 609A.015 sealing the records and prohibiting the disclosure of their existence or their opening except under court order or statutory authority. Nothing in this chapter authorizes the destruction of records or their return to the subject of the records.

Meanwhile, section 609A.015, subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 establish that an individual’s criminal record or delinquency record may be automatically expunged if the individual was arrested and the charges were later dismissed or if the criminal matter was resolved in favor of the individual. Individuals may also have their criminal record expunged if they successfully complete a diversion program or stay of adjudication related to qualifying offenses. Further, an individual convicted of certain criminal offenses is eligible for automatic expungement so long as the individual has met specific criteria.

Section 609A.015, subdivision 5 describes the process for how the Clean Slate Act expungements are identified and implemented. Subdivision 5(g) states:

The Bureau of Criminal Apprehension shall inform each law enforcement agency that its records may be affected by a grant of expungement relief. Notification may be through electronic means. Each notified law enforcement agency that receives a request to produce records shall first determine if the records were subject to a grant of expungement under this section. The law enforcement agency must not disclose records relating to an arrest, indictment or information, trial, verdict, or dismissal and discharge for any case in which expungement relief was granted and must maintain the data consistent with the classification in paragraph (h). This paragraph does not apply to requests from a criminal justice agency as defined in section 609A.03, subdivision 7a, paragraph (f).

Additionally, section 609A.015, subdivision 5(h) states, “Data on the person whose offense has been expunged under this subdivision, including any notice sent pursuant to paragraph (g), are private data on individuals as defined in section 13.02, subdivision 12.”

In its request for an opinion, the City wrote:

Minn. Stat. § 13.03, subd. 3(f) (2026), requires a government entity denying access to data to cite the specific statutory basis for the denial. Minn. Stat. § 609A.01, however, prohibits disclosure of both expunged records and their existence, except as otherwise authorized by law. These sections appear to conflict with one another.

...

“In resolving conflicts between statutory provisions, we have stated that the more specific provision prevails over the more general provision.” Matter of SIRS Appeal by Best Care, LLC, 26 N.W.3d 459, 480 (Minn. 2025). The City takes the position that, because it is more specific to expunged records than the general requirement in Section 13.03, subd. 3(f), Section 609A.01 governs to prohibit the City from citing the statutory basis for denial because such a citation would necessarily acknowledge the existence of the data. In response to a request for a record that has been expunged under the Clean Slate Act, therefore, the required response is that “no data exist that are responsive to the request,” or similar language.

While we believe this response to be appropriate based on this statutory interpretation, we acknowledge that it may be somewhat absurd depending on the context of the request. …

The Commissioner appreciates the City’s analysis of the requirements of section 13.03, subd. 3(f), section 609A.01, and section 609A.015. However, she respectfully disagrees with the City’s conclusions.

The City argues that section 609A.01 and the requirements of section 13.03 (and other provisions of the Data Practices Act that require disclosure of the existence of a record) conflict with one another. The City resolves this possible conflict in favor of section 609A.01 based on specificity and policy. However, Minnesota Statutes, section 645.26, subdivision 1 states, in part, “When a general provision in a law is in conflict with a special provision in the same or another law, the two shall be construed, if possible, so that effect may be given to both.” If the provisions cannot be reconciled, then the special provision will prevail.

Therefore, the question to be answered is whether the provisions can be read together before determining whether there is a conflict. The Commissioner believes section 609A.01 and section 13.03 can be harmonized.

Section 609A.01 allows the existence of an expunged record to be disclosed under statutory authority. Meanwhile, section 609A.015, subd. 5(g) describes how a law enforcement agency must treat law enforcement data that have been the subject of a Clean Slate Act expungement. The subdivision prohibits an agency from “disclos[ing] records relating to an arrest, indictment or information, trial, verdict, or dismissal and discharge for any case” where automatic expungement was granted. Further, the language of the subdivision requires an agency to “maintain the data consistent with the classification in paragraph (h).” Subdivision 5(h) classifies data on the person whose offense has been expunged as private data on individuals.

Functionally, the language of section 609A.015, subd. 5(g) limits the disclosure of records by reclassifying automatically expunged law enforcement data about an individual from being public data under section 13.82, subds. 2, 3, 6, and 7 to private data under section 609A.015, subd. 5(h). As a result, the entirety of the record containing the law enforcement data is not exempted from the requirements of the Data Practices Act in the same way that a record may be sealed and exempted from data practices requirements when an individual petitions a court to expunge a criminal record. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 609A.03, subdivision 5(d).) Rather, the law enforcement data subject to automatic expungement via the Clean Slate Act become private data on individuals, the Data Practices Act continues to govern those data.

Therefore, a law enforcement agency must still meet all its various obligations under the Data Practices Act regarding data classified as private under section 609A.015, subd. 5(h), including providing the data subject with access to private data upon request. Further, the Data Practices Act also requires government entities to cite a specific statutory section when it determines that requested data are classified in a way that prevents a requester from accessing those data. (See section 13.03, subd. 3(f).) Therefore, section 13.03, subd. 3(f) is a statutory authority that requires an entity to acknowledge the existence of an expunged record when denying access and citing a statutory section.

This analysis is further supported by the language in section 609A.015, subd. 5(g) stating that a law enforcement agency “must not disclose records” that have been expunged. A law enforcement agency that cites section 609A.015 as the reason that certain data are classified as not public data would not disclose the contents of those records, and the agency would not be violating subdivision 5(g). Additionally, the citation would ensure that an agency is meeting its applicable obligations under the Data Practices Act regarding private data, including disclosing the existence of the record to and allowing access by a data subject (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 3), permitting access to private data with the data subject’s consent (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 4(d)), and citing a statute that permits the agency to withhold data from the public (section 13.03, subd. 3(f)).

Therefore, both statutory requirements of the Clean Slate Act and Data Practices Act can be reconciled and read together, and the Data Practices Act is the statutory authority allowing a law enforcement agency to acknowledge the existence of the expunged record. Additionally, the law enforcement agency may not disclose a record that was the subject of a Clean Slate Act expungement except as permitted by the Data Practices Act.

The Commissioner has a final note regarding the Clean Slate Act and its intersection with the Data Practices Act. The Data Practice Office has received numerous questions from Minnesota law enforcement agencies regarding how to best balance the requirements of the Clean Slate Act and Data Practices Act beyond the question addressed in this opinion.

One issue that law enforcement agencies have raised includes situations where a single law enforcement record involves multiple arrested or investigated individuals but only one individual qualifies for automatic expungement. A similar issue involves situations when a law enforcement record documents an incident where a single individual was charged with or convicted of multiple offenses but only some of those offenses have been automatically expunged.

In these scenarios, law enforcement agencies have asked whether it is appropriate that an entire record be withheld or only specific data related to the expunged offense should be redacted when responding to the request. The current language of section 609A.015 does not provide clear guidance to law enforcement agencies for how to appropriately address these situations involving multiple data subjects or offenses, and agencies are taking different approaches that create inconsistent results across different jurisdictions for data requesters and data subjects regarding the availability of automatically expunged records.

These issues are only two examples among many that law enforcement agencies have raised to Data Practices Office staff when asking questions about the Clean Slate Act. The Commissioner encourages the Legislature to revisit the language of section 609A.015 to clarify law enforcement agencies’ obligations under the Clean Slate Act. Additional clarification can help ensure that law enforcement agencies throughout Minnesota are consistently applying the Clean Slate Act and the Data Practices Act in ways that meet the Legislature’s intended public policy goals.

Opinion:

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

A City that receives a data request for law enforcement data that has been expunged by the Clean Slate Act, Minnesota Statutes, section 609A.015, must cite the specific statutory section that authorizes it to withhold access to those data, as required by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3(f).

Signed:

Tamar Gronvall
Commissioner

October 16, 2026