Search Opinions
Browse Opinions by Date
Request an Opinion
Our Role
Help with searching
For a Topic Search use terms suggested on our Topics page. Please note that clicking the "Browse Topics" link on the Search Opinions tab will take you away from the search page to a different page, which will lose any existing search results or data that has been entered into search boxes. If you plan to search by topic, we recommend selecting your topic first, and complete any additional fields in the search form after that.
For a simple search, type a few words or a phrase in the Full Text search box, then hit Enter or click the Search button. Your search query can be a single word, multiple words separated by spaces, or it can use more advanced syntax described in the FAQ below. Try to use words that are likely to be unique to the content you're looking for.
Note: For best results when searching for a particular citation, spell out the section and subdivision. For example, “13.43, subdivision 4.”
About Search Results
The advisory opinion library currently includes:
- Data practices advisory opinions issued by the Commissioner of Administration from 1993 to the present.
- Open Meeting Law advisory opinions issued by the Commissioner of Administration from 2003 to the present.
The Commissioner's authority is found in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072. Opinions are nonbinding, but a court may give them deference in a court action. Parties to a court action that act in conformity with an advisory opinion are not liable for certain damages or attorneys fees.
A written, numbered, and published opinion issued by the attorney general shall take precedence over an advisory opinion issued by the Commissioner of Administration.
Results 1 - 10 of 85
Advisory Opinion 22-003
June 17, 2022; City of Minneapolis
This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2021). It is based on the facts and information ...
Description: A member of the public asked whether a city responded appropriately to a request for a copy of body camera data that was presented as evidence in court. The city argued that the request should have been directed to the prosecutor’s office, and that the body camera data were private pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.825. The Commissioner determined that the city did not respond properly to the data request because prosecutors are not law enforcement agencies for purposes of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, and the obligation to provide access to data under this section resides with the law enforcement agency. Further, the body camera data are public pursuant to section 13.82, subdivision 7 as data presented as evidence in court.
Category: Law enforcement data, Response to data requests
Keywords: Law enforcement data, Response to data requests, Body camera data 13.825
Commissioner: Alice Roberts-Davis
Advisory Opinion 20-004
March 5, 2020; City of Minneapolis
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 ...
Description: A City asked about whether it was the agency with “primary investigative responsibility” pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subdivision 7, when the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) investigates an officer-involved shooting on its behalf. The City also asked about the classification of body camera data while the BCA investigates the officers’ conduct. The Commissioner agreed that the City’s position that the BCA was acting as the City’s agent was reasonable and therefore, the City retained the primary investigative responsibility. Additionally, based on the plain language of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.825, subdivision 2(a)(3), body camera data that are part of an active criminal investigation are classified by section 13.82, subd. 7, as confidential and protected nonpublic while the investigation is active. Once the investigation is inactive, the body camera video data are classified by section 13.825.
Category: Law enforcement data
Keywords: Law enforcement data, Portable recording system data, Law enforcement, Law enforcement (13.82), Law enforcement data, Body camera data 13.825
Commissioner: Alice Roberts-Davis
Advisory Opinion 19-011
September 16, 2019; City of Shakopee
This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2018). It is based on the facts and information ...
Description: A City asked about the classification of data that the police department collected from a school district pursuant to a subpoena, as part of a criminal investigation. The District argued that the data were private personnel data and retained that classification in the hands of the City. The Commissioner concluded that the data “traveled” from the District to the City and therefore, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 4(a), the data changed classifications; the data were law enforcement data classified by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, in the hands of the City.
Category: Law enforcement data, Personnel data
Keywords: Law enforcement data, Personnel data, Law enforcement, Law enforcement (13.82), Law enforcement data, Traveling data, Personnel data, Personnel data (13.43)
Commissioner: Alice Roberts-Davis
Advisory Opinion 19-005
April 4, 2019; Minnesota Department of Public Safety
This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2018). It is based on the facts and information ...
Description: A law enforcement agency asked about the classification of data in an inactive criminal investigation of an officer-involved fatal shooting. The Commissioner opined that the data were variously classified under Minnesota Statutes, sections 260B.171 (peace officer records of children), 13.10 (private data on decedents), 13.82 (law enforcement data), and 13.825 (body camera data). The Commissioner also opined that absent clarification from the Legislature, law enforcement agencies have discretion to interpret the scope of the plain meaning of “data that document the discharge of a firearm” that are public under section 13.825.
Category: Law enforcement data, Peace officer records of children
Keywords: Law enforcement data, Peace officer records of children, Decedents, Decedents (13.10), Juveniles, Juveniles (260.161 / 260B.171), Law enforcement data, Law enforcement (13.82), Body camera data 13.825, Portable recording system data
Commissioner: Alice Roberts-Davis
Advisory Opinion 18-017
December 6, 2018; City of Eden Prairie
This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2018). It is based on the facts and information ...
Description: A city asked about the classification of certain data related to the final disposition of disciplinary action in an “Investigation File,” which is now part of an active criminal investigation. The city discussed the operation of section 13.43, and concluded that the data in the Investigation File are public personnel data. The Commissioner agreed that the data are public when maintained by the city and confidential/protected nonpublic at the prosecuting attorney’s office, consistent with a 2016 Minnesota Supreme Court case, Harlow v. State Dept. of Human Services, 883 N.W.2d 561 (Minn. 2016).
Category: Personnel data, Law enforcement data
Keywords: Personnel data, Law enforcement data, Harlow, Investigative data, Disciplinary action, Final decision regarding disciplinary action, Final disposition of disciplinary action
Commissioner: Matthew Massman
Advisory Opinion 18-007
June 15, 2018; City of New Prague
This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2017). It is based on the facts and information ...
Description: A City asked if it was required to provide access to a sealed criminal record pursuant to 5 USC § 9101. The language in that provision allows military recruiters to access certain records maintained by state and local law enforcement when the expunged records remain available for background checks. Here, the case against the subject of the records was ultimately dismissed and therefore, because there were not any record of a “conviction,” the records are not available for background checks under Minn. Stat. § 609A.03. Therefore, the City could not disclose the sealed records to the military recruiter.
Category: Expunged records/sealed records, Law enforcement data
Keywords: Expunged records/sealed records, Law enforcement data,
Commissioner: Matthew Massman
Advisory Opinion 18-002
February 26, 2018; City of Blue Earth
This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2017). It is based on the facts and information ...
Description: A police department asked about the classification of records involving juveniles. The Commissioner opined that per Minnesota Statutes, section 260B.171, when a juvenile is or may be delinquent or is or may be involved in criminal acts and the proceedings are not open to the public, records of juveniles are private. Identifying information about juvenile witnesses and victims are classified by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82, subd. 17, as private, when the law enforcement agency has made the required determinations.
Category: Law enforcement data, Peace officer records of children
Keywords: Law enforcement data, Peace officer records of children, Juveniles, Juveniles (260.161 / 260B.171)
Commissioner: Matthew Massman
Advisory Opinion 17-008
September 28, 2017; City of Grand Rapids
This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2017). It is based on the facts and information ...
Description: , a City asked about the classification of data that identify the location of a victim of domestic abuse, when the data are maintained by a nonprofit domestic violence advocacy agency. The Commissioner concluded that while Minnesota Statutes, section 13.823 specifically exempts private nonprofit domestic violence advocacy agencies who are not under the direct control of a government entity from Ch. 13, other sections require those agencies to maintain data about victims as private data as defined in Ch. 13. Additionally, federal statutes also restrict access to information about victims of domestic abuse. Therefore, while the advocacy agencies are not subject to Ch. 13, they must maintain data that identify the location of a victim of domestic abuse as private data and that information cannot be disclosed without consent, statutory authorization, or a court order.
Category: Law enforcement data
Keywords: Law enforcement data, Domestic abuse data
Commissioner: Matthew Massman
Advisory Opinion 17-002
April 18, 2017; City of Woodbury
This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2016). It is based on the facts and information ...
Description: a newspaper asked if a city police department had properly classified various data elements in various police incident reports (ICRs). The Commissioner determined that the city had properly redacted some data elements, improperly withheld others, and in some cases could not make a determination. The Commissioner noted that law enforcement agencies must exercise their discretion to protect certain identities on a case-by-case basis, and must document those determinations.
Category: Law enforcement data
Keywords: Law enforcement data, Protected identities (13.82, subd. 17 / subd. 10)
Commissioner: Matthew Massman
Advisory Opinion 14-018
November 17, 2014; Department of Public Safety
This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2014). It is based on the facts and information ...
Description: A requester asked for access to copies
of contracts and non-disclosure agreements for cell
phone exploitation equipment. The entity said it could
not redact the documents because they contained
inextricably intertwined trade secret data (section
13.37, subdivision 1(b)), and “deliberative process/
investigative techniques” data (section 13.82,
subdivision 25). Contracts and non-disclosure
agreements contain standard clauses that are
presumptively public. Accordingly, the entity must
redact any data that are properly classified under
sections 13.37 and/or 13.82, and release the remaining
public data.
Category: Contracts/privatization, Law enforcement data, Trade secret
Keywords: Contracts/privatization, Law enforcement data, Trade secret, Deliberative processes (13.82, subd. 25 / subd. 16), Contracts, Privatization, 13.03 subdivision 11, Classification generally
Commissioner: Matthew Massman Acting
Refine your search
Filter By Keywords
- All Results
- Law enforcement data (83)
- Response or incident data (13.82, subd. 6 / subd. 4) (10)
- Educational data (9)
- Legislative authority and intent (9)
- Personnel data (9)
- Protected identities (13.82, subd. 17 / subd. 10) (9)
- Juveniles (260.161 / 260B.171) (8)
- Request for service data (13.82, subd. 3) (8)
- Arrest data (7)
- Criminal investigative data (13.82, subd. 7) (7)
- Law enforcement (13.82) (7)
- Traffic accidents (169.09) (7)
- Data subjects (6)
- Law enforcement (6)
- Physical data access (13.82, subd. 16 / subd. 9) (5)
- Copy costs (4)
- Photographs/videotapes (See also: Law enforcement - Booking photos) (4)
- Statutory construction (Ch. 645) (4)
- Victim access to active investigative data (13.82, subd. 13 / subd. 6) (4)
- Dispatch logs (3)
- Firearms (13.87, subd. 2 / 13.36) (3)
- Initial crime report (ICR) (3)
- Inspection (3)
- Photographs (3)
- Requests for data (3)
- Response to data requests (3)