How can I file a Minnesota public records request for Minneapolis Police Department personnel actions?

1. Identify what to ask for and why precise language matters

Requests should name specific records sought—“final disciplinary decisions,” “sustained complaint files,” or “personnel records relating to [officer name or badge number] from [date range]”—because Minnesota law treats different categories of law enforcement data differently and specific phrases map to statutory categories like law enforcement data and personnel data under section 13.82 and related provisions. ^{[3] [4]}

2. Send the request to the Responsible Authority or designated designee

The MGDPA requires submitting requests to the entity’s Responsible Authority (RA) or its designee; the Minnesota Data Practices Office and city guidance both instruct requesters to locate that contact in the entity’s data access policy or by contacting the office directly. ^{[1] [5]}

3. Use Minneapolis’ public-data portal or MPD records unit to file

The City of Minneapolis provides an online Data Request system and specific police report and data request pages where users can register, submit requests, and track their status; MPD also connects requesters to records specialists at the Public Service Building records office. ^{[2] [6] [7]}

4. Expect redactions, denials, fees, and statutory timelines

The DPS and city materials note that the MGDPA governs disclosure, allows withholding or redaction of private, confidential, and nonpublic data as permitted by statute, and contemplates fees; agencies commit to fulfilling requests “as quickly as possible,” but timelines and costs vary and there are no automatic fee waivers under Minnesota practice guides. ^{[8] [2] [4]}

5. Know what personnel data is generally public — and where disputes arise

Minnesota’s approach to personnel data identifies many employee attributes as public (name, salary range, job title, training), and final disciplinary actions are generally public, but Minneapolis has faced disputes and litigation over the scope—critics say a “coaching” classification has been used to keep many sustained complaints secret, and reporting has documented incomplete publication of final disciplinary decisions despite a consent decree and city ordinance. ^{[4] [9] [10]}

6. If denied or partially fulfilled, use appeal paths and community archives

When requests are refused or records are held back, the MGDPA framework supports administrative review and court challenges; advocacy organizations and independent archives like CUAPB have long used data-practice requests to compile searchable complaint and discipline databases and can be sources for previously obtained materials or models for escalations. ^{[9] [11]}

7. Special notes: critical incidents and officer identity notifications

For “critical incidents,” MPD policy requires internal notification to the city’s Responsible Authority within 24 hours about involved officers and any legal basis to delay public identification, but practical disclosure decisions still follow the statutory data-practices rules and can involve additional review. ^[12]

8. Practical checklist before submitting

Confirm the Responsible Authority contact on the City’s data-request pages, draft a narrowly tailored written request naming records and date ranges, submit via the City’s Data Request portal or MPD records unit so it’s trackable, budget for possible fees and redactions, and prepare to appeal administrative denials or to consult public-interest groups who have pursued similar records. ^{[2] [7] [1]}