What are Minneapolis Police Department procedures for documenting injuries at protests and when do they file formal assault reports?

1. How MPD says injuries at protests should be recorded: operational paperwork and the policy manual

MPD maintains a Policy and Procedure Manual that governs how employees document incidents and uses of force, meaning officers at protests are bound by the same documentation standards as elsewhere in the city, including completing incident and use-of-force reports as required by policy ^{[1] [2]}. The city’s public-facing pages and report portals make clear that formal police reports, body-worn camera footage requests, and data requests are the channels by which incident details and injuries become part of the official record ^{[7] [8]}.

2. Civilian injury reporting routes and limits on online reporting

Civilians injured at protests can file reports in person at precincts or through the city’s reporting resources, but the online report form excludes incidents where someone was injured, so many protest-related injury complaints cannot be started via the online portal and must be reported through other means or in person ^{[9] [3]}. Victims and witnesses are also explicitly encouraged to preserve and submit evidence when filing misconduct complaints with OPCR, indicating the city expects documentary support for injury allegations ^{[4] [10]}.

3. When MPD files formal internal “assault” or use-of-force reports

MPD separates routine incident reporting from formal internal investigations; when an officer’s use of force meets thresholds in the policy manual it triggers mandatory reporting and internal review under MPD rules, which feed into OPCR or internal affairs processes ^{[1] [2]}. The publicly available materials emphasize that violations of the policy manual are within OPCR’s remit, meaning alleged officer assaults or excessive force at protests would be processed through that formal complaint and investigative pathway ^[4].

4. The OPCR intake, investigation, and review panel process

When a complaint alleges policy violations, OPCR investigates and prepares a case file that is reviewed by a five-member panel made up of three civilian members from the Community Commission on Police Oversight and two MPD leaders; that panel recommends whether policies were violated, and the Chief issues discipline decisions documented in a formal memo ^{[5] [6]}. The process is staged: complainants file evidence and OPCR conducts investigative steps before the civilian–police review; however the city notes that final disciplinary memos are withheld until grievance/arbitration processes conclude, limiting immediate public disclosure ^{[5] [6]}.

5. Union safeguards, grievances and external oversight options

Discipline for officers is constrained by the Police Officers’ Federation contract: the union can initiate grievances and pursue arbitration over discipline decisions, and the city warns that disciplinary outcomes may not be publicly available while grievances proceed ^{[5] [6]}. Complainants also have independent avenues such as the Minnesota POST board or civil legal remedies, though POST’s jurisdiction is limited to violations of state standards and may not address every complaint related to protest injuries ^{[11] [4]}.

6. Federal scrutiny and context from the DOJ review

A recent Department of Justice investigation examined MPD practices between 2016–2022 and found patterns of conduct and documentation issues surrounding uses of force that informed a federal findings report, demonstrating that protest-related policing and how force and injuries were recorded were central to broader federal scrutiny of MPD practices ^[12]. That report provides context that local policy and complaint mechanisms operate within a backdrop of federal findings and potential reform obligations ^[12].

7. Gaps, practical realities, and what the public record does not fully specify

Publicly available city pages and manuals explain the systems — incident reports, OPCR intake, review panels, union grievance — but they do not publish granular play-by-play instructions specific to protests (for example, how quickly a protest-related injury must be logged on the street, or an exact threshold for when an “assault” label is added to an officer report), creating a gap between policy framework and operational specifics that are not disclosed on the cited public pages ^{[1] [2] [4]}.

8. Bottom line

MPD requires officers to follow policy-based reporting and provides formal civilian complaint and investigative channels for protest injuries, with serious force allegations routed to OPCR and reviewed by a civilian–MPD panel; final discipline is subject to union grievance and limited public disclosure, and federal review has flagged systemic documentation and use-of-force concerns — but explicit on-the-ground timing and threshold details for labeling an officer action an “assault” are not fully articulated in the public documents reviewed ^{[5] [6] [1] [12] [4]}.