Purpose

The bill updates how court records are handled in Minnesota and strengthens protections for sensitive evidence. It aims to limit public exposure to certain evidence and images, especially when they could harm victims or minors, and it sets up a process for protective orders to shield highly sensitive material. It also clarifies how certain investigative data is classified as public or private, both during active investigations and after they become inactive.

Main Provisions

• Classification of criminal investigative data (Minnesota Statutes 2024 §13.82 subd. 7)

  • Active investigations: data collected or created by a law enforcement agency to prepare a case are confidential or protected nonpublic.
  • Inactive investigations: data are public unless releasing them would jeopardize another ongoing investigation or reveal identities protected by law.
  • Images and recordings (photos, video, audio) that are part of inactive files and are clearly offensive to common sensibilities are classified as private or nonpublic, even if they were used as evidence in court. The existence of these images/recordings must still be disclosed to someone requesting the file.
  • When does an investigation become inactive? Examples include decisions not to pursue the case, expiration of the time to charge/file under the statute of limitations (or 30 years after the offense, whichever comes first), or exhaustion/expiration of all rights of appeal by someone convicted based on the data.
  • If an investigation becomes inactive under the first scenario (a), it can become active again if the agency decides to renew the investigation.
  • During an active investigation, any person may seek disclosure via district court. The court can order release of all or part of the data. The court uses an in-camera review and weighs public benefit against potential harms to the agency or individuals.

• Evidence clearly offensive to common sensibilities (Section 634.355)

  • The section is titled the Jay Boughton Minor Protection Evidence Access Act.
  • Key terms defined: “victim” (as defined in Minnesota law) and “crime of violence” (as defined in Minnesota law).
  • In criminal cases involving a crime of violence, if evidence that is clearly offensive to common sensibilities could cause significant privacy disruption or severe emotional distress to a victim or a third party, the prosecuting authority must seek a protective order to prevent unnecessary public disclosure. Extra care is given to victims or third parties who are minors.
  • In crimes of violence, the prosecuting authority must seek a protective order to shield:
  • Audio recordings of 911 calls made by a minor victim or a minor family member of a victim when requesting service from law enforcement, fire, or medical services.
  • Video footage showing a minor victim or a minor family member of a victim, captured by portable recording systems or by a video camera in a law enforcement vehicle.
  • The protective order can limit further dissemination, but it does not suspend the defendant’s right to access evidence under the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
  • The protective order process is intended to balance the need to protect privacy and emotional well-being with the defendant’s rights to access relevant evidence.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

• Adds mandatory protective orders for certain sensitive evidence in violence crimes, especially when public release could harm victims or minors.
• Establishes a governing framework for classifying and disclosing criminal investigative data, including the handling of inactive data and the visibility of the existence of sensitive images or recordings.
• Introduces a formal mechanism (in-court, with in-camera review) to determine when and what data should be disclosed to the public or to a person seeking access.
• Creates a specific statutory name for the act related to minor protection in evidence disclosure (Jay Boughton Minor Protection Evidence Access Act), signaling heightened protections for minors and sensitive material.
• Sets clear protections for minor victims and minor family members in the context of 911 calls and law enforcement video footage, while preserving defendant access under existing procedures.

Practical Implications

• Prosecutors will more often seek protective orders to shield sensitive evidence, particularly when minors are involved.
• Public access to certain investigative data and to sensitive images/recordings may be restricted, even if the data were previously used in court.
• Courts have a defined process to weigh public interest against privacy and safety concerns, with in-camera review to determine disclosure.

Relevant Terms - protective order - evidence - clearly offensive to common sensibilities - private data - nonpublic data - public data - inactive investigative data - active investigation - images and recordings - photographs - video - audio - 911 system call - minor victim - minor family member - crime of violence - victim - portable recording system - in camera review - prosecuting authority - judge/ district court - Rules of Criminal Procedure - Jay Boughton Minor Protection Evidence Access Act