Bill

HF 2938

Access to unredacted portable recording system data related to collision investigations permitted.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Bidal Duran and 1 co-sponsor

The bill allows collision-report recipients to receive unredacted PRS data from collision investigations, with limited agency denials for active investigations, offensiveness, or n

Introduction and first reading, referred to Judiciary Finance and Civil Law

#courts #datapracticesandprivacy #motorvehicles #publicsafetydepartment

WeVote Research Nonpartisan

Bill Summary · HF 2938

Summary of HF 2938 (2025-2026) – Access to Unredacted Portable Recording System Data Related to Collision Investigations

Purpose and Intent

HF 2938 proposes to amend Minnesota law to require access to unredacted portable recording system (PRS) data collected during collision investigations. The bill expands access to such data for individuals entitled to a collision report, allowing unredacted copies that include data on other subjects captured in the recordings, with limited and specific exemptions. The overarching goal is to ensure more comprehensive disclosure to collision-report recipients while maintaining the ability of law enforcement agencies to withhold certain material when appropriate.

Key Provisions and Changes

Definitions (Section 1, Subd. 4):
- Clarifies who qualifies as a “PRS data subject.” This includes the peace officer who collected the data and any other individuals or entities (including other peace officers) who appear in the recording, regardless of whether the officer can be identified.
Access to Data for Data Subjects (Subd. 4(a)-(b) as current law):
- Data subjects have access to the data, including information about other subjects in the recording.
- If a data subject requests a copy, data about other individuals who do not consent to its release must be redacted.
- On-duty peace officer identity and activities documented in the recording may not be redacted, unless protected under specific statutory duties (section 13.82, subd. 17, clause (a)).
New Access Provision for Collision Reports (Proposed Subd. 4(c)):
- Creates a special entitlement for individuals who are entitled to a report of a collision under Minn. Stat. § 169.09, subd. 13.
- Such individuals must be provided with copies of unredacted PRS data from all PRS used in the collision investigation, including data about other subjects.
- Exceptions (agency denial standards): A law enforcement agency may deny unredacted access if:
- There is a compelling reason that disclosure would interfere with an active investigation.
- The data is clearly offensive to common sensibilities.
- The data is classified as not public by other provisions of the chapter.
- If access is denied under the active-investigation exception, the agency must promptly provide a written explanation to the requester, describing the compelling reason and advising that relief may be sought from the district court under Minn. Stat. § 13.82, subd. 7 (which provides a privacy/public data access remedy to challenge or seek relief).

Who Is Affected

PRS Data Subjects: Peace officers and other individuals captured on PRS data, including colleagues who may be identified in recordings.
Collision Report Recipients: Individuals entitled to a collision report under Minnesota law (generally involved parties and certain authorized requestors) who would gain access to unredacted PRS data related to the collision investigation.
Law Enforcement Agencies: Responsible for processing requests, applying the new unredacted data access rule, and assessing exemptions when denying access. Agencies must provide prompt written justification when denying under the active-investigation exception.

Procedural and Timeline Considerations

Effective Mechanism: The bill would amend Minn. Stat. 13.825, subd. 4, to add the new subsection (c) governing unredacted access for collision reports.
Denied Access Process: If an agency denies access under the active-investigation exception, it must promptly issue a written reason and inform the requester of the right to seek relief in district court under existing procedures (13.82, subd. 7).
Court Review: The remedy pathway remains through district court if relief is sought, maintaining an option for judicial review of access decisions.

Practical Implications

Potentially greater transparency for collision-report recipients by providing unredacted PRS data, which could include information about bystanders, victims, or other involved individuals.
Balancing test between public safety/active investigations and transparency: agencies must weigh the risk of ongoing investigations against the benefits of full disclosure.
Possible privacy considerations for individuals depicted in PRS data, though the bill provides specific exceptions where denial is permissible.