WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SF 5268

Attorney general's subpoena authority modification

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Doron Clark and 2 co-sponsors

The bill expands the Minnesota attorney general’s subpoena power to many more record types, limited to records relevant to ongoing investigations.

Referred to Judiciary and Public Safety
#courts #government-state
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SF 5268

Summary of SF 5268 (2025-2026) — Attorney General's Subpoena Authority Modification (Minnesota)

Purpose and Intent

SF 5268 aims to modify and expand the subpoena authority of the Minnesota attorney general. Specifically, it broadens the categories of records that the attorney general, or authorized deputies, assistant attorneys general, or special assistant AGs, may subpoena in any county of the state. The bill also restricts subpoenas to records relevant to an ongoing legitimate law enforcement investigation.

Key Provisions and Changes

  • Expanded scope of subpoena authority (proposed new text in §8.16, subd. 1):
    • Subpoena power granted to:
    • The attorney general and any deputy, assistant, or special assistant AG whom the AG authorizes in writing.
    • Categories of records that may be subpoenaed include the following (newly added, former language removed where indicated):
    • Records from:
      • Telephone companies, cellular phone companies, paging companies
      • Subscribers of private computer networks, including Internet service providers or computer bulletin board systems
      • Electric, gas, and water utilities
      • Chemical suppliers
      • Hotels and motels
      • Pawn shops
      • Airlines, buses, taxis, and other entities engaged in transporting people
      • Freight companies, self-service storage facilities, warehousing companies, package delivery companies, and other entities engaged in transport, storage, or delivery
    • Wage and employment records
    • Records of the existence of safe deposit box account numbers and customer savings and checking account numbers maintained by financial institutions and safe deposit companies
    • Insurance records related to claim settlement
  • Limitation on use (subdivision 1, new subpoint (b)):
    • Subpoenas may only be issued for records that are relevant to an ongoing legitimate law enforcement investigation.

Note: The bill text indicates a reformulation of several categories (with some terms shown as “new text” and others as “deleted” in the draft, reflecting changes from prior law). The overarching effect is a broader and more explicit set of record categories that can be subpoenaed by the AG, while tying use to ongoing investigations.

Who or What Would Be Affected

  • Subject entities for subpoenas: A wide array of commercial and utility providers, service providers, and record holders, including:
    • Telecommunications companies and subscribers
    • Internet service providers
    • Utilities (electric, gas, water)
    • Transport and logistics entities (airlines, buses, taxis, freight, storage and delivery services)
    • Hotels, motels, pawn shops
    • Chemical suppliers
    • Wage and employment records (employers, payroll processors)
    • Financial institutions and safe deposit facilities (account number records)
    • Insurance claim-related records
  • Government actors: The Minnesota attorney general and any specifically authorized deputies or assistants.

Procedural and Timeline Aspects

  • Effective governance: The bill requires authorization in writing for deputies, assistants, or special assistant AGs to exercise the subpoena power.
  • Scope and limitations: Subpoenas must be for records relevant to an ongoing legitimate law enforcement investigation, providing a guardrail against broad or unfocused use.
  • Status: Introduced and read for the first time on May 6, 2026; referred to the Judiciary and Public Safety committees.

Practical Implications

  • Investigative capabilities: The AG would have a broadened ability to obtain diverse data crucial to investigations, potentially accelerating fact-finding in cases involving utilities, finance, transportation, and other regulated sectors.
  • Privacy and due process considerations: While the bill imposes a relevance requirement to ongoing investigations, the expanded list of records raises considerations about privacy, data minimization, and potential impacts on individuals and businesses who may be asked to produce records.
  • Oversight and accountability: Written authorization requirements for deputies and assistants enhance internal controls over who can issue subpoenas.

If you’d like, I can attach a plain-language brief comparing SF 5268 to current law, or provide a questions-and-answersFAQ for stakeholders (businesses, consumer groups, and law enforcement).

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.