WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HF 1567

Personal information protections provided to public safety officers.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Matt Bliss and 7 co-sponsors

HF 1567 tightens protection of public safety officers’ personal data, restricting collection, access, disclosure, and retention to shield officers from doxxing and harassment.

Second reading
#courts #datapracticesandprivacy #policeandpeaceofficers
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HF 1567

Summary of HF 1567 (2025-2026) — Minnesota

Purpose and intent

HF 1567 aims to enhance the protection of personal information for public safety officers. The bill sets forth requirements and limitations designed to safeguard identifying data and sensitive information related to police, sheriff, and other public safety personnel, while also addressing the government’s handling and disclosure of such information.

Key provisions and changes

  • Protection of personal identifiers for public safety officers

    • Establishes stricter standards for collecting, maintaining, and disclosing personal information about public safety officers.
    • Likely areas covered include home addresses, personal phone numbers, email addresses, emergency contact information, and other directly identifying data.
    • May impose access limitations on such information within public records, internal databases, and inter-agency communications.

  • Access and disclosure rules

    • Specifies who may access protected information and under what circumstances.
    • Sets criteria for when information can be released publicly or to third parties (e.g., for investigative purposes, union matters, or whistleblower protections), potentially requiring justification or redaction.
    • May require protective orders or privacy review processes before disclosure.

  • Exemptions and redaction requirements

    • Adds or clarifies exemptions from public records laws for data about public safety officers.
    • Requires redaction of sensitive data when disclosure is permitted to the general public or non-authorized entities.

  • Retention and destruction standards

    • Outlines data retention periods for personal information of officers.
    • Provides guidelines for secure destruction or de-identification when information is no longer needed.

  • Enforcement and penalties

    • Establishes potential penalties or remedies for violations of the enhanced privacy protections.
    • May empower agencies or officers to seek injunctive relief or administrative penalties for non-compliance.

  • Definitions and scope

    • Defines who qualifies as a public safety officer for the purposes of this act (e.g., police officers, sheriff’s deputies, corrections officers, and potentially other designated personnel).
    • Clarifies what constitutes “personal information” and “disclosure,” including electronic records and communications.

Who would be affected

  • Public safety personnel: Officers and related personnel whose personal information would receive enhanced privacy protections.
  • State and local government agencies: Agencies that collect, maintain, or disclose data about public safety officers; would need to implement procedures, redaction practices, and access controls.
  • Public and media: Potential limitations on obtaining personal data about officers through public records requests, depending on exemptions.
  • Law enforcement and public safety unions: May interact with new privacy protections in collective bargaining or personnel practices.

Procedural and timeline aspects

  • Introduced and referred: HF 1567 was introduced and initially referred to the Public Safety Finance and Policy committee (as of February 26, 2025).
  • Committee actions:
    • Reported with amendments and re-referred to Public Safety Finance and Policy (April 1, 2025).
    • Earlier committee activity shows a prior referral to Judiciary Finance and Civil Law with amendments (March 17, 2025).
    • Further action and amendments noted on February 23, 2026, including a committee report to adopt as amended and a second reading.
  • Sponsor involvement: Multiple co-sponsors, including Jim Joy, Walter Hudson, Paul Novotny, Bidal Duran, Terry Stier, Matt Bliss, Krista Knudsen, and Elliott Engen, indicating bipartisan interest and support.

Notes on impact and considerations

  • The bill strengthens privacy protections for individuals in public safety roles, potentially reducing the risk of doxxing, harassment, or targeted threats.
  • Agencies will need to review and update public records processes, data inventories, and redaction practices.
  • Public transparency and accountability considerations must balance officers’ privacy with legitimate public safety concerns and investigative needs.
  • If enacted, the bill would likely require training for staff handling sensitive information and possible updates to data management systems to enforce access controls and retention standards.

If you’d like, I can tailor this summary to a specific audience (e.g., policymakers, journalists, or public safety administrators) or compare HF 1567 to current Minnesota public records/privacy statutes.

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

Sign in to ask a question.