Skip to content
Check Screen Reader Mode to make this survey compatible with screen readers.
Check Screen Reader Mode to make this survey compatible with screen readers.

2027 MCPA Legislative Agenda Survey

1.Proposal #1: Amendment to UAV Statute (Eden Prairie Chief Matt Sackett)

Under current UAV data retention laws, public safety agencies routinely lose critical video evidence. Because non-investigative data is subject to strict, short-term deletion windows, valuable footage is often purged permanently before its broader investigative or evidentiary value is realized.


Existing Statute:
MN 626.19 6(c)
"(c) Notwithstanding section 138.17, a law enforcement agency must delete data collected by a UAV as soon as possible, and in no event later than seven days after collection unless the data is part of an active criminal investigation."


Initial Proposal:
Data collected by law enforcement Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) shall be subject to the same retention requirements as data collected by Portable Recording Systems, pursuant to MN Stat § 13.825, subd. 3.
“(a) Portable recording system data that are not active or inactive criminal investigative data and are not described in paragraph (b) or (c) must be maintained for at least 90 days and destroyed according to the agency's records retention schedule approved pursuant to section 138.17.”


Proposed addition:
Public Safety/Law enforcement agencies may retain lawfully collected UAV data indefinitely for training purposes upon written request. This provision applies only to data that has been properly categorized and is not subject to active criminal investigation restrictions.

Explain the impacts on public safety or law enforcement:

Under current UAV data retention laws, public safety agencies routinely lose critical video evidence. Because non-investigative data is subject to strict, short-term deletion windows, valuable footage is often purged permanently before its broader investigative or evidentiary value is realized.

Furthermore, these rigid limitations severely restrict agencies from using real-world operational footage for internal training. This prevents law enforcement from leveraging a highly effective tool to analyze mistakes, highlight successful tactics, and improve officer safety. Adopting the proposed legislative changes will prevent the accidental loss of vital evidence while empowering agencies to utilize UAV data for crucial policy, personnel, and operational advancement.
2.Proposal # 2 Legislation to make it mandatory in the state of MN that any person convicted of a violent offense to be entered into the VPF (Savage Police Chief Brdy Juell)

The National Crime Information Center (NCIC) VPF was implemented in 2012 and was designed to alert law enforcement officers that an individual they are
encountering may have the propensity for violence against law enforcement.

Entry into the VPF is based on a conviction for a violent offense against any person and/or a reasonable belief, based on law enforcement investigation, that the individual has seriously expressed an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence against a member of the law enforcement or criminal justice community.

A hit on a VPF record can ultimately assist in reducing the number of officers killed or assaulted in the line of duty. In order to provide officers with these potentially lifesaving alerts, violent individuals must first be entered into the VPF.

I would like to propose legislation to make it mandatory in the state of MN that any person convicted of a violent offense to be entered into the VPF.

Impact on Public Safety and Law Enforcement

This legislation would directly improve officer and public safety by ensuring law enforcement officers are alerted when they encounter an individual with a documented history of violence toward others or law enforcement.

Having this information available before or during an encounter allows officers to better assess potential risks, adjust their approach and tactics, and take appropriate precautions when interacting with potentially dangerous individuals. This is particularly important during routine encounters, where officers may have no reason to know an individual's violent history.

Increasing the use of the Violent Person File would also provide greater consistency among Minnesota law enforcement agencies and reduce the likelihood that critical officer-safety information is unavailable simply because an individual was not previously entered into the system.

Ultimately, providing officers with timely information about known violent offenders can help prevent dangerous encounters from escalating, protect officers and the public, and improve the overall safety and effectiveness of Minnesota law enforcement.
3.Proposal # 3: Continue funding the Mapped ALI solutions, like Rapid SOS and Rapid Deploy, that are currently available to all PSAPs and ECCs (Eden Prairie Chief Matt Sackett)

For the MNECN to continue funding the Mapped ALI solutions, like RapidSOS and RapidDeploy, that are currently available to all PSAPs and ECCs. Under the current 911 service fee of 80 cents, available for distribution but can be up to 95 cents (still too low) by statute without legislative change. Most PSAPs will incur costs that are not sustainable to pay for this technology. The last time the fee was changed was 2006. The current funding formula does not reflect inflation and the significant increase in operational costs since the allocation was last adjusted. Modern public safety communications involve higher personnel expenses, equipment replacement cycles, cybersecurity requirements, NG9 1 1 infrastructure, and training responsibilities. The metro area handles 70% of the 911 calls in Minnesota, and yet only receives 30% of the funding. An updated funding model ensures PSAPs and ECC’s can sustain reliable service, maintain personnel readiness, and keep pace with rapidly evolving emergency communications technology and standards.

Explain the impacts on public safety or law enforcement:
Lacking a mapped ALI solution creates slower responses, higher risk for the public, increased workload and stress for telecommunicators, and reduced safety and efficiency for law enforcement. This technology is not a luxury; it is a foundational component of modern emergency communications. Ensuring statewide access is essential for protecting lives and maintaining a consistent level of service across all communities.
 
• Without a mapped, real time location platform, callers often cannot accurately describe where they are, especially during medical emergencies, vehicle crashes, domestic incidents, language barriers, or when calling from unfamiliar areas.

Telecommunicators:
• Will be relying on manual triangulation attempts, vague descriptions, and guesswork instead of reliable handset based data. This increases cognitive load and stress during already intense emergency calls.
• It also extends call processing times that affect overall center performance and contributes to burnout, errors, and fatigue, especially when staffing levels are already strained statewide.
Impact on Law Enforcement and Other First Responders:
• Responders frequently receive delayed or incorrect locations, forcing them to search wide areas or respond to scenes without full situational awareness. This increases response times, fuel use, and operational risk.
• In high risk situations—domestic violence calls, active crimes in progress, or incidents where callers cannot communicate—missing or inaccurate location data directly threatens officer safety. It also reduces the likelihood of timely intervention and successful resolution.
• Furthermore, jurisdictions without mapped ALI are at a technological disadvantage compared to neighboring areas, creating uneven service levels and interoperability gaps across the state.
4.Proposal # 4: Changes to the Mn Clean Slate Act (Eden Prairie Chief Matt Sackett

Update from last year – we discussed with Rick Hodsdon, Potts, Henthorne, MCPA lobbyists, and the League that two of the ultimate goals that would remove the need to seek clarification on any of this would be to mirror Michigan’s Clean Slate Act, which removes any obligation by local law enforcement and applies only to their BCA equivalent and courts. Rick mentioned there was actually some traction here, so I think it could be worth pursuing. Between that and/or addition of local law enforcement to the immunity from civil liability (Subd. 6), which the League was particularly interested in, would be good. Rick’s Bill for an Act reflects this – let me know if you need me to send that – he distributed it to Potts and Henthorne last year.

Otherwise, contradictory and prohibitive statutory language remains as outlined below.

• 609A.015, Subds. 5(g)* and 5(h)* – Are the records protected or the data on the person? Contradictory language in these two subdivisions.
• 13.82, Subds. 2 (arrest data), 3 (request for service data), and 6 (response or incident data) // 609A.015 – Various subdivisions in 13.82 govern what government data are publicly available at all times. 609A.015 provides protection of this data. Does this data “exist” and, if so, what is releasable?
• 13.03, Subd. 3(f) // 609A.01 – 13.03 mandates a citation to a specific statutory section when access to data is denied. 609A.01 states that we are prohibited from disclosing the existence of the data. How can we satisfy our obligation under 13.03, Subd. 3(f)?
• This is the issue the DPO will need to address by 10/21/2026 since they accepted the request for Advisory Opinion.

Explain the impacts on public safety or law enforcement:
• Lack of guidance and training from the State resulting in liability to our agency.
o Maggie and I drafted a request for an Advisory Opinion to the DPO recently where we were told they would not issue an opinion on 4 of the 5 issues we submitted due to the Clean Slate Act “falling outside of the DPA” which Rick Hodsdon, city attorneys, and the League disagree with. Lack of guidance and training from the State.
• Transparency and public relations – We continue to make this a priority, but our hands are tied as it is currently written. Data that has always been public no longer is, and we are unable to cite our statutory reason for denying access to data. We cannot provide the data to a victim of the crime.
• Inability to share data with our business partners who share in the responsibility of investigating cases if they are not defined as “criminal justice agencies” (CPS, Adult Protection, DHS Licensing, Department of Education, etc.).
• Significant increase in the time it takes to fulfill data requests – Records staffing resources are stretched thin and burnout is inevitable.
o Scheels example from EPPD – a request that would have taken 15 minutes, took us 15 hours this year. Chart below, but if you need/want the full explanation, I can send you the document I created.

Staff - EPPD Pay + Fringe Total Pre-CSA Total Post-CSA
Highest Paid Records $43.46 + $13.04 = $56.50 $14.12 $649.75 - $847.50
Lowest Paid Records $29.25 + $4.72 = $33.97 $8.49 $390.65 - $509.55

5.Proposal # 5: – Increase Funding for Philando Castile Training Fund (Eagan Chief Salim Omari)

Raise the base training funding level - resume the Philando Castile Memorial Training Fund. Ensure future funding accounts for inflation and POST board training mandates indefinitely.


Explain the impacts on public safety or law enforcement:
The state requires this training; asking agencies to absorb the cost unreimbursed either shrinks training budgets elsewhere or gets passed to local property tax levies. This fund pays for the specific training shown to reduce use-of-force incidents and improve officer-community interactions.
6.Proposal #6– Data Sharing between LE Agencies (Eagan Chief Salim Omari)

Amendments to 13.824:
- An agreed upon pathway for LE to share data with each other. Sharing between law enforcement agencies should only be allowed for a genuine law enforcement purpose, an active criminal investigation, or an exigent circumstance involving imminent danger, vulnerable adults, missing persons etc., and the requesting officer should have to document which one, at the time they ask. That should be the only legal basis for one agency to query another's ALPR data. No civil or regulatory access.

- Case number and documented reason, which agency and officer made the request, and why.

- Penalties for misuse written into the statute.

 Explain the impacts on public safety or law enforcement:
- Preserves a proven investigative tool. ALPR has demonstrated value in solving crimes; this proposal doesn't touch investigative use, only misuse.

- Closes a real gap, not a hypothetical one. Many departments found out that their data was being searched by other agencies in ways they didn't intend it to be used (civil searches). A defined LE-to-LE pathway removes the ambiguity that made that possible.

- Reduces agency legal exposure. A clear statutory rule on when and why agencies can share data gives departments a bright line to point to, rather than relying on individually drafted policies that vary in strength and are more vulnerable to challenge.

- Gives smaller agencies cover. A statutory standard protects agencies that don't have a dedicated technology and policy team.

- Attaches real consequences to misuse. Right now, an out-of-policy query mostly results in an internal conversation between agencies, if it's caught at all. Defined penalties give the statute teeth and make clear this is a serious violation, not a technicality.

- Gives local elected officials a standard instead of an ultimatum. Council members facing pressure to end ALPR use currently have to choose between trusting an agency's word or banning the tool outright. A documented, statutory sharing standard gives them a basis to support continued, regulated use instead of elimination.
7.Proposal #7– Brady Giglio Legislation (Maple Grove Chief Eric Werner)

A Minnesota Police Officer Brady/Giglio Bill has been a top legislative priority for the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association for the past several years. Legislation was nearly passed in the 2026 legislative session.

A Brady/Giglio law would govern disclosure of law enforcement and personal data on peace officers in compliance with Brady/Giglio requirements. The law would also require prosecuting authorities (local and county) to develop written policies and procedures to administer the handling of potential Brady/Giglio material. Such procedures would include a police agency's and the peace officer’s right to receive written notice before a prosecuting authority places the officer’s name on a Brady/Giglio list or Brady/Giglio impaired status, the officer’s right to provide input before final determination, the management/access/dissemination/security of potential Brady/Giglio material, and uniformity of protective court orders.

Explain the impacts on public safety or law enforcement:
A Brady/Giglio bill would provide a transparent statewide process to handle Brady/Giglio material that would respect the rights of all parties in the criminal justice system to include police officers, victims, and suspects to further community trust in a fair and legitimate system.

8.Proposal #8 - Require notification to LE agencies on Suspected Maltreatment and Vulnerable Adult Cases (Bloomington Chief Booker Hodges)

Require a county adult protection agency to immediately notify the law enforcement agency with jurisdiction whenever it opens or initiates an investigation of alleged or suspected maltreatment of a vulnerable adult regardless of whether Adult Protection has already determined that criminal activity may have occurred.

Explain the impacts on public safety or law enforcement:
Ensures potential criminal conduct is reviewed by law enforcement, not screened out before police see the case.

Promotes earlier coordination between Adult Protection and law enforcement in abuse, neglect, and financial exploitation cases.

Reduces the risk that evidence, witnesses, financial records, video, or other investigative opportunities are lost through delayed notification.

Preserves agency roles: notification is mandatory, but a criminal investigation is not. Law enforcement retains discretion over its response.

9.Proposal #9 - Criminal Penalties for destruction, alteration or disabling of public safety technology (Lakeville Police Chief Paulson)

Propose a bill to enhance criminal penalties for the intentional destruction, alteration, or disabling of public safety technology. This could include such things as ALPRs, speed trailers, stationary camera trailers, gunshot detection systems, etc.


Currently, damaging the type of equipment mentioned above appears to fall under the general Criminal Damage to Property (609.595) statute. Many times, cutting wires, spray painting and duct taping lens covers, etc. can have significant public safety impacts but can be only a misdemeanor. Existing property damage laws fail to account for the systemic impact and high replacement costs of specialized critical infrastructure technology.

10.Proposal #10 - Require any child custody hears to be conducted in person and not virtual. especially if parental rights are being altered or removed. Amend MN Statute 518.168 to require in person hearings where child custody is to be determined (Champlain Chief Glen Schneider)

Require any child custody hears to be conducted in person and not virtual. especially if parental rights are being altered or removed. Amend MN Statute 518.168 to require in person hearings where child custody is to be determined.

Explain the impacts on public safety or law enforcement:
In addition to preventing future acts of violence, possible parental kidnapping, and the requirement of additional resources to respond to a custody exchange, amending the laws to require in person custody hearings will also reduce the involvement of law enforcement in civil matters as well as reduce the possibility of having to endure the mental and physical trauma associated with the actions that have been described in the proposal
11.Proposal #11 - Amend Chapter 13. 82 to include CSO's and Reserves when wearing BWC's (White Bear Lake Chief Johnston and West Hennepin Public safety Chief Matt DuRose)

MN 13.825 Portable Recording Systems

Subdivision 1.

(1) "portable recording system" means a device worn by a peace officer that is capable of both video and audio recording of the officer's activities and interactions with others or collecting digital multimedia evidence as part of an investigation;

Where is says "peace officer" above should be broadened to include all employees of a law enforcement agency to include CSO's and Reserves.

Current law leaves BWC video recorded by a community service officer governed by 13.82 and not classified as private under 13.825

Explain the impacts on public safety or law enforcement:
This would classify all BWC footage recorded in an agency the same and not have separate handling based on who was wearing the camera.
12.Proposal #12 - modify MSS 342.22, Subd4, Cannabis compliance checks on Hemp and cannabis retailers (Ramsay Chief Brad Bluml)

I would like to see Minnesota Statutes § 342.22, subdivision 4, clarified so cannabis and hemp compliance checks can be conducted more like our current tobacco compliance checks.

If the young person conducting the check is asked for ID, they should be allowed to present their own valid ID that shows their actual age. That way, the check tests whether the employee actually looks at the ID and recognizes that the person is under 21, instead of only testing whether they ask for identification.

I would also like the statute to clearly protect the young participant from violating state law if they briefly possess a cannabis or hemp product as part of an authorized compliance check under the supervision of law enforcement or local government staff.

This would make the process more consistent, easier to understand, and easier to carry out correctly across the state.

Explain the impacts on public safety or law enforcement:
This would make these checks easier and more consistent for law enforcement, city staff, retailers, and the young people helping us conduct them.

We already have a well-established process for tobacco compliance checks, and using a similar process for cannabis and hemp checks just makes sense. It would reduce confusion, especially for the young participants who may be helping with both types of checks.

It would also make the checks more meaningful. We should be testing whether the employee actually looks at the ID and correctly determines the person is under 21, not just whether they ask for an ID.

From a law enforcement standpoint, clearer rules also help avoid questions later about how the check was conducted, whether the participant followed the right process, and whether the case is fair and defensible. This is a small change, but I think it would make the whole process work better.

13.Proposal #13 - Proposed Change to MN State Statute 13.41 Licensing Data. Subd. 3 Board of Peace Officer Standards and Training (St. Louis Park Chief Bryan Kruelle)

The following government data of the Board of Peace Officer Standards and Training are private data: personal telephone numbers and home and email addresses of licensees and applicants for licenses.

The board may disseminate private data on applicants and licensees as is necessary to administer law enforcement licensure or to provide data under section 626.845, subdivision 1, to law enforcement agencies who are conducting employment background investigations.

Proposed new Language
Notwithstanding subdivision 4, the board shall inform the chief law enforcement officer of the law enforcement agency that employs a licensed peace officer who is under active investigation of the subject matter of the investigation. (New language proposed by the St. Louis Park City Attorney)

Presently, the MN POST Board cannot share any information regarding an officer complaint investigation being conducted by them, with a CLEO. As was the case this year with an active investigation into a St. Louis Park sworn officer regarding an apparent violation of the data practice statute, the POST Board would not provide any details as to what their investigation involved, or confirm that the alleged violation was even involving a data practice violation where we pieced together that our investigator disclosed the identity of a CSC/domestic assault victim (18 year old high school student) to the victim’s mother as part of the investigation and in an effort to protect the victim after a violent crime. By providing no information whatsoever regarding what a complaint involves, a CLEO is unable to take any steps to ensure that further potential violations of a state statute or POST Board rules within an organization are continuing to occur, or open an investigation itself.

Explain the impacts on public safety or law enforcement:
Without any information from the POST Board regarding an officer complaint, an officer may continue working in a sworn capacity when they shouldn’t be, organizational risk continues without an opportunity to be addressed, and public safety and confidence are undermined when no corrective measures are taken on either front and additional issues of a similar nature occur.

14.Proposal #14 - Provide authority to issue Permits to Carry to Local Police Chief (U of M Chief Mike Davis)

Minnesota law makes the county sheriff the sole issuing authority for permits to carry a pistol. Police chiefs, whose agencies generate most of the contact and incident records about the residents they serve, have only an advisory role: the sheriff must notify them of an application, and they may share information. This proposal would make the chief of police in the applicant's city the issuing authority, as Massachusetts does, with the sheriff remaining the issuing authority where no municipal police department exists.

The change is structural. It changes who decides, not the standard for deciding. It would:

Make the chief of an organized full-time municipal police department the issuing authority for that city's residents, with the sheriff issuing for all other residents and for nonresidents.
Keep every protection in current law: the eligibility criteria, the "substantial likelihood of danger" standard, the 30-day deemed-issuance rule, the clear-and-convincing burden on appeal, fee caps, and the prohibition on registration.
Let any city designate the sheriff as its issuing authority by resolution, and let chiefs and sheriffs process applications for one another by agreement.
Align the permit to carry with the transferee permit (§ 624.7131), which chiefs already issue under the same danger standard.
Current Minnesota Law

Under § 624.714, subd. 2(a), residents apply "to the county sheriff where the applicant resides"; nonresidents may apply to any sheriff. A sheriff may contract with a chief to process applications, but "the sheriff remains the issuing authority and the police chief acts as the sheriff's agent" (subd. 2(d)).

A chief cannot issue, deny, or seek revocation of a permit held by a resident of the chief's own city; only the sheriff may petition to revoke (subd. 8(c)). Yet a chief may already petition to revoke an out-of-state holder's authority to carry (subd. 16(c)), and may petition for an Extreme Risk Protection Order removing a resident's firearms entirely, under essentially the same clear-and-convincing standard. Chiefs can pursue the more intrusive remedy but not the narrower one. In 2025, nine permits were revoked based on ERPOs; only eight followed a sheriff's revocation petition.

The stakes are significant. According to the BCA, 381,405 permits were valid at the end of 2025. Sheriffs issued 65,961 permits that year, up 15 percent from 2024, and January 2026 applications ran nearly 75 percent above the prior year. Sheriffs also reported 5,647 convictions of permit holders in 2025, the most since 2003, information that often originates with the city agency where the holder lives. Application fees, up to $100 each, would follow the workload.


Current Progress,
0 of 14 answered