2027 MCPA Legislative Agenda

MCPA's 2027 Legislative Agenda

The Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association (MCPA) 2027 Legislative Agenda was developed with input from police chiefs and law enforcement leaders across Minnesota. MCPA's Legislative Committee reviewed and prioritized proposals submitted by members, incorporating feedback to establish the Association's legislative priorities.

The MCPA Board of Directors approved the 2027 Legislative Agenda on October 14, 2026.

CLOSE THE BODY CAMERA DATA GAP FOR NONSWORN STAFF

A gap in Minn. Stat. § 13.825 could leave agencies handling the same incident under two different sets of rules. The statute covers portable recording systems worn by peace officers, but the state Data Practices Office has advised that video from nonsworn personnel, such as community service officers (CSOs) and unlicensed reserves, falls under § 13.82 instead.

The result: video of one incident could be restricted when it comes from a peace officer's camera but releasable when it comes from a CSO's or reserve's camera. That creates a real privacy risk for victims, minors, and bystanders, and it complicates agency responses to data requests.

MCPA supports amending § 13.825 to cover recording devices worn by nonsworn personnel performing agency duties, so all body camera data from the same incident is classified consistently.

MANDATORY ENTRY INTO THE NCIC VIOLENT PERSON FILE

The FBI's NCIC Violent Person File (VPF), created in 2012, alerts officers when they encounter someone with a history of violence or of seriously threatening law enforcement. A hit can give officers critical seconds to adjust their approach and tactics.

Yet the VPF is badly underused in Minnesota. Reportedly, fewer than 20 people have been entered by Minnesota agencies in roughly 12 years. Because entry currently depends on each agency identifying qualifying individuals and taking the extra step to submit them, participation is inconsistent, and officers may encounter violent offenders with no warning.

The proposal would require that individuals convicted of qualifying violent offenses be entered into the VPF, creating a clear, consistent process statewide. It adds no new penalty or restriction on the individual. Its purpose is to make sure officers have key safety information on traffic stops, welfare checks, domestic calls, and other encounters, before a situation turns dangerous.

ALIGN CANNABIS AND HEMP COMPLIANCE CHECKS WITH TOBACCO CHECKS

Minnesota law now requires local governments to conduct annual, unannounced age-verification compliance checks of cannabis and hemp retailers. A proposed change to Minn. Stat. § 342.22, subd. 4, would make those checks work more like the tobacco compliance checks law enforcement has run for years.

The proposal has two parts. First, if the young person conducting a check is asked for ID, they could show their own valid ID with their real age. That way the check tests whether the employee actually reads the ID and recognizes that the customer is under 21, not just whether they ask for one. Second, the statute would clearly protect the participant from violating state law if they briefly possess a cannabis or hemp product during an authorized check supervised by law enforcement or local government staff.

Using the same basic process as tobacco checks would cut confusion for officers, city staff, retailers, and the young people who help with the checks. It would also make the checks more consistent across the state and easier to carry out correctly.

PROTECTING PUBLIC SAFETY TECHNOLOGY

Communities across Minnesota have invested in tools like automated license plate readers, speed trailers, stationary camera trailers, and gunshot detection systems. When those devices are destroyed, covered, or disabled, taxpayers pay for repairs, and the public loses services their communities chose to deploy.

Enhance criminal penalties for intentionally destroying, altering, or disabling public safety technology owned or operated by a government agency. It would reach beyond physical damage to include tampering and obstruction, require restitution to the owning agency, and scale penalties to reflect both repair costs and the loss of service. A low-cost act, like a can of spray paint, can take an expensive system offline.

The proposal is not about silencing debate. Public safety technology deserves scrutiny, and residents have every right to question it. The goal is to encourage opposition through public comment, city council meetings, and legislative advocacy rather than vandalism. Clear consequences draw a line between legitimate dissent and property crime, and MCPA can pair that message with guidance on how residents can take part in decisions about local technology.

CLARIFYING MINNESOTA'S EXPUNGEMENT AND DATA PRACTICES LAWS

Minnesota's expungement statute (609A) and the Data Practices Act (Chapter 13) contradict each other, and law enforcement agencies are caught in the middle. Section 13.82 makes arrest, request-for-service, and incident data publicly available at all times, while 609A protects the same data and prohibits disclosing that it exists. Section 13.03 also requires us to cite a statute when denying access to data, which we can't do without revealing that the data exists. Subdivisions 5(g) and 5(h) of 609A.015 add to the confusion by conflicting on whether the records or the data on the person are protected.

We've consulted city attorneys, the Data Practices Office (DPO), the BCA, the League of Minnesota Cities, victim advocacy groups, and our local records group. No one can offer clear guidance, and the DPO, city attorneys, and League all agree that only a legislative fix will produce consistent responses. The DPO has accepted a request for an advisory opinion and must respond by 10/21/2026.

The stakes are real. Because of how the system was programmed, violent cases, including criminal sexual conduct, domestic assault, and court order violations, are being automatically expunged when a defendant pleads in another case, and victims lose access to the data. Some cases charged at the state level were expunged after being dismissed in favor of federal charges.

The proposed fix: Working with MCPA lobbyists and the League, we're pursuing two goals. First, mirror Michigan's Clean Slate Act, which places expungement obligations only on the BCA equivalent and the courts, not local law enforcement. Second, extend civil liability immunity (Subd. 6) to local law enforcement. Lobbyist Rick Hodsdon reports there is traction for this approach, and his bill reflects both goals.

KEEPING MINNESOTA'S 911 CENTERS EQUIPPED

Since roughly 2023, the Minnesota Emergency Communication Networks (MNECN) has funded advanced Mapped ALI tools such as RapidSOS and RapidDeploy for every PSAP and ECC in the state. These platforms deliver precise, real-time, handset-based location data and supplemental caller information, which improves response times, situational awareness, and officer safety.

That funding ends in 2028. After that, each center that wants to keep these tools must buy them on its own. For a small PSAP with four consoles, the cost is estimated at $30,000 to $50,000. For centers with 30 to 40 or more consoles, it climbs much higher. Many agencies simply can't absorb that.

The underlying problem is the 911 fee. At 80 cents, with a statutory cap of 95 cents, it hasn't been meaningfully updated since 2006. The funding formula hasn't kept pace with inflation or with rising costs for personnel, equipment replacement, cybersecurity, NG911 infrastructure, and training. The metro area handles about 70% of Minnesota's 911 calls yet receives roughly 30% of the funding.

The proposal asks the Legislature to update the funding model and to support a statewide Mapped ALI platform. Buying once for the whole state ensures consistent, equitable access to life-saving technology and takes the cost burden off local centers.

STRENGTHEN ALPR DATA-SHARING STANDARDS

Automated license plate reader technology is under pressure, and the biggest threat may not be the Legislature. It's individual city councils deciding whether to end programs because they have no clear standard to weigh them against.

A proposed amendment to Minn. Stat. 13.824 aims to supply that standard. It would:

• Define a sharing pathway. Agencies could query one another's ALPR data only for a genuine law enforcement purpose, an active criminal investigation, or an exigent circumstance such as imminent danger, a vulnerable adult, or a missing person.
• Require documentation. The requesting officer would record the case number, the requesting agency and officer, and the specific reason at the time of the request.
• Close the civil loophole. No civil or regulatory access to ALPR data.
• Write penalties into statute. Misuse would carry ALPR-specific consequences.

The proposal narrows what agencies may do, not what they may obtain. It's unusual for a law enforcement association to ask for limits and penalties on its own members, and that's the point. It's harder to dismiss a bill as self-serving when the profession is the one asking for accountability.

The payoff is practical. A clear, documented standard with real consequences gives council members something concrete to point to instead of an up-or-down vote based on trust alone. It also strengthens the case for expanding ALPR, including onto state highway right-of-way, which MCPA members widely support.

CLOSING THE INFORMATION GAP BETWEEN THE POST BOARD AND CLEOS

Under current law, the Board of Peace Officer Standards and Training cannot tell a chief law enforcement officer what it is investigating about one of that agency's own licensed officers. The employer is responsible for supervising the officer, yet it is the one party left in the dark.

The consequences are real. In a recent case, the POST Board opened an investigation involving a licensed officer but declined to share, or even confirm, what it concerned. The employing agency eventually pieced together that the allegation involved a possible Data Practices Act violation tied to the disclosure of a crime victim's identity during an investigation. Without that information, the agency couldn't determine whether the conduct was isolated or ongoing, address training or supervision gaps, or take interim steps to protect victims and the public.

A proposed amendment to Minn. Stat. 13.41, subd. 3 would address this. It would require the Board to inform the CLEO of the employing agency of the subject matter of an active investigation into a licensed officer. The change is narrow: it applies only to the employing agency's CLEO, only while the investigation is active, and does not open the investigative file or reveal complainant identities.

Chiefs and sheriffs have independent duties to investigate misconduct, comply with the Data Practices Act, and enforce POST Board rules. They can't meet those duties on complaints they've never heard about.

UAV DATA RETENTION

Strengthen retention rules for law-enforcement UAV footage. Current Minnesota law generally requires deletion of UAV data within seven days unless it is part of an active criminal investigation, which can result in the permanent loss of video before its evidentiary value becomes clear.

The proposal would align UAV footage with portable recording system standards, requiring retention of eligible non-investigative data for at least 90 days under approved records schedules. It would also allow public-safety agencies to retain properly categorized, lawfully collected UAV data indefinitely for training purposes when supported by a written request.

This change would preserve potentially critical evidence, improve training resources, and give agencies more time to identify footage relevant to investigations while maintaining established data-classification and retention safeguards.