Minnesota legislators review bill to streamline access to accident footage

The Conference Committee on HF2432 convened on May 12, 2025, to discuss proposed changes to the handling of body camera and dash camera footage related to collision investigations. The meeting began with a review of the relevant legislative language found in Article 11, Section 8, lines 169.27 to 170.22, which outlines the current process for accessing such footage.

Joel Carlson, representing the Minnesota Association for Justice, was the first testifier. He highlighted concerns regarding the existing protocol for obtaining body cam and dash cam footage, which often involves extensive redaction of videos before they are released to accident victims or their legal representatives. Carlson argued that this process is not only costly for local governments but also unnecessary, as courts typically grant requests for unredacted footage when it is sought for legal cases. He emphasized that the proposed bill aims to streamline access to this footage while maintaining protections for sensitive data, allowing law enforcement to release unredacted videos under specific conditions.

Colonel Christina Bogojevic of the Minnesota State Patrol followed with her testimony, expressing concerns about the implications of the proposed changes. She noted that the current law requires redaction of footage if any subjects involved do not consent to its release. Bogojevic raised issues regarding the potential increase in requests for footage and the associated workload for her agency, particularly during high-incident scenarios, such as severe weather events leading to multiple accidents. She also pointed out the absence of a liability clause in the proposed language, which could expose the agency to legal risks if private data were inadvertently released.

The committee discussed the fiscal implications of the proposed changes, with preliminary estimates from the Department of Public Safety indicating a potential cost of $4 million in the first year and $3.3 million annually thereafter. Members of the committee sought clarification on how the current process operates during active litigation and the extent to which data is discoverable under existing laws.

Throughout the meeting, members expressed a desire to balance the need for transparency and access to data with the protection of individuals' privacy rights. The discussions highlighted the complexities involved in managing public data requests, particularly in sensitive situations involving accidents and personal trauma.

As the meeting concluded, the committee acknowledged the need for further deliberation on the proposed bill, with an emphasis on ensuring that any changes would not compromise the integrity of data protection while facilitating access for those entitled to it. The next steps will involve reviewing the fiscal note and considering amendments to address the concerns raised during the testimony.