Committee advances bill to align domestic violence advocate privilege with sexual-assault counselor protections

The House Judiciary Finance & Civil Law Committee on Monday recommended re-referral of House File 1083 to the Committee on Public Safety after extended discussion about confidentiality for domestic violence victims and balancing that confidentiality against due-process concerns. The bill's sponsor moved to advance the bill; committee members approved the motion by voice vote.

House File 1083 would amend Minnesota statute to provide stronger privilege protections for communications between domestic violence victim-survivors and community-based domestic violence advocates, bringing those protections into closer alignment with the statutory privilege afforded to sexual-assault counselors. "Domestic violence victims deserve to have the same protected conversations with domestic abuse advocates that they can have with a sexual-assault counselor," Rayna Alexander, a testifier with long experience representing victim programs, told the committee.

Testimony explained the current problem: a 2022 Minnesota Supreme Court ruling treated the sexual-assault counselor privilege as absolute while domestic-abuse-advocate protections were interpreted to include broader exceptions that could permit court-ordered disclosure. Supporters said that inconsistency can chill conversations between victims and advocates, and it can produce confusion when programs serve both domestic violence and sexual-assault survivors.

Advocates described practical safety risks tied to disclosure of identifying details. Representative Rearick and representatives from Violence Free Minnesota highlighted that information such as a new address, an employer, addresses of children or family members, or dates and times of appointments could create safety risks if disclosed. "Those are things that are absolutely critical," a committee member said when describing the testimony, noting that such details can put victims at direct risk.

Committee members and counsel discussed procedural and constitutional safeguards. Representative Hudson and others raised concerns about scenarios in which evidence held by an advocate could be exculpatory or could be necessary for prosecution in cases where a victim is later killed; sponsor and counsel responded that (1) these community-based programs are not state actors, (2) the legal framework distinguishes state actor obligations to disclose exculpatory material, and (3) the bill's proponents are working on an amendment to address defense-counsel concerns while preserving confidentiality. Committee counsel also confirmed that mandated-reporting exceptions — for example, reporting child abuse or vulnerable-adult abuse — would continue to apply and would not be blocked by the privilege.

Representative Mueller (bill sponsor) said discussions continue with the Minnesota Association for Criminal Defense Lawyers (MACDL) and other stakeholders to refine an amendment that would address those defense concerns. Representative Liebling and other members urged careful balancing; Liebling noted the need to preserve due-process tools for defendants while protecting victims.

After discussion and no additional public testimony, the committee approved re-referral of HF1083 to the Committee on Public Safety by voice vote. Members indicated they expect continued negotiations on amendment language before the bill moves further.