Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Use Of Deadly Force topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears bill to reinstate 'apparent' in deadly-force statute; members request language work
Summary
House File 538 would add the word 'apparent' back into Minnesota Statute 609.066 to clarify the standard for use of deadly force; law enforcement groups urged reinstatement, while several legislators urged caution and recommended further drafting to avoid undoing 2020 reforms.
The House Public Safety Committee took testimony on House File 538, a bill to add the word “apparent” back into Minnesota Statute 609.066 — the state’s authorized-use-of-deadly-force statute — and laid the bill over to allow additional drafting and member review.
Representative Steer introduced the bill and said it would “reinsert the word apparent before death or great bodily harm.” Imran Ali, general counsel for the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association, described the change as consistent with legislative intent added in 2020 and with the objective-reasonableness standard from Graham v. Connor. Ali argued removal of “apparent” in 2020 produced an inconsistency with other statutory language and with how officers perceive threats in split‑second situations.
Shane Myrie, president of the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association, told the committee the change “does not modify the current review standard” but “clarifies the language” to reflect what licensed peace officers and agencies already use in training and policy. Chief Jay Henthorn of the Richfield Police Department and Sergeant Brent Murray of the Burnsville Police Department also testified in favor of returning the word to the statute, with Murray describing personal and family impacts during a 2021 critical incident review.
Several legislators urged caution. Representative Pinto and others recalled the 2020 negotiations after the George Floyd death and said the removal of “apparent” was part of a package of changes intended to balance reform and accountability. Representative Mueller suggested a narrower fix: adding wording such as “known or perceived” to align subdivision 2 with the legislative intent in subdivision 1A without reintroducing ambiguity. Counsel Imran Ali said that approach could strike a balance and offered to work with members on drafting.
After extended discussion, members agreed to lay the bill over for further clarification and drafting so sponsors and counsel can reconcile statutory language with the 2020 reforms and the committee’s stated legislative intent.
Ending: Committee members asked sponsors and counsel to produce revised language that addresses concerns about legal effect and consistency with the 2020 statute before the bill returns to committee.
