Deputy chief tells Minneapolis council investigative clearance rates constrained by staffing, technology and data gaps

Deputy Chief Emily Olsen briefed the Public Health and Safety Committee on Nov. 12 about the Minneapolis Police Department's investigative clearance practices and resource gaps in 2024.

Olsen explained clearance-rate calculations (cases cleared by complaint, arrest, declined or exceptionally) and four status codes used by the department (open/active, inactive, cleared, case reviewed). She said the department now has roughly 90 investigators (across VCID and SCID) compared with about 161 investigators in 2019, a decline Olsen quantified as roughly 43% fewer investigative staff since 2019. Olsen emphasized that property-crime volume is high (she cited 28,106 property cases in the dataset provided) while investigative staffing is limited.

Olsen listed external barriers to solving cases (low-quality or unavailable video, difficulties obtaining cell-phone data, victim non-cooperation, weather and human error) and internal constraints (antiquated records management, limited access to certain technologies such as facial recognition, and loss of specialized teams). She proposed several remedies: prioritized investigative hires, investment in modern records-management systems, acquisition of advanced investigative tools (Olsen mentioned the cost of a Peregrine program as "hundreds of thousands of dollars"), and creation of a 24/7 real-time crime center staffed primarily by civilians to provide immediate leads and reduce investigative workload.

Council members pressed Olsen for more detail about declines in charging and the status of five civilian investigator positions the council funded. Olsen said three civilian investigators were hired and she would follow up on the remaining two positions; she also explained civilian staff scope limits (they cannot draft warrants or present charges) and that sworn investigators remain necessary for certain tasks.

Olsen also raised concerns about misinformation or premature public comments from officials that, in her view, have harmed trust with some communities; she declined to name individuals in the meeting but said she could follow up in a closed or separate forum. Council leadership framed the issue as a need for transparency and better public communication about investigative triage and resource limits.

After discussion the clerk was asked to receive and file the police-report materials; no formal budget or hiring decision was made at the committee meeting.