Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Brady Giglio Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Prosecutors seek access to personnel and investigative data for Brady/Giglio obligations; DE4 adopted, bill laid over
Summary
County attorneys backed HF962 and a DE4 amendment to allow written‑policy access to personnel and other data for prosecutors' Brady/Giglio obligations, with a court dispute process and destruction rules for irrelevant materials; the committee adopted DE4 but laid the bill over pending stakeholder work.
Representative Ciaran introduced House File 962 and presented a D‑E 4 amendment developed by a stakeholder group to address prosecuting authorities' ability to access materials potentially relevant to Brady/Giglio disclosure obligations.
Brad Johnson, Anoka County attorney, said D‑E 4 requires each prosecuting authority to adopt a written policy governing when employer data access is allowed, provides a dispute‑resolution process to be handled in district court, and allows prosecutors to destroy materials when they are no longer relevant to criminal proceedings. He said the access provision is essential for meeting disclosure obligations and that the dispute process and destruction language respond to employer privacy concerns.
Torrey Key of the League of Minnesota Cities testified that subdivision language could create conflicts with Chapter 13 personnel data rules, collective bargaining and public‑data obligations, and that some provisions are vague or duplicative; the League could not support the DE4 as drafted. Members discussed fiscal implications, including a judiciary fiscal note related to potential standby counsel appointments in district court, and asked about engagement with the public defender and defense bar.
The committee adopted D‑E 4 and then laid HF962 over for continued stakeholder negotiation on data classifications, dispute procedures and fiscal consequences.
