HF 2938 allows individuals involved in traffic collisions to access unredacted data from body cameras or other portable recording systems used in their collision investigation, rather than receiving only redacted versions. This directly affects collision victims, their representatives, and law enforcement agencies that must provide the data. The bill amends Minnesota law to require unredacted data access for collision reports under section 169.09, with limited exceptions: if access would interfere with an active investigation, the data is offensive, or it's classified non-public. Agencies denying access must provide a written explanation and information about seeking court review. This changes the default from redacted to unredacted data sharing for collision investigations.
SF 956 prohibits Minnesota conservation officers from conducting searches or seizures without a warrant or court order, except in emergencies or with the person's consent. It requires officers to provide a written receipt to anyone from whom property is seized. The bill affects conservation officers enforcing natural resource laws (such as hunting and fishing regulations) and the public they interact with during enforcement. The law amends multiple Minnesota statutes to implement these requirements for property seizures.
HF 3308 creates a new civil lawsuit option for individuals who experience nonconsensual condom removal during sexual activity. The bill defines "sexual battery" as contact with intimate parts after a condom is removed without consent, allowing victims to seek damages including up to $10,000 in civil penalties, attorney fees, and other remedies. It directly affects people who face nonconsensual condom removal and those who commit such acts. The law takes effect August 1, 2025, and provides confidential court filings to protect plaintiff privacy.
SF 2983, the "Jay Boughton Evidence Access Act," requires prosecutors in Minnesota to seek a court-ordered protective measure before publicly releasing certain evidence in criminal cases that could cause significant privacy violations or emotional distress to victims (as defined in state law) or third parties. This applies specifically to evidence like 911 call recordings requested for law enforcement, fire, or medical services, with special consideration given to minors. The law mandates that prosecutors must file such evidence under seal and obtain a court order to limit unnecessary disclosure, while still allowing defendants access to evidence under existing criminal procedure rules. The bill takes effect August 1, 2025, for cases filed on or after that date.
HF 3329 requires that if a defendant has a public defender or court-appointed attorney in a criminal case, that same attorney must represent the defendant's property in related civil forfeiture litigation. The bill mandates that civil forfeiture cases must be paused ("stayed") until after the criminal case concludes. Defendants have up to 90 days after the criminal conviction to respond to the civil forfeiture complaint, and failure to respond before conviction does not automatically result in a default. This applies directly to individuals facing both criminal charges and civil forfeiture of property under Minnesota Statutes § 609.531, subdivision 6a.
SF 2200 protects communications from restorative justice programs by making statements and documents created during these processes inadmissible as evidence in civil or criminal court cases. It directly affects participants in restorative programs, including victims, offenders, and community facilitators, by shielding their discussions from legal use. The law establishes specific data classification rules for handling these protected materials, ensuring they are stored and managed separately from standard court records. This change aims to encourage open dialogue in restorative processes without fear of legal repercussions.
This bill appropriates unspecified funds for fiscal years 2026 and 2027 from the general fund to the Minnesota Supreme Court for forensic navigator services across the state's ten judicial districts. Funding per district is based primarily on population data from the most recent U.S. Census, with the Supreme Court allowed to adjust allocations considering rural travel costs, resource disparities, and video technology needs for remote hearings. The bill directly affects judicial districts by providing funding to support forensic navigator programs, which assist individuals navigating the legal system after forensic examinations. It is a funding measure, not a policy change, and does not specify the exact dollar amounts or define the scope of "forensic navigator services."
SF 631 shortens the period during which criminal investigative data remains confidential by reducing the default inactive timeline from 30 years to 20 years after the offense, whichever occurs first. This change means law enforcement data collected for investigations will become public after 20 years (or sooner if the statute of limitations expires), rather than after 30 years. The bill does not alter other provisions, such as data remaining confidential during an active investigation or the court process for seeking disclosure of inactive files. This adjustment affects how long law enforcement agencies can keep certain case details private and when the public gains access to historical records.
This bill amends Minnesota law to allow individuals with a "stay of adjudication" (a deferred judgment where conviction is withheld) or a criminal conviction to petition courts for relief. It specifically permits new petitions based on: (1) rights violations under U.S. or state law, or (2) newly available scientific evidence proving actual innocence through DNA or fingerprint testing on evidence not tested at trial. The bill requires petitioners to show the evidence was unavailable at trial, was properly preserved, and that testing could produce non-cumulative evidence of innocence. It also sets a two-year deadline for filing such petitions, with limited exceptions for newly discovered evidence or disabilities. This process replaces other legal remedies for challenging convictions or stays.
SF 2826 amends Minnesota law to allow people convicted of crimes to petition courts for new fingerprint or DNA testing on trial evidence when such technology wasn't available at the time of trial. To qualify, petitioners must show identity was an issue in their case and the evidence has maintained proper custody. Courts must approve the testing if it could prove innocence using scientifically accepted methods, with conditions to protect evidence integrity. This applies to current postconviction proceedings under Minnesota Statutes § 590.01.
