Minnesota data requests for plate-reader oversight

Find the responsible authority for the holding entity

Minnesota's Data Practices Office says to direct a request to the entity's responsible authority or a designee listed in its data-access policy. A city, county and elected sheriff can have different responsible authorities. Find the holding entity's policy and follow its submission instructions. An online tool may be offered, and the DPO says a requester may also write directly to the responsible authority. Minnesota DPO: making a data request

State whether you want inspection or copies of existing data. The DPO distinguishes a request for recorded information from a demand for new analysis or an answer to a general question. Public-data requesters need not identify themselves, although contact information may be needed for delivery and private data about a requester can require identification. Minnesota DPO: making a data request

Request the public oversight records, not an unrestricted scan database

The DPO explains that ALPR-collected data are generally private or nonpublic, subject to the law-enforcement classifications and specified public-data exceptions. Its guidance describes a data audit trail for queries and other access or sharing actions, public only to the extent its contents are not otherwise classified by law. Minnesota DPO: ALPR data and audits

Section 13.824 separately requires public use logs, an accessible fixed-reader location history subject to security-information determinations, independent biennial audits and public audit results. Ask for existing policies, contracts, invoices, sharing agreements, use logs, audit results and public portions of audit trails. The statutory duties do not prove that a particular agency complied or that every requested field is public. Minnesota: plate-reader oversight statute

Keep audit-trail fields and native-format questions precise

In its nonbinding 05-18-2026 opinion, the Commissioner explained that audit-trail search fields require classification review. Data tied to an active investigation and plate numbers directly collected by an ALPR can have different restrictions from other entries. The opinion also says native electronic copies should be provided when reasonably possible. It addresses the supplied facts, rather than creating a promise of an unredacted export in every case. Minnesota: 05-18-2026 ALPR advisory opinion

Section 13.03(3)(e) calls for electronic copies when the entity can reasonably make them, without requiring a new format or program different from the one maintained. Ask for the existing maintained format, such as CSV when that is how the public data are kept, and allow lawful redaction. Minnesota: public-data access statute

Use the public-request timing standard

For a person who is not the data subject, the DPO describes a reasonable-time response standard. Requests for data about yourself have a separate immediate-or-ten-business-day rule. Do not apply that ten-day rule automatically to this public governance request. Minnesota DPO: making a data request

Section 13.03 requires appropriate, prompt handling and copies as soon as reasonably possible. Its newer availability provision permits the entity to suspend further response if notified data or copies are not inspected or collected within five business days. Watch for clarification, availability and payment notices and keep the correspondence. Minnesota: public-data access statute

Distinguish free inspection from copy costs

Under section 13.03(3), inspection is free. For copies, actual search, retrieval, preparation and transmission costs can apply, but not charges for separating public from not-public data. Requests for 100 or fewer black-and-white letter/legal paper pages instead have a maximum 25-cent per-page charge. Special commercial-value provisions can apply. Ask for a scoped estimate and its legal basis before authorizing charges. Minnesota: public-data access statute

Copy and adapt the request

Use a narrow date range and name the holding entity. The public use log, audit results and data audit trail are distinct record types under section 13.824. Request each existing category clearly and preserve the applicable classifications. Minnesota: plate-reader oversight statute

Download request template (.txt)

Ask for the denial basis and choose the right review route

Section 13.03(3)(f) requires a specific statutory, temporary-classification or federal basis when access is denied. A requester may ask for written certification of the denial and that basis. Save the request, delivery record, replies, fee estimates and the remaining disputed categories. Minnesota: public-data access statute

The DPO can offer informal guidance, and the Commissioner may issue nonbinding advisory opinions. The DPO and Department of Administration do not enforce the Act. DPO remedies guidance distinguishes civil action in district court from an administrative complaint with the Court of Administrative Hearings, or CAH. Minnesota DPO: advisory opinion role · Minnesota DPO: remedies and enforcement

CAH's current page requires its complaint form and a $1,000 filing fee, with a bond alternative, no fee waiver and receipt-based filing. Electronic payment is not accepted. This is separate from sending the initial data request. Review its current submission instructions before choosing that route. Minnesota CAH: filing a data-practices complaint

Section 13.085 generally gives two years from the act or failure to act, with a separate one-year discovery provision for qualifying concealment or misrepresentation. It requires an under-oath factual complaint. If a Commissioner opinion request on the same matter was accepted before the complaint, the statute requires dismissal and a fee refund. Check sequencing, applicable deadlines and current court procedures before filing. Minnesota: administrative complaint statute