Minnesota’s Peace Officer Discipline Procedures Act, Minn. Stat. § 626.89, is an officer’s statute. Its seventeen subdivisions set out the procedural protection a licensed peace officer receives when the officer’s own agency investigates the officer for discipline.
That is exactly why it matters to someone on the other side of a police encounter. A statute that tells an agency how it must conduct an internal investigation is also a statute that tells you what that investigation had to produce. Signed complaints, witness statements, investigative reports, and recordings do not exist because a plaintiff asks for them; they exist because § 626.89 requires them before an agency may question an officer for disciplinary purposes.
A 2026 session law materially widened that requirement. It took effect August 1, 2026, and — as of this writing — it does not appear in the text displayed on the Revisor of Statutes’ website for § 626.89. This article covers both the Act and the amendment.
What the Act covers, and where it stops
Subdivision 1(c) defines “[o]fficer” to mean “a licensed peace officer or part-time peace officer, as defined in section 626.84, subdivision 1, paragraphs (c) and (d), who is employed by a unit of government.” Subdivision 1(a) defines “[a]dministrative hearing” as “a nonjudicial hearing or arbitration authorized to recommend, approve, or order discipline.”
Subdivision 2 sets two boundaries. The Act’s procedures “apply to law enforcement agencies and government units.” And, critically: “The procedures and provisions of this section do not apply to investigations of criminal charges against an officer.”
That second sentence separates two very different files. An internal-affairs investigation aimed at discipline is governed by § 626.89. A criminal investigation of the same conduct is not, and its data are governed by the law enforcement data statute — the terrain covered in our article on using the Data Practices Act to build a civil rights case. A single incident can generate both files, on different rules.
The 2026 amendment
The Revisor’s page for § 626.89 carries a currency notice stating that the section “has been affected by law enacted during the 2026 Regular Session,” and identifies the amendments as 2026 Minn. Laws ch. 59, §§ 9 and 10. Chapter 59 was presented to the governor on April 28, 2026 and signed on April 29, 2026. It contains no effective-date section. Under Minn. Stat. § 645.02, “[e]ach act, except one making appropriations, enacted finally at any session of the legislature takes effect on August 1 next following its final enactment, unless a different date is specified in the act,” and “[e]ach act takes effect at 12:01 a.m. on the day it becomes effective, unless a different time is specified in the act.” Chapter 59 makes no appropriation. It therefore took effect at 12:01 a.m. on August 1, 2026.
Section 9 broadens the definition of “formal statement.” The prior text defined a formal statement as “the questioning of an officer in the course of obtaining a recorded, stenographic, or signed statement to be used as evidence in a disciplinary proceeding against the officer.” Section 9 strikes “a recorded, stenographic, or signed statement” and inserts “information,” and inserts “a basis for disciplining an officer or as” before “evidence.” As amended, subdivision 1(b) defines a formal statement as the questioning of an officer in the course of obtaining information to be used as a basis for disciplining an officer or as evidence in a disciplinary proceeding against the officer.
Read the old text and the new text side by side and the change is structural. Before, the trigger was the form of what the agency collected: a recording, a stenographic transcript, or a signed statement. An informal, unrecorded interview arguably fell outside the Act. Now the trigger is the purpose of the questioning. If an agency questions an officer to obtain information to be used as a basis for discipline, the Act’s requirements attach.
Section 10 makes electronic recording mandatory. Subdivision 8 previously required that “[a] complete record of sessions at which a formal statement is taken must be made by electronic recording or otherwise.” Section 10 deletes “or otherwise.” A written summary or an investigator’s notes no longer satisfy subdivision 8.
Taken together, more interviews are formal statements, and every formal statement must be electronically recorded. For a plaintiff building a case about an incident on or after August 1, 2026, that is a meaningful change in what should exist.
Chapter 59 also did something related that is worth knowing: sections 1 through 8 built a parallel set of disciplinary procedures for correctional officers into Minn. Stat. § 241.026, adding subdivisions on the complaint prerequisite, witness lists and investigative reports, sessions, recording, the presence of an attorney or union representative, and an action for damages.
What the Act requires an investigation to generate
The operative requirements are in subdivisions 4 through 10, which subdivision 3 makes governing: “The formal statement of an officer must be taken in accordance with subdivisions 4 to 10.”
A signed written complaint has to exist first. Subdivision 5: “An officer’s formal statement may not be taken unless there is filed with the employing or investigating agency a written complaint signed by the complainant stating the complainant’s knowledge, and the officer has been given a summary of the allegations.” The subdivision adds that complaints “stating the signer’s knowledge also may be filed by members of the law enforcement agency,” and that “[b]efore an administrative hearing is begun, the officer must be given a copy of the signed complaint.”
Witness statements and the investigative report are disclosable to the officer. Subdivision 6 entitles each party to a witness list and the substance of expected testimony on request, provides that “[a] party is entitled to copies of any witness statements in the possession of the other party,” and provides that “an officer is entitled to a copy of the investigating agency’s investigative report” — subject to withholding references that would reveal confidential informants absent an order for good cause.
The significance for a civil plaintiff is not that the plaintiff gets these documents from § 626.89. It is that the statute presupposes their existence. An “investigating agency’s investigative report” is a document the Act assumes will have been created.
The session has to be recorded, and the officer can get the record. Subdivision 8, as amended, requires a complete record by electronic recording, and provides that “[u]pon written request of the officer whose statement is taken, a complete copy or transcript must be made available to the officer without charge or undue delay.” It also authorizes recording by both sides: “The session may be tape recorded by the investigating officer and by the officer under investigation.”
Counsel and union representation. Subdivision 9 gives the officer the right to have a union representative, a retained attorney, or both present, and provides that once the request is made, “no formal statement may be taken until a reasonable opportunity is provided for the officer to obtain the presence of the attorney or the union representative.”
A written admissions warning. Subdivision 10: “Before an officer’s formal statement is taken, the officer shall be advised in writing or on the record that admissions made in the course of the formal statement may be used as evidence of misconduct or as a basis for discipline.”
Subdivision 10’s careful phrasing — misconduct and discipline, not prosecution — reflects a federal constitutional rule that sits underneath this whole statute. In Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967), the Supreme Court held “the protection of the individual under the Fourteenth Amendment against coerced statements prohibits use in subsequent criminal proceedings of statements obtained under threat of removal from office, and that it extends to all, whether they are policemen or other members of our body politic.” Id. at 500. An officer compelled to answer on pain of losing the job gives a statement that is available for discipline and unavailable to the prosecution. That is one reason § 626.89, subd. 2 excludes criminal investigations from the Act in the first place.
The provisions that cut against disclosure
Three subdivisions restrict what leaves the agency.
Subdivision 11 provides that “[n]o employer may require an officer to produce or disclose the officer’s personal financial records except pursuant to a valid search warrant or subpoena.”
Subdivision 12 provides that “[n]o law enforcement agency or governmental unit may publicly release photographs of an officer without the written permission of the officer,” with exceptions allowing display of a photograph to a prospective witness as part of an agency investigation and provision of a photograph to a civilian police review authority for the same purpose.
Subdivision 13 provides that “[n]o disciplinary letter or reprimand may be included in an officer’s personnel record unless the officer has been given a copy of the letter or reprimand.”
Two structural provisions matter as much. Subdivision 14 bars discharge, discipline, or threats “as retaliation for or solely by reason of the officer’s exercise of the rights provided by this section.” And subdivision 15 provides that the Act’s rights “are in addition to and do not diminish the rights and privileges of officers that are provided under an applicable collective bargaining agreement or any other applicable law.” Section 626.89 is a floor. The collective bargaining agreement — and the arbitration it provides — sits on top of it. As the next section explains, the outcome of that arbitration is what determines whether the discipline ever becomes public data.
Subdivision 16 gives the officer a damages remedy: “Notwithstanding section 3.736 or 466.03, a political subdivision or state agency that violates this section is liable to the officer for actual damages resulting from the violation, plus costs and reasonable attorney fees,” with the government “deemed to have waived any immunity to a cause of action brought under this subdivision, except that the monetary limits on liability under section 3.736, subdivision 4, or 466.04 apply.”
Civilian oversight councils
Subdivision 17 is the piece of the Act that speaks directly to outside accountability.
A local unit of government “may establish a civilian oversight council and grant the council the authority to make a finding of fact or determination regarding a complaint against an officer and recommend discipline for an officer.” Paragraph (c) allows the council, “[a]t the conclusion of any criminal investigation or prosecution, if any,” to investigate allegations of officer misconduct and to retain an investigator, and provides that “[s]ubject to other applicable law, a council may subpoena or compel testimony and documents in an investigation.” A council “must submit investigation reports that contain findings of peace officer misconduct to the chief law enforcement officer and the Peace Officer Standards and Training Board’s complaint committee.”
Paragraph (d) is candid about the limits: the chief law enforcement officer “shall cooperate with the council,” but “is under no obligation to agree with individual recommendations of the council and may oppose a recommendation,” and if the officer declines to implement a recommendation within the officer’s authority, the officer “shall inform the council of the decision along with the officer’s underlying reasons.”
Paragraph (e) is the provision to read before requesting anything: “Data collected, created, received, maintained, or disseminated by a civilian oversight council related to an investigation of a peace officer are personnel data as defined by section 13.43, subdivision 1, and are governed by that section.”
Which lands you in § 13.43
Personnel data classification is what ultimately determines what a member of the public can obtain about a disciplinary investigation.
Minn. Stat. § 13.43, subd. 2(a) makes certain personnel data on current and former public employees public, including “the existence and status of any complaints or charges against the employee, regardless of whether the complaint or charge resulted in a disciplinary action,” and “the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action, excluding data that would identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body.”
Subdivision 2(b) then defines when that happens: “a final disposition occurs when the government entity makes its final decision about the disciplinary action, regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings or court proceedings,” including a resignation occurring after the final decision. For arbitration under a collective bargaining agreement, “a final disposition occurs at the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings, or upon the failure of the employee to elect arbitration within the time provided by the collective bargaining agreement.”
And then the sentence that controls the result of a records request in a case where the officer grieved: “A disciplinary action does not become public data if an arbitrator sustains a grievance and reverses all aspects of any disciplinary action.”
Read § 626.89, subd. 15 and § 13.43, subd. 2(b) together and the mechanism is plain. The Act preserves the collective bargaining agreement’s arbitration rights; a full arbitral reversal means the discipline never becomes public data at all. The existence and status of the complaint remains public under subd. 2(a)(4) — but the reasons and the underlying documentation do not become public under subd. 2(a)(5).
Body-worn camera footage runs on a different statute again, with its own classification rules. See our article on police body camera data under Minn. Stat. § 13.825. For public employees generally, the separate right to review one’s own personnel record is covered in the Minnesota Personnel Record Review Act.
Why this matters to a case
None of this creates a claim. Section 626.89 gives a cause of action to the officer, not to the person the officer encountered. Its value on the plaintiff’s side is informational and it is substantial: it tells you what documents an internal investigation was required to generate, when they had to be created, what form they had to take after August 1, 2026, and which of them are classified as public once discipline becomes final. That inventory shapes the data request, and the data request shapes what a claim against a municipality can be built on — see Monell and municipal liability for police conduct and, for the individual-officer defense you will meet, qualified immunity and the “clearly established” standard.
Working with Madgett Law
Madgett Law, LLC handles civil rights and police misconduct litigation in Minnesota state and federal court, alongside the firm’s personal injury and general civil litigation practice. Records work in these cases is time-sensitive — retention schedules and the classification rules above both run on clocks. To discuss a specific situation, send us a message or call 612-470-6529.
Sources: Minn. Stat. § 626.89, subds. 1(a), 1(b), 1(c), 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17(b), 17(c), 17(d), 17(e); 2026 Minn. Laws ch. 59, §§ 1–10 (H.F. 1410), amending Minn. Stat. § 241.026 and § 626.89, subds. 1 and 8, signed April 29, 2026; Minn. Stat. § 645.02 (effective date of acts); Minn. Stat. § 626.84, subd. 1, paras. (c), (d) (definitions of peace officer and part-time peace officer; subd. 1 is separately amended by 2026 Minn. Laws ch. 92, art. 2, § 14, effective January 1, 2027); Minn. Stat. § 13.43, subds. 1, 2(a)(4), 2(a)(5), 2(b); Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493, 500 (1967). Statutory and session-law text was retrieved from the Office of the Revisor of Statutes at revisor.mn.gov. The Garrity opinion was retrieved from the Legal Information Institute at law.cornell.edu and cross-checked against the Caselaw Access Project archive at static.case.law.
This article is general information about Minnesota law. It is not legal advice, it does not create an attorney–client relationship, and it promises no particular outcome in any matter. Every case depends on its own facts.