Alpha News, Appellant,

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A24-1138

Alpha News,
Appellant,

vs.

City of Detroit Lakes, et al.,
Respondents.

Filed April 7, 2025
Reversed and remanded
Bentley, Judge

Becker County District Court
File No. 03-CV-24-706

Douglas P. Seaton, James V. F. Dickey, Alexandra K. Howell, Upper Midwest Law Center,
Minnetonka, Minnesota; and

Ryan D. Wilson, Cross Castle PLLC, Minnetonka, Minnesota (for appellant)

Dylan Ramstad Skoyles, Karen Skoyles, Ramstad, Skoyles, Winters & Bakken, P.A.,
Detroit Lakes, Minnesota (for respondents)

Considered and decided by Ede, Presiding Judge; Harris, Judge; and Bentley, Judge.
SYLLABUS
1. The abuse-of- discretion standard of review applies to a district court’s
decision to grant or deny a motion under section 13.82, subdivision 7, of the Minnesota
Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA), Minn. Stat. §§ 13.01-.991 (2024), for an order
directing the release of active criminal investigative data that are categorized as
confidential or protected nonpublic.
2
2. A “benefit . . . to the public,” for the purpose of the balancing test set forth
in section 13.82, subdivision 7, of the MGDPA, is that which has a helpful or useful effect
on the community or people as a whole, or that which otherwise promotes or enhances the
well-being of the community or people as a whole, and is not constrained by section 13.82,
subdivision 15, or any other provision of the MGDPA.
OPINION
BENTLEY, Judge
This case is about access to government data, which is regulated by the Minnesota
Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA), Minn. Stat. §§ 13.01-.9 91 (2024). Appellant
Alpha News seeks police body-worn and dash camera footage relating to an ongoing
criminal investigation in which the suspect is a sitting Minnesota state senator. Section
13.82, subdivision 7, of the MGDPA (hereinafter, subdivision 7) provides that data from
active criminal investigations are generally “confidential or protected nonpublic,” meaning
the data are not available to the public. But subdivision 7 also states that any person may
bring an action in the district court to request an order for the data’s release. Minn. Stat. §
13.82, subd. 7. A district court is authorized to release data under subdivision 7 if it
conducts a balancing test and determines that “the benefit to the person bringing the action
or to the public outweighs any harm to the public, to the agency or to the person identified
in the data.” Id.
Alpha News brought an action under subdivision 7 and now appeals from the district
court’s order declining to release the footage. Alpha News argues that, when the district
court performed the required balancing test, it improperly limited the types of benefits to
3
the public that may be considered. We have carefully reviewed the district court’s order,
but we cannot discern whether the district court properly construed the meaning of the
phrase “benefit . . . to the public” in subdivision 7. We therefore reverse the district court’s
order and remand for the court to reconsider Alpha News’s request in a manner not
inconsistent with this opinion.
FACTS
Alpha News brought this action in the district court under subdivision 7 and filed a
motion requesting that the district court order respondents Detroit Lakes Police
Department, Detroit Lakes City Clerk Glori French, in her official capacity, and City of
Detroit Lakes (collectively, the city) to release active criminal investigative data relating
to the court file associated with a pending criminal proceeding against Minnesota State
Senator Nicole Lynn Mitchell.1 Specifically, Alpha News seeks the release of body-worn2
and dash camera footage created by the Detroit Lakes Police Department relating to
Mitchell’s arrest on April 22, 2024. The parties agree that the requested data are currently
classified as confidential or protected nonpublic under subdivision 7.

1 Mitchell was not named as a party by Alpha News, nor did she seek to intervene in the
action in the district court. She is not participating in this matter on appeal.

2 We use the colloquial term “body-worn camera footage,” but we intend that term to be
synonymous with “data from a portable recording system.” A portable recording system is
defined in the MGDPA as “a device worn by a peace officer that is capable of both video
and audio recording of the officer’s activities and interactions with others or collecting
digital multimedia evidence as part of an investigation.” Minn. Stat. § 13.825,
subd. 1(b)(1).

4
The relevant facts are undisputed and derive from documents attached to Alpha
News’s complaint and submitted with its motion to authorize disclosure of the data.
Because this case turns on an issue of statutory interpretation, we provide only those details
of the underlying criminal proceeding and related public commentary that are necessary to
understand our consideration of the statute and our review of the district court’s decision.
The criminal complaint charges Mitchell with first-degree burglary, in violation of
Minnesota Statutes section 609.582, subdivision 1(a) (2022). The complaint states that
early in the morning on April 22, 2024, Detroit Lakes police officers were dispatched to
investigate a residential break-in. The alleged victim, later identified as the spouse of
Mitchell’s late father, reported that the suspect was in the basement. While searching the
basement, two responding officers encountered Mitchell and placed her under arrest.
Mitchell was dressed in black clothing and was near a flashlight covered with a black sock
that the officers viewed as having “been modified so as to control the amount of light
emitting from the flashlight.” As Mitchell was being arrested, she told her stepmother, “I
was just trying to get a couple of my dad’s things because you wouldn’t talk to me
anymore.”
In a search for the point of entry, an officer observed that a black backpack was
stuck in a small sliding window on the south wall of the basement. The backpack contained
two laptops that Mitchell said were hers. She told the officer that she had “just gotten into
the house” and said, “clearly I’m not good at this.” After the other officer read Mitchell a
Miranda warning at his squad car, Mitchell stated, “I know I did something bad.” She also
explained that her father had recently passed away, that her stepmother had since ceased
5
contact with her and other family members, and that she wanted some of her father’s items
that her stepmother had refused to provide to her.
According to Alpha News, information in the criminal complaint conflicts with
public statements made by Mitchell and her attorney in the days following her arrest. For
example, Alpha News’s complaint points to a statement that Mitchell posted on Facebook
on the day after her arrest, which includes the following excerpt:
Over the weekend, I learned of medical information which
caused me grave concern and prompted me to check on [a]
family member. I entered a home I have come and gone from
countless times in the past 20 years, where my son even once
had his own room. Unfortunately, I startled this close relative,
exacerbating paranoia, and I was accused of stealing, which I
absolutely deny.

At around the same time, Mitchell’s attorney told reporters that Mitchell’s stepmother had
experienced cognitive decline, and that Mitchell had entered the residence, at least in part,
to check on her stepmother. Mitchell’s attorney also commented that the criminal
complaint “fails to include exculpatory facts, such as how Senator Mitchell has a key to
the residence in question; that she was only in possession of things that she actually owns;
and that she was and is deeply concerned about the health and welfare of someone who has
been a member of her family for 45 years.” Mitchell’s attorney further stated, “Contrary to
what has been said and written by others, there is effectively no actual evidence that has
yet been made public.” And, in a statement released through her attorney, Mitchell said, “I
am confident that a much different picture will emerge when all of the facts are known.”
The criminal complaint prompted responses by public officials. Among them,
Governor Tim Walz stated that the arrest raised “some very serious questions [that] need
6
to be addressed”; the Minnesota Senate minority leader called for Mitchell’s resignation;
and nine senators filed an ethics complaint with the Minnesota Senate’s Subcommittee on
Ethical Conduct.
On April 23, 2024, Alpha News submitted a formal request to the Detroit Lakes
Police Department for body-worn camera footage from April 22, 2024, relating to
Mitchell’s arrest. The department denied that request. Alpha News then filed its complaint
and motion in the district court under subdivision 7 on April 26. In its complaint, Alpha
News states that the requested “camera footage . . . could corroborate or refute the criminal
complaint and/or public statements by Senator Mitchell.” According to Alpha News, the
public benefit from such data “is substantial” and “[t]here is a strong public interest and
benefit in knowing about the truth related to criminal charges against a sitting State
Senator.” And, in Alpha News’s view, “[t]he potential harm of releasing the data to any
person identified in the data is small; all it will reveal is what happened on April 22, 2024
and what Senator Mitchell, the victim, and law enforcement officials said and did .”
Therefore, Alpha News maintains, “[t]he public benefit greatly outweighs any potential
harm to Senator Mitchell or the Detroit Lakes Police Department.”
In the district court, t he city took no position on the ultimate question of whether
the data should be released. Rather, the city asked that the district court “make findings and
point out why this is a special circumstance” before authorizing release so that the city
would not face “numerous requests ” for release of other data based on similar assertions
that the public interest outweighs the harm that release of confidential data may have on
matters like procuring an impartial jury.
7
The relevant body-worn and dash camera footage was delivered to the district court
in accordance with the requirement in subdivision 7 that “the data in dispute shall be
examined by the court in camera.” And, after a motion hearing, the district court issued an
order denying Alpha News’s motion for the release of the data. In an attached
memorandum, the district court explained its determination that, “[u]nder these facts, the
rights of an accused in an active criminal proceeding outweigh the public’s interest in
seeing the body-cam footage (only a portion of the evidence in the criminal case) prior to
trial.” In its analysis, the district court discussed MGDPA provisions beyond subdivision 7.
The district court noted that “[t]his statute does not authorize the release of data the public
finds ‘interesting.’ It requires release of data that is necessary to dispel widespread rumor
or unrest— circumstances that are not present here.”
This appeal follows. On appeal, the city defends the decision of the district court.3

3 Alpha News argues that the city’s defense of the district court’s order on appeal is
forfeited because the city did not take the position below that the data should not be
released. We disagree. The city’s position was that the district court should make a
reasoned decision on the data request. The city can now defend the reasoning of that
decision on appeal. Cf. State v. Grunig, 660 N.W.2d 134, 137 (Minn. 2003) (A respondent
can raise alternative arguments on appeal in defense of the underlying decision[.]”); In re
Welfare of J.A.D., 13 N.W.3d 423 , 437 (Minn. App. 2024) (applying the Grunig rule and
concluding that the respondent did not forfeit an issue not raised below). In any event, we
must thoroughly evaluate Alpha News’s position on appeal because we have “the
responsibility . . . to decide cases in accordance with law.” Moorhead Econ. Dev. Auth. v.
Anda, 789 N.W.2d 860, 875 (Minn. 2010) (quotation omitted).
8
ISSUE
In conducting the balancing test under Minnesota Statutes section 13.82,
subdivision 7, did the district court misapply the law by applying an overly restrictive
interpretation of the meaning of “benefit . . . to the public”?
ANALYSIS
Alpha News argues that the district court erred in denying its motion for an order
releasing the data because the court applied an overly narrow view of what constitutes a
“benefit . . . to the public” when performing the balancing test under subdivision 7 . The
city maintains that the district court properly exercised its discretion and denied the motion
after concluding that the potential harms of release outweigh the benefits to the public.
We begin our analysis with a discussion of the standard of review that applies to a
district court’s decision under subdivision 7, which presents an issue of first impression for
this court. We then offer an overview of the relevant provisions in the MGDPA that address
the classification of criminal investigative data, including body-worn camera footage. With
that context in mind, we turn to the merits of Alpha News’s appeal and interpret the
meaning of “benefit . . . to the public” as it appears in subdivision 7. That is also a matter
of first impression for our court. Finally, we consider whether the district court misapplied
the law in light of our interpretation of that provision.
I
As with any appeal, w e first establish the standard of review that applies to our
consideration of the district court’s decision. The supreme court has held that, when a
statute requires a district court to weigh competing interests, it “is generally a discretionary
9
task.” State v. R.H.B. , 821 N.W.2d 817, 822 (Minn. 2012). And a statute’s use of
permissive language signals that the decision is within the district court’s discretion. See,
e.g., Kemp v. Kemp, 608 N.W.2d 916, 920 (Minn. App. 2000) (“Because the word ‘may’
is defined as ‘permissive,’ a district court has discretion to set the effective date of a
maintenance modification.”). The statute here provides that the distri ct court “may order”
the release of data after considering whether the benefits of release outweigh the harms.
Minn. Stat. § 13.82, subd. 7. We therefore hold that our review of the district court’s
decision whether to release confidential or protected nonpublic active criminal
investigative data under the balancing test in subdivision 7 is for an abuse of discretion.
One way a district court can abuse its discretion is by misapplying the law. Bender
v. Bernhard, 971 N.W.2d 257, 262 (Minn. 2022). To determine whether the district court
misapplied the law here, we must first interpret the statute. Appellate courts review issues
of statutory interpretation de novo. Wood v. County of Blue Earth, 994 N.W.2d 309, 312
(Minn. 2023). After interpreting the meaning of the statute, we then consider whether the
district court applied a correct interpretation of the statute to its analysis. In conducting that
review, we recognize that subdivision 7 does not require the district court to provide written
findings on each aspect of the balancing test. Compare Minn. Stat. § 13.03, subd. 8
(requiring the district court to “make a written statement of findings in support of its
decision”), with Minn. Stat. § 13.82, subd. 7 (lacking an express requirement to make
written findings). But our review is hampered if we cannot discern from the district court’s
decision whether it considered the appropriate factors in the balancing test. Cf. Gams v.
Houghton, 884 N.W.2d 611, 621 (Minn. 2016) (stating that, to review a district court’s
10
decision denying relief from a judgment or order under Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02, “effective
appellate review under an abuse-of- discretion standard is only possible when the district
court has issued sufficiently detailed . . . conclusions of law to demonstrate that it has
considered all of the relevant factors.”) ; Webster v. Hennepin County, 891 N.W.2d 290 ,
293 n.2 (Minn. 2017) (noting that it is a “better practice” for a district court, in deciding
whether to grant a stay pending appeal, to provide written analysis of each relevant factor
“in the interest of completeness and to facilitate appellate review”).
With our standard of review in mind, we turn to an overview of the relevant
provisions of the MGDPA.
II
The MGDPA “regulates the collection, creation, storage, maintenance,
dissemination, and access to government data in government entities.” Minn. Stat. § 13.01,
subd. 3. The statute “prescribes a general regime by which data is presumed to be public
and accessible unless classified as nonpublic or protected nonpublic, or with respect to data
on individuals, as private or confidential.” Cilek v. Off. of Minn. Sec’y of State, 941 N.W.2d
411, 415 (Minn. 2020) (quotation omitted); see also Minn. Stat. § 13.03, subds. 1, 3. The
parties agree that the presumption that data are public does not apply here because the
requested body- worn and dash camera footage is classified as confidential or protected
nonpublic data under subdivision 7.
Subdivision 7 provides that “investigative data collected or created by a law
enforcement agency in order to prepare a case against a person, whether known or
unknown, for the commission of a crime or other offense for which the agency has primary
11
investigative responsibility are confidential or protected nonpublic while the investigation
is active.” Minn. Stat. § 13.82, subd. 7; see also Minn. Stat. § 13.825, subd. 2(a)(3)
(providing that, with some exceptions, body-worn camera footage “that are active criminal
investigative data are governed by section 13.82, subdivision 7 ”). Relevant here, an
investigation is considered active until the prosecutorial authority decides not to pursue the
case or a person convicted on the basis of the investigative data exhausts all rights to appeal
or all rights to appeal have expired. Minn. Stat. § 13.82, subd. 7(c). In other words, while
the criminal proceedings against Mitchell are ongoing, criminal investigative data relating
to those proceedings are confidential or protected nonpublic.4
Despite the classification of active criminal investigative data as confidential or
protected nonpublic, the MGDPA provides that the data may be released in certain
circumstances. For example, under section 13.82, subdivision 15, entitled “Public benefit
data,” a law enforcement agency may release confidential or protected nonpublic active
criminal investigative data if the agency “determines that the access will aid the law
enforcement process, promote public safety, or dispel widespread rumor or unrest.” Minn.
Stat. § 13.82, subd. 15 (hereinafter, subdivision 15). Also, when an individual dies because

4 We note that not all criminal investigative data becomes public when an investigation
turns inactive. Subdivision 7 provides a general rule that inactive criminal investigative
data are public, but it exempts data that would “jeopardize another ongoing investigation,”
reveal the identity of certain protected individuals, or reveal an image or recording that is
“clearly offensive to common sensibilities.” Minn. Stat. § 13.82, subd. 7. Also, the release
of body-worn camera footage relating to an inactive criminal investigation is governed by
separate section of the MGDPA. See Minn. Stat. § 13 .825, subd. 2(a)(3); see also id.,
subd. 2(g) (authorizing an action in district court for release of private or nonpublic body-
worn camera footage, subject to a balancing test).
12
of a use of force by an officer, certain criminal investigative data must be released on
specific timelines unless the chief law enforcement officer asserts in writing that the release
would jeopardize an ongoing investigation or the data are “clearly offensive to common
sensibilities.” See Minn. Stat. § 13.825, subd. 2(b)-(e). And, if confidential or protected
nonpublic active criminal investigative data are presented as evidence in court, the statute
directs that the data “shall be public.” Minn. Stat. § 13.82, subd. 7.
Central to this case, the MGDPA provides that, if criminal investigative data are
classified as confidential or protected nonpublic, “any person may bring an action in the
district court located in the county where the data are being maintained to authorize
disclosure of investigative data.” Id. The district court may order that all or part of the data
be released after the data are “examined by the court in camera,” and the court has
considered “whether the benefit to the person bringing the action or to the public outweighs
any harm to the public, to the agency or to any person identified in the data.” Id. (emphasis
added). Alpha News invoked this process in its complaint.5
III
We now turn to the merits of Alpha News’s appeal. Alpha News maintains that the
district court applied an overly narrow interpretation of the phrase “benefit . . . to the
public,” as it appears in subdivision 7, and improperly constrained the meaning of that

5 The parties agree that no other exception to the release of data presently applies while the
investigation is active. As of the time of the district court’s decision and our consideration
of this appeal, none of the requested data have been presented as evidence in court; and the
Detroit Lakes Police Department denied Alpha News’s request to have the department
release the data on its own accord. See Minn. Stat. § 13.82, subd. 15.
13
phrase to the circumstances identified in subdivision 15 and in other provisions permitting
release following the use of force by an officer. We therefore focus our attention on the
meaning of the phrase “benefit . . . to the public.”
When interpreting a statute, our purpose “is to ascertain and effectuate the intention
of the legislature.” Harlow v. State Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 883 N.W.2d 561, 566 (Minn.
2016) (quoting Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2014)); see also Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2024). “[W]e
give words and phrases . . . their plain and ordinary meanings.” Harlow, 883 N.W.2d at
566 (alteration in original) (quotation omitted). We also “read the statute as a whole and
give effect to all its provisions.” Id. “When the statutory language is plain and
unambiguous, we will look only to that language in ascertaining legislative intent.” Haefele
v. Haefele, 837 N.W.2d 703, 708 (Minn. 2013).
The phrase “benefit . . . to the public” is not defined in the MGDPA. To determine
its plain and ordinary meaning, we may consider the common dictionary definitions of the
phrase or the relevant words. Jaeger v. Palladium Holdings, LLC, 884 N.W.2d 601, 605
(Minn. 2016). Neither the phrase “benefit to the public” nor “public benefit” is defined in
the dictionary. But “benefit” is defined as “[s]omething that promotes or enhances
well-being; an advantage.” The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
168 (5th ed. 2018). Or, in other words, a “benefit” is the “helpful or useful effect something
has.” Black’s Law Dictionary 193 (12th ed. 2024). The meaning of “public,” in turn, is
“[t]he community or the people as a whole.” American Heritage, supra, at 1424.
Considering the meaning of “benefit” and “public” together, the phrase “benefit . . . to the
public” is broad in scope. A benefit to the public is that which has a helpful or useful effect
14
on the community or people as a whole, or that which otherwise promotes or enhances the
well-being of the community or people as a whole.
This interpretation of “benefit . . . to the public” comports with the MGDPA “as a
whole and give[s] effect to all its provisions.” Harlow, 883 N.W.2d at 566. First, the phrase
appears within a discretionary balancing test, where the court must “balance competing
interests based on the unique facts of each case.” R.H.B., 821 N.W.2d at 822. Therefore,
the broad meaning of “benefit . . . to the public” is by design. Other provisions of the
MGDPA, such as those discussed below, may address how and whether to release
confidential or protected nonpublic active criminal investigative data in particular
circumstances. But subdivision 7 gives the district court the ability to release such data in
circumstances not necessarily addressed elsewhere in the MGDPA after identifying and
weighing benefits and harms. It is within the district court’s discretion to afford appropriate
weight to the strength or weakness of an asserted benefit to the public as considered against
the strength or weakness of any identified harms.
Second, the plain meaning of “benefit . . . to the public” is consistent with, and
therefore not constrained by, subdivision 15. Although that subdivision has the headnote
“Public benefit data,” headnotes are “not part of the statute,” Minn. Stat. § 645.49 (2024),
and do not control legislative intent, Sheridan v. Comm ’r of Revenue, 963 N.W.2d 712,
718 (Minn. 2021); Hyland v. Metro. Airports Comm’n, 538 N.W.2d 717, 720 (Minn. App.
1995) (noting that, even when relevant to legislative intent, a statute’s title is not decisive).
And the plain language of subdivision 15 does not define or otherwise limit the meaning
of “benefit . . . to the public” as used in subdivision 7. Subdivision 15 provides for the
15
release of confidential or protected nonpublic active criminal investigative data —without
a court order—when a law enforcement agency determines that public access to the data
will serve at least one of three express purposes: “aid the law enforcement process, promote
public safety, or dispel widespread rumor or unrest.” Minn. Stat. § 13.82, subd. 15. While
we do not doubt that release of data in such circumstances may result in a “benefit . . . to
the public” under the plain meaning of that phrase, the statute does not indicate that they
represent the only benefits to the public contemplated in subdivision 7. To the contrary,
subdivision 15 provides a mechanism for release of data that is distinct from the balancing
test set forth in subdivision 7. That means that, if a law enforcement agency chooses not to
release data under subdivision 15 or if the release of data does not serve one of the three
purposes in subdivision 15, the mechanism in subdivision 7 is still available and requires
a party seeking release of the data to come before a court.
Third, and finally, the plain meaning of “benefit . . . to the public” aligns with, and
is not constrained by, MGDPA provisions addressing the release of criminal investigative
data in the context of police use-of-force cases that result in an individual’s death. There,
too, the MGDPA carves out a separate process for releasing criminal investigative data in
those precise circumstances. Minn. Stat. § 13.825, subd. 2(b)-(e). And while the purpose
driving such a release may constitute a “benefit . . . to the public” under the plain meaning
of that phrase, the use-of-force provisions do not purport to limit what other benefits may
be considered in releasing confidential or protected nonpublic active criminal investigative
data under subdivision 7.
16
Accordingly, we hold that the plain meaning of a “benefit . . . to the public” under
subdivision 7 is that which has a helpful or useful effect on the community or people as a
whole, or that which otherwise promotes or enhances the well-being of the community or
people as a whole, and is not constrained by subdivision 15, or any other provision of the
MGDPA. In so holding, we need not define the outer reaches of what constitutes a benefit
to the public, as it is within the district court’s discretion to assess the nature of the asserted
benefit and, if the benefit falls within the plain meaning of the statute, to determine the
weight it should receive compared against the weight of any identified harms. See Minn.
Stat. § 13.82, subd. 7.6
IV
Finally, we consider whether the district court abused its discretion by misapplying
the law. As an initial matter, we have little trouble concluding that the benefit articulated
by Alpha News falls within the plain meaning of “benefit . . . to the public” as used in
subdivision 7. The district court described the asserted benefit as a desire “to reconcile the
conflicting accounts of the incident as told through the public complaint and Mitchell in
her public statements.” Alpha News maintain s that the release of the data would aid the
public in holding elected officials accountable. We agree that the release of information
that would help the public in holding officials accountable is a “benefit . . . to the public”

6 Because we apply the plain meaning of the unambiguous phrase “benefit . . . to the
public,” we do not consider Alpha News’s argument that the purpose of the statute demands
that we broadly construe subdivision 7 in favor of release of the data. See State v. Pakhnyuk,
926 N.W.2d 914, 920, 924 (Minn. 2019) (explaining that courts apply the plain meaning
of an unambiguous statute and may rely on the occasion and necessity for the law only if
the statute is ambiguous).
17
for purposes of subdivision 7, because it may have a helpful or useful effect on the
community or people as a whole. The asserted benefit therefore should have been
considered and weighed against the identified harms as part of the balancing test under
subdivision 7.
The crux of the issue is whether the district court improperly excluded that asserted
benefit from consideration. If so, it abused its discretion by misapplying the law. But if the
district court correctly understood Alpha News’s asserted benefit to be a “benefit . . . to the
public” and weighed it in deciding not to order release of the data, the court did not abuse
its discretion. Based on the district court’s memorandum, we cannot discern which of those
scenarios represents the district court’s analysis.
On the one hand, the district court’s memorandum signals that the court knew and
applied the appropriate legal standard. The district court correctly articulated the process
under subdivision 7 and the requisite balancing test. The memorandum also identified
Alpha News’s asserted benefit and could be read to have balanced that benefit against
identified harms. For example, the court acknowledged Alpha News’s position that “failure
to disclose these videos will prevent the public, and in particular the legislature, from
making important decisions regarding Mitchell’s career in the Senate.” The district court
then discussed the potential harms in releasing the data while the criminal proceedings are
ongoing, such as the harms to the state and to Mitchell in securing an impartial jury panel.
And, ultimately, the district court determined that, “[u]nder these facts, the rights of an
accused in an active criminal proceeding outweigh the public’s interest in seeing the body-
cam footage (only a portion of the evidence in the criminal case) prior to trial.”
18
On the other hand, the district court’s discussion of the asserted public benefit
includes some language that indicates it narrowly construed the phrase “benefit . . . to the
public.” For example, the district court determined that the asserted benefit would not meet
the standard set out in subdivision 15: “Here, the public’s ‘desire to know’—‘now’ (before
the conclusion of the criminal proceedings)— especially in the age of social media, does
not equate to the public interest necessary to release protected data contemplated by
Minnesota Statute Section 13.82 subd. 15.” (Emphasis omitted.) The court continued,
“This statute does not authorize the release of data the public finds ‘interesting.’ It requires
release of data that is necessary to dispel widespread rumor or unrest —circumstances that
are not present here.” (Emphasis omitted.) In discussing subdivision 15, the district court
did not explain whether its interpretation of the law meant that only those circumstances in
subdivision 15 could justify release under subdivision 7, or whether subdivision 15 helped
explain the weight it was placing on the asserted benefit in conducting an appropriate
analysis under subdivision 7.
Other language in the district court’s decision likewise gives the impression that the
district court understood the phrase “benefit . . . to the public” to mean a particularly strong
or important benefit or one relating to public safety. For example, in rejecting the view that
Mitchell’s status as a public official plays into the public’s interest in obtaining release of
the data, the court noted that “even if a senator, or mayor, or member of the Minnesota
Board of Cosmetic Examiners killed someone, it would not rise to the level of public
interest unless perhaps that person was still at large and capable of future harm.”
19
Because we cannot discern from the district court’s memorandum whether it applied
a meaning of “benefit . . . to the public” that is consistent with our interpretation of that
phrase, we reverse the district court’s decision and remand for consideration of Alpha
News’s motion in light of this opinion. Cf. Moylan v. Moylan, 384 N.W.2d 859, 865 (Minn.
1986) (noting that, although “there are occasions where an appellate court can find support
for a trial court’s decision by an independent review of the record, such action is improper
where . . . it is unclear whether the trial court considered factors expressly mandated by the
legislature” (citation omitted)).
In reaching this decision, we decline Alpha News’s request to review the record
under the correct legal standard and to direct the district court to order the data’s release to
the public. The statute tasks the district court with conducting the balancing test in
accordance with the law. Minn. Stat. § 13.82, subd. 7. We take no position on the strength
of the asserted public benefit, on whether the benefits of release outweigh the identified
harms when considered under the appropriate standard, or on whether the circumstances
of this case ultimately call for release of the data. Those determinations fall squarely within
the district court’s discretion.
DECISION
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the district court’s decision and remand for
consideration of Alpha News’s motion in a manner not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.