HF1567 creates new privacy protections for public safety officers and certain family members by restricting how their personal information may be collected, posted, or disclosed. The bill defines “public safety officer” to include peace officers, correctional officers, and former officers, and it defines protected “personal information” to include home addresses, personal phone numbers and email addresses, children’s names, and certain school or child care references, along with other private data already classified under state law. It generally prohibits any person, business, association, or government entity from knowingly posting or otherwise making that information available on the internet, unless an exception applies or the officer consents.
The bill also adds a removal process for information already posted online. A public safety officer may submit a sworn affidavit requesting removal, and the recipient must take the information down within 30 days or face a possible civil action for injunctive or declaratory relief. If a court order is knowingly violated, the court may award actual damages, court costs, and attorney fees. Separate provisions make certain personal information about public safety officers private data under Minnesota’s government data practices law, and they condition some remedies on prior written notice to the government entity using a form from the Department of Public Safety.
HF1567 amends Minnesota Statutes section 609.5151 and adds new sections in chapters 13 and 626. It also expands criminal penalties for knowingly publishing certain personal information about law enforcement public safety officials or their household members when doing so creates an imminent and serious threat to safety. The bill distinguishes between misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor treatment for repeat violations, and it includes an enhanced penalty when great bodily harm or death results. Several categories of records are excluded from the restrictions, including real property records, Uniform Commercial Code filings, tax liens, and other property-title or lien records.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill’s structure is protective and supportive of public safety personnel, with the caption and provisions focused on shielding officers and their families from doxxing and harassment. There is no recorded committee transcript or vote history in the provided materials, so no direct floor or committee debate is available. Based on the text alone, the main policy emphasis appears to be officer safety and privacy, balanced against exceptions for news reporting, public concern speech, consumer reporting, financial, health, insurance, law enforcement, and other regulated uses of data.
The most likely points of contention are the breadth of the internet posting ban, the scope of the definition of protected personal information, and the potential impact on public records access, journalism, and online speech. The bill includes a public-concern/news exception, but it still reaches businesses, associations, and government entities and creates a removal-and-litigation mechanism that could be viewed as burdensome. Another possible issue is the requirement that officers file written notice to trigger certain remedies, which may be seen as limiting enforcement or, conversely, as a safeguard against overbroad claims.
The bill would add new privacy protections to Minnesota’s government data practices and criminal code by classifying specified personal information of public safety officers as private data and by prohibiting online dissemination of that information in most circumstances. It creates a new removal-and-enforcement process, authorizes civil remedies for noncompliance, and amends the existing statute governing dissemination of personal information about law enforcement personnel to expand coverage and penalties. The bill also carves out exceptions for public records, news and commentary, and several regulated commercial and governmental uses of data.
No committee testimony or vote record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from lawmakers in the materials. The bill text itself suggests a broadly protective, pro-public-safety posture aimed at preventing doxxing and threats against officers and their families. At the same time, the inclusion of speech, media, and records exceptions indicates an attempt to balance privacy and safety concerns with public access and First Amendment interests.
Likely areas of contention include whether the bill’s restrictions on posting or publishing personal information are too broad, especially for journalists, advocacy groups, and members of the public discussing matters of public concern. Another issue is the interaction with public records and online transparency, since the bill excludes certain records but still limits dissemination of officer-related information. The notice requirement for remedies under the data practices chapter and the civil removal process may also be debated as either necessary safeguards or barriers to enforcement.