The long-running fight over how much the public gets to see of Minneapolis police discipline quietly took a sharp turn on Monday, when the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed a lower court and reopened the door to years of previously sealed "coaching" records.
The ruling could force the city to disclose internal supervisory sessions and notes that critics say let the Minneapolis Police Department handle serious misconduct off the books. Unless the Minnesota Supreme Court steps in, the dispute over those files is now headed toward a possible trial in Hennepin County.
In a 29-page opinion written by Judge Jeanne M. Cochran, a three-judge panel concluded the trial court used an overly cramped definition of "disciplinary action." The appellate judges adopted a broader reading that treats corrective measures, not just outright punishments, as public. They wrote that the legislature intended the public to have access to records of discipline that are corrective in nature as well as punitive, and reversed summary judgment that had favored the city and the police union, according to the Star Tribune.
Who sued and why
The lawsuit landed in 2021, filed by the Minnesota Coalition on Government Information, which now operates as Minnesotans for Open Government. The case is being litigated with help from the ACLU of Minnesota and the law firm Ballard Spahr.
Plaintiffs say the department has turned "coaching" into a parallel discipline track that keeps outcomes hidden even after full administrative investigations and grievance procedures. As set out by the ACLU of Minnesota, the suit argues that coaching has been used for more than trivial missteps and should therefore fall under the same public-record rules that apply to formal discipline.
What the records show
Court filings and earlier reporting state that over the past decade, MPD has leaned on coaching more than any other tool for handling complaints, a key pillar of the watchdog groups' case. The city told the courts that coaching was used for B-category violations 13 times and that C-category coaching never happened.
But documents turned up in litigation show at least one C-category incident handled through coaching. That discrepancy looms larger in light of the department's 2023-25 labor agreement, which the City Council approved in 2024 and which spells out formal discipline as written reprimands, suspensions, demotions, and discharges, according to Minnesota Reformer and Ballotpedia.
What 'discipline' means under state law
All of this turns on a very specific slice of Minnesota law. Under the state's Government Data Practices Act, most personnel data is private. One big exception: once discipline is final, the "final disposition of any disciplinary action," the reasons for it, and the supporting documents become public.
That framework, along with long-standing advisory opinions interpreting it, sits at the center of the appellate court's analysis and the plaintiffs' push to unseal coaching records, per Minnesota's Data Practices Office.
What comes next
The city now has 30 days to ask the Minnesota Supreme Court to review the case under Rule 117 of the state's appellate rules. That deadline will determine whether the high court takes a look or lets the appeals decision stand.
If the Supreme Court declines to review the case, the ruling from the Court of Appeals will remain in place, and the lawsuit will return to the district court for trial, where the central question will be whether coaching files must be released. City officials told reporters they are studying the opinion and weighing their options, according to Rule 117 of the Minnesota Court Rules and reporting by the Star Tribune.
.jpg){kind=link}