MN
Data Practices Archive Minnesota Advisory Opinions
Not legal advice. This is an independent research archive, not affiliated with or endorsed by the State of Minnesota, the Department of Administration, or its Data Practices Office. Content here is for informational and educational purposes only — its creator is not an attorney, and no content has been reviewed by one. Always contact your own attorney before making a decision based on anything here. Full disclaimer · About this site · Report an issue
← Back to opinion list
← Opinion 02-008 Opinion 02-010 →
02-009

Advisory Opinion 02-009

March 13, 2002; Crow Wing County

Published March 13, 2002
Data subjects Law enforcement data
Opinion Brief AI-Generated

Background & Issues

After criminal charges against two individuals were dismissed before a probable cause hearing, their attorney asked Crow Wing County to return their fingerprints and other identification data. The county did not respond to the requests. The individuals asked whether the county responded appropriately to their requests to have their identification data returned.

Commissioner Decision

The Commissioner determined that Crow Wing County did not respond appropriately because it failed to reply at all. The Commissioner concluded that the county is required to return the identification records it holds when the legal conditions for dismissed charges are met.

Automated synopsis generated for quick reference only — it has not been reviewed word-for-word against the official record and is not legal advice. Always review the full opinion text below for the Commissioner's actual determination, or see the original document on mn.gov. Think this summary misstates the opinion? Report it.

Full Text of Advisory Opinion 02-009 Reproduced as published by the Minnesota Department of Administration · retrieved from mn.gov on August 21, 2026
Excerpted Ruling / Conclusion
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by X and Y is as follows:

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 299C.11, Crow Wing County did not respond appropriately to an August 9, 2000, request that certain data be returned to the data subject X, because (1), it did not respond at all, and (2), if the conditions specified in this section hold, it is required to return any identification data it maintains.
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 299C.11, Crow Wing County did not respond appropriately to an August 9, 2000, request that certain data be returned to the data subject Y, because (1), it did not respond at all, and (2), if the conditions specified in this section hold, it is required to return any identification data it maintains.

 
Advisory Opinion 02-009

March 13, 2002; Crow Wing County

3/13/2002 10:15:43 AM

This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.


Facts and Procedural History:

On January 15, 2002, IPA received a letter from X and Y. In their letter, X and Y asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding their rights concerning certain data maintained by Crow Wing County.

In response to X and Y's request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dick Ross, Sheriff of Crow Wing County. The purposes of this letter, dated January 18, 2002, were to inform him of X and Y's request and to ask him to provide information or support for the County's position. IPA did not receive a response from the County. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.

In letters dated August 9, 2000, Daniel A. Eller, attorney for X and Y, wrote to Sheriff Ross:

Please be advised that I represent [X or Y] regarding the above referenced matter which was dismissed by the Crow Wing County Attorney Donald Ryan, on or about May 8, 2000. At this time, on behalf of [X or Y], I hereby demand returned to [X or Y] all finger and thumb prints, distinctive physical mark identification data and other identification [sic] along with copies and duplicates of them to my office. This request is made pursuant to Minn. Stat. 299C.11(d) [sic]. All charges were dismissed in this matter prior to the determination of probable cause. Which probable cause hearing was scheduled for May 22, 2000.

According to X and Y, Crow Wing County did not respond to this request.


Issues:

In their request for an opinion, X and Y asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:

  1. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 299C.11, did Crow Wing County respond appropriately to an August 9, 2000, request that certain data be returned to the data subject X?
  2. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 299C.11, did Crow Wing County respond appropriately to an August 9, 2000, request that certain data be returned to the data subject Y?


Discussion:

Note: the Commissioner addresses the same issues, involving other government entities, in Advisory Opinions 02-008 and 02-010.

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 299C.10, certain identification data such as finger and thumb prints, and photographs, etc., are required to be collected by law enforcement agencies under circumstances related to the arrest of an individual. Pursuant to section 299C.11(b), under certain conditions a government entity shall, upon demand, return to the arrested person finger and thumb prints, photographs, distinctive physical mark identification data, information on known aliases and street names, and other identification data, and all copies and duplicates of them.

According to X and Y, Crow Wing County did not respond to their requests for the return of identification data to them. If, indeed, the conditions specified at section 299C.11(b), hold here, then Crow Wing County should return to X and Y, immediately, any finger and thumb prints, photographs, distinctive physical mark identification data, information on known aliases and street names, and other identification data, and all copies and duplicates of them that it maintains.

Opinion:

Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by X and Y is as follows:

  1. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 299C.11, Crow Wing County did not respond appropriately to an August 9, 2000, request that certain data be returned to the data subject X, because (1), it did not respond at all, and (2), if the conditions specified in this section hold, it is required to return any identification data it maintains.
  2. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 299C.11, Crow Wing County did not respond appropriately to an August 9, 2000, request that certain data be returned to the data subject Y, because (1), it did not respond at all, and (2), if the conditions specified in this section hold, it is required to return any identification data it maintains.
 

Signed:

David F. Fisher
Commissioner

Dated: March 13, 2002