Laserfiche WebLink
This right of review is in addition to any <br />union grievance process, and can be <br />exercised by an employee before or after <br />such a grievance is undertaken. This process <br />can result in conflicting decisions and has <br />the potential to create a heavy burden on all <br />levels of government, and impose significant <br />costs on taxpayers. <br />Response: In light of the Schwanke <br />decision, the Legislature should modify <br />the data challenge provision of Minn. <br />Stat. § 13.04, subd. 4, to balance the rights <br />of data subjects to challenge the accuracy <br />and completeness of data with the <br />administrative and financial burdens on <br />local governments and taxpayers. <br />DP-8. Law Enforcement <br />Technologies <br />Issue: To aid law enforcement in work, law <br />enforcement agencies need the flexibility to <br />effectively use all available tools, including <br />technology, in a manner that balances <br />privacy interests of citizens, transparency of <br />their work, and costs related to these <br />technologies. The Legislature has balanced <br />these concerns in the recent License Plate <br />Readers law and the Police -Worn Body <br />Camera law. <br />License Plate Readers (LPRs) are an <br />important tool that assist law enforcement <br />agencies in locating wanted individuals, <br />recover stolen vehicles, and many other <br />types of investigations. Nevertheless, the use <br />of this technology raises legitimate privacy <br />concerns. In 2015, the Legislature passed <br />compromise legislation regulating the use of <br />LPRs, the classification of LPR data, and the <br />retention period for LPR data that struck a <br />fair balance between the need for robust law <br />enforcement and individual privacy rights. <br />Police -worn body cameras (or portable <br />recording systems) provide invaluable <br />123 <br />evidence when investigating crimes and <br />prosecuting criminals, and strengthened trust <br />of citizens in law enforcement by increasing <br />the accountability between peace officers <br />and the public. Different than other kinds of <br />data, body camera data use involves the <br />unique complexities of the sensitive nature <br />in its use in private homes as well as the <br />sheer volume of data in daily use. In 2016, <br />the Legislature contemplated all of these <br />issues and passed compromise legislation <br />regulating use of body cameras, <br />classification of body camera data, retention <br />period for body camera data, release of body <br />camera data, audit requirements, and written <br />policy requirements. <br />Response: Cities and/or law enforcement <br />agencies should be allowed to decide <br />whether to utilize technology and be given <br />the flexibility to decide how they are used <br />in the field. The League supports the <br />continued use of License Plate Readers <br />under the terms of the 2015 legislation, <br />and opposes any further restrictions on <br />their use or any reduction in the current <br />60-day retention period. <br />The League supports the continued use of <br />Police -Worn Body Cameras under the <br />terms of the 2016 legislation, and opposes <br />any further restrictions on their use, data <br />classification, retention period, or written <br />policy requirements. <br />DP-9. Open Meeting Law <br />Issue: The Open Meeting Laws allows <br />certain meetings to be held using interactive <br />television provided that: all members of the <br />body can hear and see one another and all <br />discussion and testimony; members of the <br />public can see and hear all discussion, <br />testimony, and votes; at least one member of <br />the body is physically present at the regular <br />meeting location; and each remote location <br />is open and accessible to the public. The <br />