The Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association (MPPOA), which alleged that it represents “over 90% of the police and peace officers in Minnesota,” sued the Minnesota Board of Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST Board) after the Board allegedly released the names and dates of birth of at least 257 undercover officers in response to a 2024 data request. Three undercover officers joined the lawsuit and sought to represent a class of similarly situated officers. The plaintiffs alleged that the disclosure violated the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act because “[a]ll personnel data maintained by a government entity relating to an individual employed as or an applicant for employment as an undercover law enforcement officer are private data on individuals.” According to the complaint, the disclosure jeopardized active investigations and forced some officers to take additional measures to protect themselves and their families.
The POST Board moved to dismiss the amended complaint. It argued that the disclosed information constituted “licensing data,” which is generally public under a separate provision of the Act, not governed by the provision protecting “personnel data” relating to undercover officers. Because it allegedly released only public licensing data, the Board maintained that it could not be liable under the statute.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals first rejected the Board’s argument that MPPOA lacked standing to sue on behalf of its members. Applying the associational-standing framework established in Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission, the Court focused on whether the interests MPPOA sought to protect were relevant to the organization’s purpose and whether the claims and requested relief required participation by individual members. The Court concluded that both requirements were satisfied. MPPOA alleged that it represents more than 90 percent of Minnesota peace officers, and the Court reasoned that advocating for the safety of its members, including protecting undercover officers, was relevant to that mission. The Court also emphasized that MPPOA was “uniquely situated to advocate on behalf of its undercover members who understandably may be reticent to appear publicly because of their undercover status.” The Court found that MPPOA therefore met the Hunt factors, and affirmed the district court’s denial to dismiss for lack of standing.
The Court next considered whether MPPOA’s complaint stated a viable claim under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. The district court had applied a “but-for” analysis concluding that the disclosed information constituted “personnel data” because the POST Board would not have maintained that data but for the officer’s employment/personnel status. The Court of Appeals agreed with the POST Board that the district court applied the wrong legal standard. Relying on KSTP-TV v. Metropolitan Council, the Court explained that the relevant question is not whether the government entity would possess the data “but-for” the officers’ employment. Instead, courts must determine the purpose or purposes for which the government entity maintained the data at the time of the request. Under KSTP-TV, data qualifies as “personnel data” only where it is maintained “solely for personnel purposes.” The Court reasoned that the district court’s broader “but-for” approach risked expanding the “personnel data” classification so broadly that it would undermine the Act’s general presumption that government data are public.
Although the Court of Appeals concluded that the district court used the wrong legal test, it nevertheless affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to dismiss. The Court explained that a court could not rule on whether MPPOA stated a viable claim without factual development concerning why the Board maintained the disputed information. The existing record did not establish whether the Board maintained the data solely for personnel purposes, for licensing purposes, or for multiple purposes. Because the case was still at the pleading stage, the Court could not conclude “to a certainty that no facts could be introduced which would support the relief demanded,” and dismissal was not warranted.
The Court reached a different conclusion regarding the district court’s ruling on class certification. It agreed that the proposed class satisfied the commonality requirement because all class members shared a central legal question: whether the disclosed information was private data protected by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. But the district court’s certification order was deficient because it failed to address potential conflicts of interest among class members. In particular, the Board had presented evidence that several officers had already filed separate lawsuits arising from the same alleged disclosure. The Court explained that the adequacy-of-representation analysis required the district court to consider whether those parallel lawsuits created conflicts between the proposed class representatives and other potential class members. Because the district court failed to make findings on that issue, the Court of Appeals was unable to review the adequacy determination and therefore reversed the certification order and remanded for additional findings.
The Court also identified other problems that would need to be addressed if the class were found to satisfy the basic class certification requirements on remand. Therefore, the Court instructed that if a class is certified on remand, the district court must define the class in a manner that does not make membership dependent on the ultimate merits of the case. The Court likewise declined to resolve the parties’ disputes concerning predominance, superiority, and certification under Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure 23.02(b) and (c), leaving those issues for further consideration if necessary after remand.
The Court therefore affirmed the denial of the Board’s motion to dismiss, affirmed the determination that MPPOA had associational standing, reversed the class-certification order, and remanded the matter for further proceedings.
Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association v. Minnesota Board of Peace Officer Standards and Training, No. A25-1101, A25-1102, 2026 WL 1066642 (Minn. Ct. App. Apr. 20, 2026).
This article appears in the September 2026 issue of our monthly newsletter, Public Safety Labor News.
Also in the September 2026 issue:
- Arbitrator’s Reversal Of Retaliatory Discipline Upheld By California Court
- NY PERB Faults Village For Ignoring Union’s Pre-Bargaining Information Request
- Court Balances Brady Discovery Against Officers’ Cell Phone Privacy
- Maryland Court Upholds Police Chief’s Decision To Increase Discipline From Demotion To Termination
- Eleventh Circuit Affirms Dismissal Of PTSD Accommodation Suit Against Sheriff’s Office
- Aneurysm Day After Shift May Qualify For Minnesota Police Death Benefits
- No Due Process Violation For Terminated Nebraska Deputy Sheriff