Judge rules Minneapolis police ‘coaching’ records not public, sends narrow case to trial

A Hennepin County judge on Wednesday ruled that Minneapolis’ longstanding practice of coaching, a form of one-on-one mentoring to address police policy infractions, does not constitute formal discipline — meaning city officials are entitled to shield such misconduct records from public scrutiny.

The decision marks a significant blow to the nonprofit Minnesota Coalition On Government Information (MNCOGI), a watchdog group that waged a three-year legal battle to expose how the Minneapolis Police Department used the secretive coaching process.

In her 51-page order, Judge Karen Janisch waved off internal city documents, including letters addressed to police officers explicitly referring to coaching as a type of “discipline,” as simply “clumsy and imprecise” language that failed to undermine their established intent. She agreed with the city’s assessment that coaching was a “performance management device” meant to correct minor violations.

“The undisputed facts in the record establish that coaching is not imposed by the City as a form of disciplinary action intended to penalize or punish employees and this is a part of a mutual understanding between the City and officers as established through the parties respective rights and obligations under [Public Employee Labor Relations Act] PELRA and collective bargaining,” Janisch wrote in her summary judgement.

“Because the imposing of coaching is not a disciplinary action, documents related to coaching are private personnel data and not a final disciplinary action under [Minnesota statute.]”

That decision largely dismisses a protracted civil case that fought to make such police misconduct records public. MNCOGI may still pursue trial on remaining allegations that Minneapolis violated state data laws by withholding particular nonpersonnel records.

In a statement, City Attorney Kristyn Anderson lauded the ruling as validation that Minneapolis rightly interpreted the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.

“This was the correct legal conclusion, and government employees and employers across the state will benefit from the clarity provided by the court’s opinion on how personnel data is handled,” she told the Minnesota Star Tribune.

Leita Walker, attorney for MNCOGI, said the group is considering all options, including appeal.

“Sometimes you have to lose to make a point. And the point here is this: It’s long past time to amend our open records law so that police misconduct becomes public when it’s substantiated, and not just when the Chief decides to discipline it. I hope lawmakers in St. Paul are paying attention,” Walker wrote in a statement.

Walker and Isabella Salomão Nascimento of the law firm Ballard Spahr, and the Minnesota chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union represented MNCOGI, an all-volunteer organization made up of current and former journalists, attorneys, librarians and others interested in government transparency. Walker has also represented several local media organizations, including the Star Tribune, in cases related to public records and the First Amendment.

The MPD has used coaching more than any other means for dealing with police complaints over the past decade.

Attorneys for the city argued this gentler form of corrective action doesn’t amount to real discipline, and they don’t have to disclose any records to the public under Minnesota law. Critics have for years contended that the lack of transparency amounts to a rhetorical loophole the Police Department uses to keep bad behavior hidden.

Last year, in charging Minneapolis with a pattern of discriminatory policing, the U.S. Department of Justice criticized coaching as being part of the city’s “fundamentally flawed” accountability system. Only 1 in 4 cases referred for coaching through a city oversight office ended up actually being coached, the charges say, and some allegations were “far from ‘low-level,’” including an officer who “smacked, kicked, and used a Taser on a teen accused of shoplifting.”

A series of court filings, made public as part of MNCOGI’s 2021 lawsuit, further opened a window into the city’s convoluted process of coaching officers and revealed that top Minneapolis officials have publicly misrepresented how they use it.

After the 2020 murder of George Floyd, under questioning about transparency in the coaching process, city and police officials claimed they only used coaching to handle minor policy violations — called A-category infractions — like not wearing a seat belt or a problem in writing a report.

But court documents proved the MPD has used coaching in response to more serious violations, including complaints of excessive force. The city has quietly coached officers for mishandling a gun and firing into the precinct wall, failing to report a colleague’s use of force and letting a police dog off leash and allowing it to attack a civilian, according to records uncovered through discovery.

In legal motions, the city acknowledged the Police Department used coaching for more serious B-category violations in the past, but says it “only happened 13 times” and there were “zero instances” of coaching on elevated infractions, called C-category violations.

Yet, records show the city has coached at least one violation the department initially classified as C-category.

Former Chief Medaria Arradondo signed a March 2021 letter disciplining an officer for breaking department policy on accessing confidential records — a “sustained” C-category violation — that occurred in 2017. After the police union grieved the discipline, Arradondo agreed to downgrade the misconduct to a B-category and coach the officer, making records of the misconduct private, according to the document.

When officials were asked to explain this discrepancy, which appeared to contradict their prior statements, a city spokeswoman said that violation occurred one month after the time period being debated in the lawsuit. She did not respond to follow-up inquiries on whether the city has continued to coach in connection with these higher-level infractions.

City attorneys argued MNCOGI wrongfully tried to “make this case about police accountability,” when the legal argument comes down to a narrow question about whether coaching documents are discipline and constitute public data.

The new Minneapolis police labor contract, approved by the City Council this summer, codifies the city’s longstanding position. Without using the word “coaching,” the agreement specifies that discipline refers exclusively to written reprimands, suspensions, demotions and discharges.

“I think it’s clear that coaching has been used inappropriately in the past,” Police Chief Brian O’Hara told reporters in July, following the passage of the new contract. But he defended the use of the practice to address low-level misconduct and said he has personally reviewed all 62 cases of coaching since he was appointed in November 2022.

“Every one of those violations has been appropriate,” he added, noting that an independent evaluator, Effective Law Enforcement For All (ELEFA), will double-check his work and eventually issue public findings on whether the department is implementing it correctly.

However, Council President Elliott Payne asked the city auditor to open an assessment into how MPD has deployed coaching in cases since entering a court-mandated consent decree with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights.

During a community meeting last month, representatives from ELEFA told attendees that the Police Department was in the process of changing its internal protocols on coaching. A new policy has yet to be formalized.

Andy Mannix contributed to this story.