House Committee Approves Bill on Brady-Giglio Disclosures for Officers

The proposal would create a statewide process for determining when information affecting a law enforcement officer’s credibility must be disclosed in criminal cases.

The House Public Safety Finance and Policy Committee heard HF 962 and its delete-everything amendment (pdf) on March 4. Sponsored by Committee Chair Rep. Paul Novotny (R-Elk River), the bill as amended aims to create a uniform process to define Brady-Giglio impairments.

The proposal was approved on a voice vote and sent to the House Judiciary Finance and Civil Law Committee for further consideration.

Brady-Giglio history

Brady-Giglio refers to rules that require prosecutors to disclose evidence favorable to the defense in criminal cases to ensure a fair trial. This includes disclosure of information that could affect a witness’ credibility. The name refers to the rulings in two U.S. Supreme Court cases: Brady v. Maryland (1963) and Giglio v. United States (1972).

“Brady-Giglio lists” refers to records maintained by prosecuting agencies that identify peace officers with documented incidents that may affect their credibility as witnesses in court. Prosecutors must disclose evidence favorable to a defendant , however, procedures vary across the state. Previous proposals to address the issue stalled because stakeholders could not reach consensus on what statewide standards should look like.

City prosecutors, like other prosecuting agencies, must comply with Brady-Giglio disclosure requirements. City prosecutors work with all levels of law enforcement to ensure proper identification and disclosure. As employers, city attorneys also advise cities on employee discipline or termination, including situations that involve Brady-Giglio matters.

Employment protections for officers

The bill aims to clarify how Brady-Giglio designations apply to peace officers’ data and establish procedures for managing officers with credibility issues, referred to as impairments.

The bill includes provisions to maintain the confidentiality of officers’ personnel records and Brady-Giglio material. It would prohibit prosecuting authorities from creating “do not call” lists of impaired officers and prohibits the discharge and discipline of officers based solely on Brady-Giglio impairment.

Defining Brady-Giglio impairments

One goal of the bill is to create a statewide standard for handling Brady-Giglio designations.

All prosecuting agencies would be required to adopt a written policy for obtaining, reviewing, and disclosing personnel data. The intent is to improve consistency, efficiency, and transparency regarding Brady-Giglio material across all prosecuting agencies.

Stakeholders and next steps

The hearing included testimony from many members of stakeholder groups, including the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association, Law Enforcement Labor Services, Cass County Sheriff, Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association, Minnesota Sheriffs’ Association, and the Minnesota County Attorneys Association.

The League of Minnesota Cities and Minnesota City Attorneys submitted written testimony sharing concerns about provisions in the bill that would conflict with existing labor laws, collective bargaining agreements, and personnel data protections that govern municipal police employment.

The League also urged lawmakers to conduct further study and to include cities and city attorneys in any task force examining Brady-Giglio policies given their role in prosecutions and advising police departments.

View the League’s written testimony on HF 962 as amended (pdf).

The League will continue to monitor the bill and engage with stakeholders as it moves through the legislative process.

Read more news articles.