With its stark partisan split, the Minnesota Legislature rarely sees a bill with bipartisan sponsorship these days. Seeing bipartisan sponsorship of a bill that could be controversial is even rarer.
But there it is on a bill, Senate File 1197, that would make it a misdemeanor to publicize the home address of law enforcement personnel or their family members without consent. To be against the law, the dissemination of the information would have to pose “an imminent and serious threat to the official’s safety or the safety of an official’s family or household member; and the person making the information publicly available knows or reasonably should know of the imminent and serious threat.”
DFL Sen. Karla Bigham of Cottage Grove is the prime sponsor, along with Sen. Susan Kent, the Woodbury DFLer who is the leader of the Senate DFL caucus and Sen. Ron Latz, a DFLer from St. Louis Park who is the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Committee. Joining the trio of DFLers are the top-ranking Republicans on the committee: Chair Warren Limmer of Maple Grove and Vice Chair Mark Johnson of East Grand Forks.
“It isn’t a left or right thing,” Bigham said “A public servant, which a cop is, and their family deserve a right to privacy.”
The bill grew out of events in the state last spring and fall. The first was the death of George Floyd on Memorial Day, who was killed when a Minneapolis police officer knelt on his neck for more than nine minutes during an arrest. Among the protests that resulted was one at the Hugo home of Minneapolis police union president Bob Kroll. One of the participants was now-state Rep. John Thompson, DFL-St Paul, who at one point threatened to burn the town of Hugo.
[image_caption]State Sen. Karla Bigham[/image_caption]
Bigham said Floyd’s death was “tragic and unnecessary” and that protests were important and valid but some methods made her think there needs to be a conversation about “how we deal with difficult issues.” She said she thinks protesting at the homes of police officers is not productive and is something that shouldn’t be allowed.
“An officer’s job is to protect and preserve the community and if they are worried about demonstrators at their homes where their partners and spouses and partners are located takes away their focus on their job,” she said.
She said she’s also concerned about the safety of neighborhoods and communities where demonstrations take place.
Bigham said she is also concerned about post-election demonstrations at the homes of elected officials — part of the “Stop The Steal” campaign triggered by President Trump. But her bill does not extend to elected officials, only police officers. And the crime would be triggered only when dissemination of home addresses, directions to a home or photographs of a home “poses an imminent and serious threat to the officer’s safety or household member’s safety” and the person distributing the information “knows or reasonably should know of the imminent and serious threat.”
The ACLU of Minnesota does not have a position on the Senate bill. There is not yet a companion bill in the House.
There are other House bills that attempt to impose similar restrictions, all with Republican-only sponsorship. House Minority Leader Kurt Daudt, R-Crown, has House File 302, which would make it a crime to make public personal information about a police officer or their family members. According to the bill, that information includes home addresses, home phone numbers, cell phone numbers, personal photographs, directions to a home or photographs of the officer’s home or vehicle. Similar to the Senate bill, it requires that the dissemination of the information pose an imminent threat.
Another House bill, House File 787, by Rep. Pat Garofalo, R-Farmington, would create the crime of protesting in residential areas and would cover any protests at home unless the home is also a place of business.
Protests at the homes of legislators are the motivation for House File 1209, a DFL-sponsored bill led by Rep. Jamie Long of Minneapolis. It would allow candidates for office to shield their home addresses from public data “when the candidate has reasonable fear as to the safety of the candidate or the candidate’s family.”
Unlike the Senate effort, however, the House bills lack bipartisan support.
Johnson, the vice-chair of the Senate judiciary committee, said Bigham approached him and Limmer about the issue and asked for their support. Bills sponsored by minority DFLers have less chance of passage, or even getting a hearing, without support from the majority. He said they had been thinking about the problem and agreed to team up.
[image_caption]State Sen. Mark Johnson[/image_caption]
“I applaud her for bringing it over to me and Sen. Limmer,” he said.
Latz was the chair of the judiciary committee when the DFL last held the Senate majority, in 2016, and has been the ranking DFL member since. “By definition, (police officers) are going to get into situations of conflict with community members, that’s the nature of the work they do,” he said. “To expose their homes and their families potentially to protests is troublesome to me. We’re politicians. We signed up to be public officials in the public eye. But I don’t think law enforcement needs to feel they’ve given up all their privacy just because they choose to do their job.”
Of the strange bedfellows on the sponsorship line, Latz said it shows that despite deep partisan divisions in politics — including “deeply held antagonisms across the aisle” — there are times where common ground can be found.
“I guess we’re not totally dysfunctional yet as a Legislature,” Latz said.
While Bigham’s bill has bipartisan sponsorship, the issue of support for the police was a centerpiece of many 2020 legislative campaigns, with GOP candidates and their allies campaigns accusing many DFL candidates — inaccurately in most cases — of supporting efforts to defund the police.
Bigham said last week that she doesn’t expect her bill will stop protests at the homes of law enforcement members, but it might reduce them. “Where there’s a will there’s a way to get information out,” she said of possible protests. “But it’s the intent.”
UPDATE: Civil rights attorney and former Minneapolis mayoral candidate Nekima Levy Armstrong, who took part in the Hugo protest, said this about SF 1197 (her comments were received by MinnPost after the story was posted): “It is clear that this bill is a backwards attempt to protect law enforcement officers like Bob Kroll, from having to face members of the public who choose to peacefully assemble outside of their homes. It is highly despicable that these legislators would take the time to draft a bill that would potentially criminalize peaceful protesters and stifle freedom of speech; yet have sat back silently for years and watched officers like Bob Kroll physically abuse Minneapolis residents, misuse their power and authority, and foment racial division. These legislators need to take that same energy and use it to protect the public, and particularly communities of color from violent and abusive police officers, instead of attempting to silence and stifle peaceful protests.”
This article states that “a Minneapolis police officer knelt on his (Floyd’s) neck for more than nine minutes”, which is incorrect.
Lots of news outlets also continue to say it was eight minutes and forty-six seconds, which is also incorrect.
A clarification was issued shortly after the killing that Chauvin was kneeling on George Floyd’s neck for SEVEN minutes and forty-six seconds, not eight minutes and forty-six seconds.
It was still an unconscionably long time, but in the interests of accurate reporting, at least our Minnesota-based news outlets should be getting their facts straight.
This is probably as close as we’ll get to police reform in the collapsing US empire.
I don’t like these bills. We need more accountability, not less.
How is protesting at people’s homes making anyone accountable? You are just alienating people. That idiot Thompson’s actions were an absolute gift to Republicans.
This bill is needed for the John Thompson’s of the world. Too bad the Twin Cities media barely covered the story.
Lawlessness in the two big cities is going to get a lot worse before it gets any better.
Covid won’t be keeping the people out of the two big cities, crime will.
If “the Twin Cities media barely covered the story” how did anyone learn about it?
The rest of your post is pretty much off-topic, isn’t it?
“ Too bad the Twin Cities media barely covered the story.“
The woe is me, the evil MSM is out to get us defense
It was very well covered in all local media. Is Thompson a moron? Now that is more open for debate…
I agree. The reason for the protests at Krohl and Chauvin homes was in response to bad behavior by the officers. They work for us, not the other way around.
If the police had to live in the community they work, there would be much less police violence. They would know the community members and the community members would know them.
Again, what did these people achieve? They made the police sympathetic. All they did was enable police violence and undermine reforms.
The police officer, whose actions are sane, non racist, respectful and which assist the public does not need this proposal.
With that said, if it is enacted, it really must include judges and other officials who have to deal with the public that might disagree with their decisions.
How does storming someone’s home translate into “accountability”? It wasn’t in Minnesota, but I recall the story of an election official in another state who had to excuse herself from a public meeting to get home because her teenage daughter was home alone and terrified as the protestors were gathering and shouting outside. That is not “accountability” and her daughter didn’t sign up for that.
Every person should know their local cops address as they should be living in the neighborhood they protect and serve. And for living in the neighborhood, the cop should be substantially rewarded with a generous housing allowance.
The problem is guys like Bob Kroll who live an hour away from their beat and have only contempt for the people they “protect and serve”.
But that’s not the same thing as being “doxed” by activists with the intent of bringing down the hordes on the home of whatever officer or public official they have a problem with.
“Bringing down the hordes?” That’s a bit dramatic, don’t you think? When protestors gathered outside Chauvin’s Oakdale home last summer they didn’t “storm the castle.” Other than graffiti on his driveway and garage nothing happened to the home. Protestors stayed in the street and didn’t show hostility toward the other residents.
Actually, even the cops who live in the city are put on patrol in neighborhoods other than their own.
You do understand that it’s possible for an officer might receive threats even when he acted properly.
that’s true of every citizen, not only cops. But why should my address be public information and not cops’?
Can’t get behind this. They ARE public employees and servants. Besides, this is prior restraint and probably unconstitutional anyways.
The intent may be good, however i doubt it will pass a First Amendment test.
Agreed. Don’t think this passes constitutional muster.
Threatening govt employees is a crime; so if the protest is inciting fear, wouldn’t that count? All private residencies should be considered safe spaces for the home owner, besides protesting at someone’s house doesn’t change their mind, protests in public places on the other hand can work to raise awareness of the issue.
“[P]rotesting at someone’s house doesn’t change their mind . . .”
That’s not really the issue, is it?
What protesting at someone’s house does is undermines your cause. It creates sympathy for the officers and undermines police reform.
Or, it keeps the issue in the public eye and tells decisionmakers it isn’t going to go away.
It keeps it in the public eye by making the people who live there sympathetic. Its a gift to Republicans and people who are against fixing the police.
I don’t know why people don’t understand the point of protest is to change minds. When you engage in violence and threaten people at their own homes, the protests become counterproductive.
Is whether it is an effective tactic or not something we need to consider when deciding if it should be outlawed?
No, it isn’t. But the reasons its an ineffective and counter productive tactic largely overlap with why they are trying to pass this legislation. Don’t protest at people’s homes.
Actually, threatening anyone is a crime.
If threats are already a crime, why then would there be a need for a new criminal law?
“If threats are already a crime, why then would there be a need for a new criminal law?”
Exactly Mr. Pingree. However we’re not talking about “threats”, we’re talking about merely somehow publicizing an address, which in and of itself is NOT a credible threat of any kind. Hence the more than likely unconstitutional nature of this proposed law. You will note, there is no effort to actually outlaw a demonstration outside someone’s house, because that’s free speech… but we’re going to say that simply telling people which house to protest outside of IS a crime? Bushwa!
On another note, apparently protesting outside a private residence HAS been illegal in my suburban paradise of St. Louis Park for some time now. No one knew about this of course so now they’ve discovered this violation of the US Constitution (and probably the State Constitution as well) they’re planning to repeal it. SLP is kind clearing the books regarding unconstitutional ordinances, a while back they repealed an ordinance that gave police the power to order evictions without any semblance of due process.
And I will note, and invite everyone else to note as well, that for decades people have protested and blockaded health care professionals homes to protest their involvement with abortions… but no “bipartisan” efforts EVER emerged to protect these people, even after they’ve been murdered and repeatedly threatened. NOW we’re going make a new law just because some people showed up outside Chauvin’s house? Seriously? Again… Bushwa!
I did police work in the 1980s – small town Minnesota, so everyone knew everyone else and I parked the squad car in my driveway. Never a problem, and folks could stop by anytime. Policing was never an us vs. them thing in these small towns – it was helping your friends and neighbors. Maybe it can’t be quite that way in the metro, but one still has to put protect and serve first. The most successful police encounters solve a problem without injuries, and whenever someone is hurt or killed it should be an occasion for deconstruction and improvement.
A great comment!
Want to fix a majority of Minneapolis police and school problems?
Take the 13 Wards and make 13 independent police organizations and school districts.
The “one size fits all approach” that treats Linden Hills the same as the near Northside makes no sense. Allow each to make their own decisions on schools and law enforcement.
Patrick Tice rightfully acknowledges the difficulty of using small town solutions for big city problems, but it is worth serious consideration.
Why just police officers? Why not ban protests against any individual? Physicians who perform legal abortions are the target of death threats. Some have been murdered. Black people used to have burning crosses erected in their years. No one should be getting terroristic deaths, particularly death threats, which should be crimes.
Terroristic threats have long been a crime. Protesting that does not involve threats is protected by the First Amendment, even in a residential neighborhood.
“To be against the law, the dissemination of the information would have to pose “an imminent and serious threat to the official’s safety or the safety of an official’s family or household member; and the person making the information publicly available knows or reasonably should know of the imminent and serious threat.””
In other words, the bill which was created in response to protests at Bob Kroll’s home would not have applied at all. This is empty political theater which will have little to no real world impact.
Also, Bob Kroll is not just a police officer. He is a highly public figure, as we all know he got to share the stage and speak with Donald Trump. Why his actions as a public figure having nothing to do with being a cop gives him special protections that public figures who are not cops get is a pretty fair question. For all it’s reputation for being inherently good, sometimes ‘bipartisan’ can mean ‘bipartisan crap’. These bills would make poor, ambiguous, ineffective laws.
Guess which law the police would most vigorously enforce?
I think protesting at someone’s home is a bad idea but this doesn’t prevent that. I would think giving out someone’s address if there is an imminent threat to anyone (not just a police officer) is a bad idea but also very easy to do accidentally. How am I supposed to “reasonably” keep track of what everyone else in the world is doing? If you can look up the information readily online somewhere else (or in the phone book) is the person who gave out the address still guilty of a crime?
There’s a difference between holding a phone book which is several inches thick and several pounds heavy full of tiny print of lots and lots of peoples’ information, and picking out and highlighting just one of those listings – printing it on posters and tacking it up on telephone poles to draw people’s attention to it (I mean that figuratively rather than literally, of course).
People will overlook information in the aggregate. But they will pay attention to specifics that are held up in front of them, especially if it’s ostensibly linked to some sort of misbehavior. That’s what doxing does, whether or not the information could have been obtained otherwise.
Wait? What book are you talking about???
Last time I checked, my name and address were publicly available pretty much everywhere on the web (with or without my permission). In fact, it appears that my cell phone number is fair game to pretty much any scam artist out there. If the legislature wants to play the game of interwebs whack-a-mole, I wanna be part of the “unlisted” list.
Mr. Berg,
Even if you were makin0g legitimate sociological observation here, it’s doesn’t grant us permission to criminalize the sharing of public information.
I find violence offensive not matter what the cause and that includes threats of violence, especially from an elected official. Violence dilutes the message as we have witnessed this past year. Non violent protests bring about change, not violent ones. It was shocking that violent person was elected to state legislature. That is scary. John Lewis and Dr King would not support the current level of violence.
We live in the Midway and witnessed an invasion on May 28th unlike anything I have seen in decades. Last I looked no one cares about our violent destruction of places like Goodwill, Axman, non profit theater, great ethic restaurants, and others. Who does that? Based on arrests it appears we were attacked by people from places outside St Paul. We are not Minneapolis.
Stereotypes don’t solve problems. St Paul cops are not Mpls cops.
I am aware of judges becoming victims of violence and think they should be included as well. I know that has already happened in MN and in other states. Sad, but true. Scaring families and children with violent threats does not seem like a constructive way to protest anything to me. It makes solutions more difficult to achieve. We need to look at the whole violence picture.
I do not condone actions like the George Floyd incident. If the protests become violent during the trial, it will set back efforts for constructive change. In the meantime, I sincerely hope our civic leaders will finally condemn violence, at least during this trial. Local leaders failing to condemn violence in MN was a huge mistake and our local officials need to actively start condemning violence like attacking citizens, police officers, judges, teachers, fire fighters, and others. The increase in car jackings and gun violence is appalling along with other forms of violence across the Twin Cities and the rest of the country. It is not safe here anymore. Sad.