Legislative_Update_header(7)

Corrections & Public Safety

The conclusion of the 2026 legislative session marks a pivotal milestone for Minnesota’s public safety, judicial, and correctional frameworks, directly impacting county governments tasked with administering these critical systems. In an environment defined by narrow legislative margins and intense public focus on community safety, state lawmakers successfully negotiated balanced, bipartisan investments to safeguard citizens, modernize infrastructure, and support local frontline personnel. For Minnesota counties, this report highlights vital fiscal allocations and policy reforms, including robust financial reinstatements for crime victim services, a $4 million courthouse safety matching grant initiative to secure local facilities, and an expansion of line of duty survivor benefits for families of public safety officers who separate from service due to a qualifying duty disability. Within county jail systems and community supervision networks, targeted operational increases were prioritized to enhance prerelease services and fund specialized reentry grants designed to reduce recidivism among young adult offenders.

This session also marks the end of an era for public safety leadership in St. Paul following the announced retirements of Public Safety Finance and Policy Committee Co-Chairs, Rep. Kelly Moller (DFL-Shoreview) and Rep. Paul Novotny (R-Elk River). County leaders recognize Co-Chair Moller for her four terms of distinguished service, characterized by her tireless advocacy for crime victims, landmark updates to the state's sexual assault laws, and a persistent drive to curb domestic violence. Co-Chair Novotny brings to a close a phenomenal 40 year career in public service, including 33 years in county law enforcement with the Sherburne County Sheriff's Office and four terms in the House, where he served as an invaluable legislative voice for first responders, carjacking prevention, and stricter penalties for fentanyl dealers. The legacy of their bipartisan collaboration and shared commitment to working alongside local government to protect Minnesotans will remain a guiding benchmark for the legislature and our counties in the sessions to come.

What did become law this Session

Ch. 98SF3735/HF3404
Increasing criminal penalties for falsely impersonating a peace officer, establishing enhanced sentencing rules for collateral crimes and codifying a statutory duty for real law enforcement officers to identify themselves.

The new law elevates the act of falsely presenting oneself as a law enforcement official from a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor up to a tier of felony offenses based on severity. Falsely impersonating an officer to deceive someone into believing you possess legal authority is a felony punishable by up to two years in prison and a $4,000 fine. The penalty increases to a five year felony and a $10,000 fine if the impersonator gains unauthorized access to a restricted public building, orders individuals to act or refrain from acting, or operates a vehicle equipped with mock police lights, sirens, or insignia designed to deceive the public. Furthermore, the penalty is heightened to a ten year felony and a $20,000 fine if the offender carries a firearm during the impersonation or has a prior impersonation conviction within the past five years.

Additionally, the law implements strict penalty enhancements if a separate underlying crime is committed while an individual is pretending to be a peace officer. Under this framework, an underlying misdemeanor is enhanced to a gross misdemeanor, an underlying gross misdemeanor is enhanced to a three year felony, and the statutory maximum prison sentence for any underlying felony is extended by an additional five years.

To preserve public transparency, the law also codifies clear parameters regarding a real officer's duty to identify themselves. Active peace officers must provide their employing agency, name, and identification number upon request. Officers wearing a standard uniform with visible badges, nameplates, or agency patches automatically satisfy this requirement, while those in specialized tactical or crowd control gear must clearly display their agency name and identification number. Undercover personnel remain exempt from these identification mandates unless they are actively detaining an individual, making an arrest, or executing a legal warrant. A real officer’s technical failure to strictly comply with these rules does not invalidate an arrest or serve as legal grounds to suppress evidence in court. Effective Date: August 1, 2026, applying to crimes committed on or after that date.

 

Ch. 97 SF4760/HF3990
Judiciary, public safety, and corrections policy bill

SF4760 was approved after bipartisan votes in the House (100-32) and Senate (57-9) and signed into law by the governor on May 18th, 2026.

 

Community Supervision and Corrections
Sections: Article 4, Sec. 1, 6-7, & Article 5

Th bill includes several provisions affecting county-operated and county-partnered correctional and community supervision systems (Article 4, Sec. 7). The bill establishes a community supervision working group to examine long-term supervision system structure, timeline, and operational responsibilities across the state. The working group is tasked with reviewing supervision delivery models transitions, operational challenges, and potential funding recommendations for future legislative action on transitions.

The legislation also modifies supervision abatement provisions related to incarceration periods and supervision terms (Article 4, Sec. 6). These changes define when someone is eligible to earn compliance credits and move into abatement status, and it now must require consideration of restitution payments, as far as the supervising agency knows. Notably, it bars individuals from entering supervision abatement if they are capable of paying restitution but willfully refuse to do so.

The new chapter of law updates requirements related to medication continuity for incarcerated individuals in correctional facilities by requiring that facilities continue medications prescribed prior to incarceration once prescriptions are verified as current and valid (Article 4, Sec. 1). It also provides counties with additional flexibility by clarifying verification standards for prescriptions, the circumstances under which medication changes may be made, consultation requirements with prescribing providers, and documentation expectations for facility medical staff, including what constitutes reasonable attempts to comply with these requirements.

The bill establishes a comprehensive new statutory framework governing the Department of Corrections’ licensing and inspection authority over both juvenile and adult community-based residential correctional facilities (Article 5). It expands oversight by broadly defining “local correctional facilities” to include a wide range of adult and juvenile residential settings and requires statewide DOC licensing and inspection of these facilities to ensure consistent standards and accountability.

The legislation further establishes additional licensing requirements for facilities that house juveniles from outside Minnesota, reflecting heightened oversight for interstate placements. It directs the DOC to undertake necessary rulemaking updates to implement the new framework and strengthens inspection and reporting expectations for facilities across the state. In addition, the bill requires biennial security audits of state correctional facilities to further support system-wide safety, compliance, and operational integrity.

 

Domestic Violence
Sections: Article 7, Sec. 1-9

When a court issues an order for protection due to a credible threat or fear of bodily injury, it must prohibit the abusing party from possessing firearms and order them to surrender all carry and purchase permits (Article 7, Section 2). Additionally, a new standard requires the court to determine if the abusing party poses an "imminent risk" of causing substantial bodily harm. If imminent risk is found, the court must order local law enforcement to take immediate possession of all the abusing party's firearms.

A new legal remedy allows a court to issue a separate order requiring wireless providers to transfer billing authority or safely remove a domestic abuse victim from a shared wireless plan without any charges, penalties, or fees (Article 7, Section 3). If the protected party is a minor, the account can be transferred to a safe parent or guardian. Providers must comply by the next billing cycle and keep the order confidential. While the original account holder remains liable for past unpaid balances, the provider must give the victim a partitioned line and extra time to pay. Wireless providers are also granted civil immunity for actions taken to comply with these orders.

The legal definition of a "domestic abuse case" for prosecution purposes is expanded. It now formally includes the prosecution of harassment restraining order violations, harassment, and stalking, provided these offenses are committed by a family or household member against another family or household member. (Article 7, Section 4)

Beginning in 2028, local and state law enforcement heads must report every alleged or suspected incident of domestic abuse to the commissioner of public safety by January 15 each year (Article 7, Section 5). Utilizing a standardized form, agencies must log highly specific details for each incident, including dates, locations, suspected crimes, the perceived race and gender of both the victim and suspect, arrest timelines, whether the victim was also arrested, and the presence of firearms. This data will be analyzed in an annual legislative report.

Arresting officers are strictly prohibited from issuing a citation in lieu of arrest for domestic abuse, harassment, stalking, or protective order violations, meaning suspects must be taken to a police station or jail. Jailers can only release a suspect on a citation if they do not pose a threat to the victim or public safety and are likely to appear in court (Article 7, Sections 8 & 9). In evaluating this threat, jailers and judges must review the suspect's history. Before pretrial release, a judge must make findings on the record detailing the defendant's history of domestic violence arrests, past protective orders, or any pending petitions.

 

Prediction Markets
Sections: Article 8, Sec. 1-3

This legislation officially bans and criminalizes "prediction markets" - online platforms that allow consumers to place wagers on the future outcomes of real-world events. The law specifically outlaws commercial betting on events beyond the control of the contract parties, explicitly listing categories such as athletic games, geopolitical conflicts, natural disasters, political elections, legal trials, and pop-culture events.

Under the new rules, it is a felony to commercially create, operate, or intentionally facilitate a prediction market platform, which includes tasks like adjusting odds, managing consumer funds, or knowingly providing data verification and payment processing services for these wagers. Additionally, the law targets the promotion of these platforms by making it a felony to market or advertise any financial or technological products designed to encourage these prohibited transactions.

 

Law Enforcement and Public Safety
Sections: Article 12, Sec. 1, 8, & 12

This legislation establishes a strict prohibition on selling or transferring retired law enforcement vehicles to the general public unless specific modifications are made first. To prevent public confusion or deception, the seller must completely remove all equipment, insignia, or outlines of emblems that could mislead a reasonable person into thinking the vehicle is still an active police unit (Article 12, Section 1). These stripping requirements include the removal of emergency lights, sirens, amber warning lights, grill lights, and official emblems. An official certificate of compliance verifying the removal of this gear must be completed before a sale can be finalized. These restriction rules do not apply if a vehicle is being transferred directly to another government entity or political subdivision.

The law establishes a temporary task force dedicated to analyzing and reforming the Allied Radio Matrix for Emergency Response (ARMER) system, which serves as the state's backbone for first responder communications (Article 12, Section 12). The task force is charged with reviewing the governance, structural, and sustainable funding models of the emergency network. State agencies, local infrastructure owners, and emergency boards are required to provide data and research to aid this group. The task force must submit its comprehensive findings and policy recommendations to legislative committees by February 15, 2027, and will disband immediately after filing its report.

The legislation also expands survivor benefit protections by broadening the definition of an eligible "public safety officer" to explicitly include individuals who formally separated from service due to a qualifying duty disability (Article 12, Section 8). This change ensures that if a former officer passes away as a result of a line-of-duty injury, illness, or condition acquired during their active career, their surviving family members remain legally eligible to receive state line-of-duty death benefits and survivor awards.

 

Ch. 118 (Pending Governor’s Signature) SF3432/HF3230
Public Safety/Safety and security measures appropriation

HF3230 was approved after votes in the House (100-34) and Senate (59-8) and is pending the Governor’s signature. Key budget allocations provided stable security and protective funding for the Supreme Court, Appellate and District Courts, legislative bodies, and constitutional officers—notably refreshing a $4 million Safe and Secure Courthouse matching grant program for local governments. The bill established significant public safety and correctional investments, including a massive $12 million transfer to the Minnesota Victims of Crime account, targeted funding for youth trafficking prevention, young adult reentry services, and operational increases for incarceration and prerelease services.

Supreme Court / Judiciary
Safe and Secure Courthouse Initiative Competitive Local Matching Grants: $4,000,000 (FY 2027), one time

Security Threat Response Program (Court of Appeals & District Courts): $1,686,000 (FY 2027), ongoing

Judicial Security Unit Personnel: $312,000 (FY 2027), ongoing

Security Protections for Judicial Officers: $64,000 (FY 2027), ongoing

District Courts Physical Safety and Security Measures: $843,000 (FY 2027), ongoing

Court of Appeals Physical Safety and Security Measures: $60,000 (FY 2027), ongoing

State Patrol (Department of Public Safety)
Capitol Building Complex Screening Staff and Equipment: $2,220,000 (FY 2026) / $5,099,000 (FY 2027), ongoing

Capitol Complex Safety Infrastructure Upgrades and Operations: $4,700,000 (FY 2027), ongoing

Specialized Legislative Protective Services Unit: $1,736,000 (FY 2026), ongoing

Security Services Task Force Operations: $100,000 (FY 2027), one time

Trunk Highway Recruitment and Trooper Academies (Trunk Highway Fund): $1,045,000 annually, ongoing

Vehicle Crimes Unit Fraud Investigations (Highway User Tax Distribution Fund): $1,290,000 (FY 2026) / $1,303,000 (FY 2027), ongoing

Legislature Security Reimbursements
House of Representatives Safety Expense Reimbursements: $2,933,000 (FY 2027), one time

Senate Safety Expense Reimbursements: $1,467,000 (FY 2027), one time

Constitutional Officers Personal Protection

Attorney General Security Allocation: $100,000 (FY 2027), one time

Secretary of State Security Allocation: $100,000 (FY 2027), one time

State Auditor Security Allocation: $100,000 (FY 2027), one time

Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA)
Threat Assessment, Intelligence Tracking, and Protective Investigations Staffing: $1,012,000 (FY 2027), ongoing

Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Division of Enforcement Emergency Public Safety Response Fund Transfer: Up to $1,600,000 (FY 2026 unspent, carried-forward general fund operating dollars), one time

Public Safety Appropriations

Office of Justice Programs
Task Force on Improving Responses to Domestic Violence Crimes: $159,000, one time

Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation Prevention for Youth Grant: $125,000, one time

Young Adult Reentry Services Grant (Hennepin County): $125,000, one time

Minnesota Clearance Grant Program: $905,000, one time

Department of Corrections
Incarceration and Prerelease Services Operational Increase: $13,000, ongoing (The ongoing base rate is explicitly scheduled to increase by $48,000 in FY 2028 and $63,000 in FY 2029).

Accounts Transfer
Minnesota Victims of Crime Account General Fund Transfer: $12,000,000, Onetime

Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Board
Philando Castile Memorial Training Fund Budget Increase: $1,058,000, ongoing

Peace Officer Training Local Government Reimbursements: $2,949,000, ongoing

Provisions that did not become law this Session

SF2119/HF2099
Local government emergency management provision and appropriation

Legislation was again heard in committees this year aimed at boosting local emergency management support
SF2119/HF2099. proposed a combined $12 million annually to assist counties, tribes, and cities with planning, training, and equipment. Unfortunately, the bill was not included in the final omnibus packages, leaving local governments without dedicated state funding and forcing reliance on federal grants and existing budgets.

Amendments to SF4760/HF3990
Judiciary, public safety, and corrections policy bill

As the legislature negotiated the final public safety policy frameworks, several major proposals impacting local operations ultimately failed to pass. Most notably, during the floor debate on SF4760, members discussed a significant portion of the package related to proposed changes to the age of delinquency and the potential impacts these changes would have on county administrative and system capacity.

Representing a critical intersection for county budgets and social service frameworks, two amendments were offered by Rep. Bidal Duran (R-Bemidji) to directly address those concerns. Both amendments ultimately failed to pass on identical 67–67 tie votes, leaving several key issues on the table:

The first amendment would have delayed the implementation of the age change until August 2027, allowing additional time to build out system capacity and prepare for the anticipated shift of youth into the county-administered child protection system.

Following that initial tie, a second amendment was offered by Rep. Duran to create a specific carve-out for youth ages 10 to 12 who commit violent offenses. This measure would have allowed those cases to remain in the juvenile justice system while shifting other cases into the child protection framework.


HF4649/SF4753
Clarifying county financial responsibility for pretrial juvenile detention costs when a youth is held in a facility outside of their county of residence.

The bill sought to address ongoing county concerns regarding the shifting financial burdens of juvenile justice costs. Specifically, the proposal would have codified that when a child is detained in a juvenile facility located outside of their home county, the specific county requesting the detention is entirely responsible for paying all pre-adjudication detention costs. Once a youth has been officially adjudicated delinquent, any further costs of care would then transition to the child's county of financial responsibility.

This legislation unfortunately failed to advance this session, as it never received a committee hearing in either the House or the Senate.

 

HF3414/SF3842
Limiting state and local government involvement in federal civil immigration enforcement and prohibiting local units of government from entering into contracts to house or detain individuals for federal civil immigration purposes.

The bill sought to establish strict boundaries regarding state and local participation in federal civil immigration actions. Of particular significance to local jurisdictions, the proposal included language that would explicitly prohibit local units of government, county sheriffs, and correctional facilities from applying for certain federal funds or entering into intergovernmental contracts to hold, house, or detain individuals for civil immigration enforcement purposes.

Proponents argued that the measure would prevent the enlisting of local resources into federal responsibilities, while opponents raised concerns over the loss of local autonomy and the potential fiscal impacts on county facility budgets.

This proposal remains a deeply divisive issue across the state. Reflecting these complex dynamics, the bill ultimately failed to advance this session. The lack of movement on this piece of legislation, as well as other immigration-related bills, is attributed to the near evenly split legislature and the subsequent failure of the bodies to reach a consensus or make final agreements.