Last Wednesday, The Star Tribune reported that an attorney has asked the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office to investigate Minneapolis Police Chief Timothy Dolan for a data practices violation. What the story failed to make clear, however, is that the police union is behind the rare move, and that the possible charge is a criminal one, albeit a misdemeanor. The purpose of the investigation proposed by Minneapolis Police Federation attorney Chris Wachtler is to determine whether Dolan violated Minnesota’s data-privacy law by speaking publicly about the reassignment of former homicide detective Sgt. Charles Adams, which is supposed to be a private personnel matter.

At this point, it’s unknown whether Sheriff Richard Stanek will act on the federation’s request. Lt. Tracey Martin, a spokeswoman for the Sheriff’s Office, had no comment.

The federation’s stance is that Dolan “willfully violated” the state’s Data Practices Act in his public remarks about the reasons for the detective’s transfer from the Homicide Unit to the 4th Precinct Problem Properties Unit in November, according to Wachtler. In connection with those events, Adams, who is now reportedly being reshuffled to the 5th Precinct, is in the middle of a legal battle with the Minneapolis Police Department (MPD). On Feb. 15, the federation filed a defamation lawsuit against the department and Dolan, on Adams’ behalf. (In a separate legal action, Adams and four other prominent black police officers are suing the department on charges of racial discrimination on the job.)

Continued: Click “Read More”Although the chief has spoken about the Adams case in the media, Wachtler said it was during a Feb. 28 court hearing in the Adams suit that the chief let slip “some things that indicated in his own mind that there might be data practices consequences.” The transcript of those remarks is not public, but Dolan also commented in public to The Star Tribune and on Jason Lewis’s KTLK radio program; his remarks on the Lewis show are below.

Don Gemberling, an attorney and the state of Minnesota’s former data practices guru, tells Minnesota Monitor, “From my standpoint, [Adams and the Federation] have a pretty decent case.” Of Dolan’s alleged violations, he adds, “This is the kind of thing that shouldn’t happen because it’s so basic.” In a Jan. 28 Pioneer Press column, Gemberling had written that the kind of data-practices lawsuit that stands to cost a lot of money “involves the premature release of detailed disciplinary data about a public employee.”

Last Dec. 13, Dolan made the following remarks on the Jason Lewis Show: “I’ve had some discipline issues. I don’t make any apology for changes made because of those discipline issues.” Dolan claimed that Adams shouldn’t have defied his then-supervisor, Lt. Amelia Huffman, when he publicly disputed police statements about a murder case. “It was wrong,” Dolan said, “because [Adams] shouldn’t have talked about it for one thing. Two, he’s talking about the quality of evidence of the case in his view, not in view of the county attorney. … He shouldn’t have been commenting, period, much less contradicting the lieutenants. So it was problematic in more ways than one. … There was a professional line that was crossed there.”

Additionally, Dolan is quoted in a November 2007 Star Tribune story, saying of Adams, “In one word: insubordination. He needed to go.” He made similar statements in a MinnPost story.

Civil rights activist Ron Edwards said at a recent Police Community Relations Council meeting that a potential investigation of the chief is “important in light of the black police officers’ lawsuit against the department.” If the sheriff takes up the cause, it would be the first time that an incumbent Minneapolis police chief would be the target of a criminal investigation, Edwards says, adding that that is something he has gathered from his own research of the department. His assertion remains unconfirmed by police.

Dolan’s predecessor, William McManus (now chief of the San Antonio Police Department) was accused of a data practices violation after he disclosed details of a police officer’s interaction with a suspect from a recording that was supposed to be closed to the public. It led to a lawsuit that concluded with a $25,000 settlement in 2006.

Sgt. Jesse Garcia, a department spokesman, downplayed the allegations. “It doesn’t mean anything till charges have gone through. It doesn’t have any merit to it.”