Yet another Woodbury police officer update

The St.Cloud Police Department responded today, stating that there are 32 pages of reports about the incident and that it will cost me $9.40 plus a postage-paid envelope to receive them. There is also a sentence stating that I must have someone directly named in the incident submit a signed authorization to receive the documents. I have reviewed the Minnesota Data Practices Act, and have been unable to find a statute that gives them the authority to withhold public documents for that reason. I may be (probably am) incorrect, however, as I am not a lawyer, and there may be some valid administrative rule that is located elsewhere in the statutes, so I will return the request with the money requested and see what happens. The Act states:

"If the responsible authority or designee determines that the requested data is classified so as to deny the requesting person access, the responsible authority or designee shall inform the requesting person of the determination either orally at the time of the request, or in writing as soon after that time as possible, and shall cite the specific statutory section, temporary classification, or specific provision of federal law on which the determination is based."

If I am denied, they must tell me the exact rule used, so I will re-evaluate the situation at that time. In my view, the acquisition of the data is secondary to the agencies' being put on notice that the incident has not been forgotten, and interest in the fair disposition of the case has not gone away.

Thanks to the St.Cloud Police Department for their equally prompt response.