I want to:   

What's New?


POST Update on Court Ruling challenging MN STAT. 609.066

From the Executive Director:

Dear POST Stakeholders:

​With the recent court decision regarding the challenge to the new Use of Deadly Force statute Minn. Stat. 609.066, there are many questions regarding what this means for POST stakeholders. The following is intended to answer these questions to the extent POST can during the pendency of legal proceedings.

· Chief Law Enforcement Officers:

         o   As stated in the injunction, POST will refer to the previous statutory standard on use of deadly force for purposes of compliance reviews and policy compliance. Adherence to the deadly force standard identified in the currently approved Use of Force model policy is stayed while litigation continues or upon further direction being provided by the courts or the legislature.

         o   With regard to the requirements of Minn. Stat. 626.8452, the adoption of the new POST model policy that agencies have already done, this ruling does not impact that particular statute. However, as noted above, POST will refer to the previous version of 609.066 for enforcement purposes.

· Professional Peace Officer Education Coordinators:

         o   Given the fluidity of the legal process regarding this ruling and potential ongoing challenges or changes to the use of deadly force statute and standard, POST recommends that PPOE schools address both the previous statutory standard, as well as the current statutory standard that is being challenged in the PPOE course curriculum. Updates may have to be provided at the PPOE level, should the case be resolved prior to graduation or by the agency that ultimately hires your student.

· Continuing Education course providers:

         o   Similar to the PPOE situation, POST believes that CE training providers may decide to address both the previous statutory standard, as well as the current statutory standard that is being challenged, in their course curriculum. Alternately, if the CE provider chooses not to do so, they can teach to the previous standard, with the understanding that they will have to submit a new course approval if the new statutory standard remains intact post-litigation. Also, recognize that this may create confusion for officers receiving the training should the existing statute survive legal muster. While neither position is ideal, these appear to be the options available.

          o   Be aware that POST may require that all courses approved during the period between the suspension of the new deadly force standard and the reinstatement of the previous standard be resubmitted for POST approval once the legal issue is resolved.

Hopefully, this will provide some direction for you as to where POST stands on this ruling. Keep in mind that POST is as beholden unto this legal process and any associated rulings as are our stakeholders. We will continue to monitor the situation and respond accordingly.

Sincerely,

Erik Misselt

Executive Director

Minnesota Board of Peace Officer Standards and Training