Give it few more days, till 13th at least.
Also I'm not sure response if positive will come with video ready to be released. If they accept it it might still take some time before it gets released.
While we all want to see it, I think MN law is going to be biggest noseguard.
MN 13.825(2)(a) - it's presumptively private
"Data collected by a portable recording system are private data on individuals or nonpublic data, (
2) data are public if a subject of the data requests it be made accessible to the public, except that, if practicable, (i) data on a subject who is not a peace officer and who does not consent to the release must be redacted,"
Unless one of the officers listed on the search warrant makes a public records request for bodycam footage of the inside of the home, I think it will be considered nonpublic data.
Active crim investigation cam footage is not public.
MN 13.82(7)
Except for the data defined in subdivisions 2, 3, and 6, investigative data collected or created by a law enforcement agency in order to prepare a case against a person, whether known or unknown, for the commission of a crime or other offense for which the agency has primary investigative responsibility are confidential or protected nonpublic while the investigation is active.
All is not lost though. If Nick grabs his ego by the balldo, rejects all plea deals and tries to ride Barnes to the doors of the Supreme Court, bodycam footage submitted in court as evidence is public. Not sure if bodycam footage submitted with a warrant return, if any, becomes public when investigation is closed. Knowing if body cam was submitted with the written descriptions of items seized in the warrant return could be an argument that it's public.
It's almost guranteed that rando request to LE will result in a "nonpublic" classification from above laws even after the investigation. Next step is to file with the court:
13.825(2)(g)
Any person may bring an action in the district court ... to authorize disclosure of data that are private or nonpublic .... The court may order that all or part of the data be released to the public .... In making this determination, the court shall consider whether the benefit to the ... public outweighs any harm to the public, to the law enforcement agency, or to a subject of the data.... The data in dispute must be examined by the court in camera.
The video outside the home would probably be greenlit. They may even have a rubber stamp/precedence for the court/LE to use when weighing the request as harm from being recorded in public is non-existent when identies are redacted. Inside the house is a different story. Nick and Kayla would have a compelling argument that video of the inside of their private home harms them in ways that outweighs any benefit to the public especially since there are written accounts that are public. They did not consent to entry. A good FOIA lawyer could probably argue that release to the public is beneficial because it demonstrates (or lacks) the rationale for taking the children. "The public needs to see what conditions warrants taking children away from their parents." Nick would obviously fight it.
In any event, it seems the process is
1. Request for bodycam footage to LE is made
2. LE gathers requested body cam footage as response. Redacts identies of everyone but requestor
3. LE rejects request until investigation completes.
4. LE rejects request as "nonpublic" as requestor wasn't identified in video during review
5. Request for release made to state district court (please be the judge Nick hates)
6. Video is reviewed by court which does harm/benefit test.
If Nick goes to trial, evidence presented at trial becomes public data.
In any event, release doesn't appear to anytime soon.
Also, I could be completely wrong. Sorry for autastic post.
