Minn. R. Crim. P. 25.03

As amended through February 1, 2024

Rule 25.03 - Restrictive Orders

Subd. 1. Scope. Except as provided in Rules 25.01, 26.03, subd. 6, and 33.04, this rule governs the issuance of any court order restricting public access to public records relating to a criminal proceeding.

Subd. 2. Motion and Notice.

(a) A restrictive order may be issued only on motion and after notice and hearing.

(b) Notice of the hearing must be given in the time and manner and to interested persons, including the news media, as the court may direct. The notice must be issued publicly at least 24 hours before the hearing and must afford the public and the news media an opportunity to be heard.

Subd. 3. Hearing.

(a) At the hearing, the moving party has the burden of establishing a factual basis for the issuance of the order under the conditions specified in subd. 4.

(b) The public and news media have a right to be represented and to present evidence and arguments in support of or in opposition to the motion, and to suggest any alternatives to the restrictive order.

(c) A verbatim record of the hearing must be made.

Subd. 4. Grounds for Restrictive Order. The court may issue a restrictive order under this rule only if the court concludes that:

(a) Access to public records will present a substantial likelihood of interfering with the fair and impartial administration of justice.

(b) All reasonable alternatives to a restrictive order are inadequate.

A restrictive order must be no broader than necessary to protect against the potential interference with the fair and impartial administration of justice.

Subd. 5. Findings of Fact. The Court must make written findings of the facts and reasons supporting the conclusions on which an order granting or denying the motion is based. If a restrictive order is granted, the order must address possible alternatives to the restrictive order and explain why the alternatives are inadequate.

Subd. 6. Appellate Review.

(a) Anyone aggrieved by an order granting or denying a restrictive order may petition the Court of Appeals for review. This is the exclusive method for obtaining review.

(b) The Court of Appeals must determine whether the moving party met the burden of justifying the restrictive order under the conditions specified in subd. 3. The Court of Appeals may reverse, affirm, or modify the district court's order.

Minn. R. Crim. P. 25.03

Comment-Rule 25
The Rules of Public Access to Records of the Judicial Branch generally govern access to case records of all judicial courts. However, Rule 4, subd. 1(d) and Rule 4, subd. 2 of those rules provide that the Rules of Criminal Procedure govern what criminal case records are inaccessible to the public and the procedure for restraining access to those records.
Rule 25.01 (Motion to Exclude Public) setting forth the procedure and standard for excluding the public from pretrial hearings is based on Minneapolis Star and Tribune Co. v. Kammeyer, 341 N.W.2d 550 (Minn.1983). For a defendant an overriding interest includes interference with the defendant's right to a fair trial by reason of the dissemination of evidence or argument presented at the hearing. As to the sufficiency of the alleged overriding interest to justify closure of the hearing see Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984) (Closure of suppression hearing over the defendant's objection), Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984) (Closure of voir dire proceedings), and Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596 (1982) (Closure of courtroom when the minor victim of a sex offense testifies). This determination would include the situation in which the news media agreed not to disseminate these matters until completion of the trial. The provision for appellate review is intended to give the defendant, as well as any person aggrieved, standing to seek immediate review of the court's ruling on exclusion.
This rule does not interfere with the power of the court in any pretrial hearing to caution those present that dissemination of certain information by means of public communication may jeopardize the right to a fair trial by an impartial jury.
The procedure in Rule 25.03 is based upon Minneapolis Star and Tribune Co. v. Kammeyer, 341 N.W.2d 550 (Minn.1983) and Northwest Publications, Inc. v. Anderson, 259 N.W.2d 254 (Minn.1977). Rule 25.03 governs only the restriction of access to public records concerning a criminal case. It does not authorize the court under any circumstances to prohibit the news media from broadcasting or publishing any information in their possession relating to a criminal case.
Possible alternatives to a restrictive order indicated in Rule 25.03, subd. 3(b) are the following:
* a continuance or change of venue under Rule 25.02;
* sequestration of jurors on voir dire under Rule 26.02, subd. 4(2)(b);
* regulation of use of the courtroom under Rule 26.03, subd. 3;
* sequestration of jury under Rule 26.03, subd. 5(1);
* exclusion of the public from hearings or arguments outside of the presence of the jury under Rule 26.03, subd. 6;
* cautioning or ordering parties, witnesses, jurors, and judicial employees and sequestration of witnesses under Rule 26.03, subds. 7 and 8;
* admonitions to jurors about exposure to prejudicial material under Rule 26.03, subd. 9.