Report calls out abuse of social media by Minneapolis police

ST. PAUL, MINN. » Among the scathing findings of an investigation launched after the police killing of George Floyd is that Minneapolis police used covert or bogus social media accounts to monitor Black individuals and groups despite having no clear public safety rationale for doing so.

The report released Wednesday by the Minnesota Department of Human Rights echoes numerous past revelations that the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have — sometimes illegally — secretly surveilled prominent people and communities of color even though they weren’t involved in any criminal activity.

Overall, the two-year investigation found that the Minneapolis Police Department engaged in a pattern of race discrimination for at least a decade, including stopping and arresting Black people at a higher rate than white people, more frequent use of force on people of color and a department culture that tolerated racist language.

Regarding social media, it spotlighted departmental abuses turned up in a review spanning activity between 2010 and 2020.

Officers used “covert, or fake” accounts to seek and gain access to the online profiles of Black individuals including an unnamed City Council member and a state elected official, the report said, as well as groups such as the Minneapolis NAACP and Urban League. The activity included friend requests, comments on posts, private messages and participation in discussions.

“When doing so, officers posed as like-minded individuals and claimed, for example, that they met the targeted person at a prior demonstration or protest,” the report said.

The report acknowledged that law enforcement can have legitimate reasons for tracking social media “if a clear investigative purpose to advance public safety exists,” and if clear procedures and accountability mechanisms are in place.

But Minneapolis police fell well short of those standards, investigators determined, improperly using the accounts “to surveil and engage Black individuals, Black organizations, and elected officials unrelated to criminal activity, without a public safety objective.”

The report doesn’t include enough details to support criminal charges against any specific officers or lawsuits by individuals who were targeted, but some observers say it seems likely the Human Rights Department has other information from the investigation that a lawyer could use to try to build a case.

Spokesman Taylor Putz said the agency was unable to release any information beyond what’s in the report because the case is still considered open while it works with the city to address the problems it identified. Minneapolis police spokesman Howie Padilla said his department was still digesting the document and declined comment.

Andrew Ferguson, a law professor and expert on police technology and surveillance at American University, said that of the many examples of misconduct outlined in the report, “the abuse of social media raises a red flag for all police departments.”

“What is happening in Minnesota is happening in many jurisdictions, because there are few rules in place and no accountability,” Ferguson said. “Police rummage through social media without limits, turning our digital lives into sources of surveillance. It might feel less violent than some of the other police misconduct, but it is still violative and wrong.”

Law enforcement agencies across the country have been using social media surveillance for years, however. A 2016 survey by the Urban Institute and the International Association of Chiefs of Police found that 70% of departments mined social networks during investigations.

But the rules governing how they do so are often opaque, vague or not a matter of public record.

In an ongoing study of police policies in U.S. jurisdictions with at least 100,000 people, researchers at the Brennan Center for Justice found just 35 police departments had publicly available policies that in some way addressed the use of social media for collecting information. Of those, 15 had language setting some limits on undercover or covert online activity. But several were vague or set a low bar for authorization, simply requiring supervisor approval.

“What is happening in Minnesota is happening in many jurisdictions, because there are few rules in place and no accountability.”

— Andrew Ferguson, law professor and expert on police technology and surveillance at American University