More on the KARE goof
As it turns out, KARE 11 was even more reckless in letting Sheriff McGowan off on what appears to likely be his incompetence and failure to do his job than I'd thought and said here. 

This (used with permission) is from Bob Woolley:

Another aspect of what McGowan said that isn't true.

***
McGowan says his office is "diligent" and looks at more of a person's background than the law requires. But he wasn¹t able to elaborate on specific cases, because the law forbids him from talking about permit holders, including Ourada.  "And that's the thing I think you in the media need to be very cautious of," he said. ³You ought not go in and try to make assumptions without knowing the facts of every single case. And unfortunately, because of the data practices law, without a court order, you¹re not going to be able to get those facts."
***

Not so. 

Minn. Stat. 13.82, Subd. 7.    Criminal investigative data.  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 is confidential or
 protected nonpublic while the investigation is active.

So *usually* the government cannot release this information.

But there's an important and relevant exception:

Minn. Stat. 13.82, Subd. 15.    Public benefit data.  Any law enforcement
 agency may make any data classified as confidential or protected
 nonpublic pursuant to subdivision 7 accessible to any person,
 agency, or the public if the agency determines that the access
 will aid the law enforcement process, promote public safety, or
 dispel widespread rumor or unrest.

There appear to be no appellate cases determining the threshold for this condition. However, an identically worded provision allows the release of private personnel data on government employees, and there are 5 cases involving the release of information under this "dispel widespread rumor or unrest" provision. I'll just summarize by saying that the threshold  is low, and the courts have been very deferential to agencies deciding that such release would be of public benefit.

So any law enforcement agency investigating the alleged murder can decide that whatever they have uncovered about the suspect's past would be of public benefit, in dispelling any "rumor" about the case. That might include the rumor that the defendant was an upstanding citizen in all respects for whom there was no reason to deny a permit, or the rumor that the sheriff screwed up and didn't investigate sufficiently, or failed to appropriately take advantage of the statutory provision for denying the permit on the grounds that he posed a danger to himself or others.

Of course, he won't. But KARE-11 shouldn't be allowed to get away with letting his claim on that point go unchallenged.

As usual, you may use this observation however you see fit.

Here's the list of cases, should anyone wish to read them in full:


------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Westrom v. Minnesota Dept. of Labor and Industry,
686 N.W.2d 27, Minn., Sep 02, 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Navarre v. South Washington County Schools,
652 N.W.2d 9, 148 Lab.Cas. P 59,753, 170 Ed. Law Rep. 369, Minn., Oct 10,
2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Navarre v. South Washington County Schools,
633 N.W.2d 40, 156 Ed. Law Rep. 1368, Minn.App., Sep 04, 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Deli v. Hasselmo,
542 N.W.2d 649, 106 Ed. Law Rep. 876, 11 IER Cases 614, Minn.App., Jan 30,
1996
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Matter of Morton,
386 N.W.2d 832, Minn.App., May 20, 1986
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

Short form: the authorities clearly can release information on Zachary Ourada -- the shooter in the Nye's case --  on the grounds that it would "dispel widespread rumor" that Sheriff McGowan's office didn't do an acceptable job of investigating Ourada before giving him his carry permit. They haven't. In their "investigation", there's no suggestion that KARE11 even asked, and they surely didn't press.

Honest: I don't think that denying Ourada's carry permit would have stopped him from shooting "Big Billy" Walsh in the back, four times -- he went away, retrieved his handgun (and who drove him home, or to his car? I dunno, and KARE 11 doesn't say), came back, and killed the bouncer.  I think it's irrelevant, but, obviously, David Lillehaug (the lawyer who brought the case that made carrying while intoxicated temporarily lawful again) and others disagree. 

That's fine.  Let's disagree on that.  But is there some good public policy reason that what appears to be a lax investigation on Sheriff McGowan's part should go uninvestigated? Shouldn't we, the public, know if it's true -- as it appears that it may be -- that McGowan issued a carry permit to somebody who shouldn't have been given one?

I don't think so; I think we should know. If you agree, tell KARE 11's anchor, Diana Pierce. (And my apologies to Ms. Pierce for referring to her as "Diane Pierce," earlier. She's entitled, after all, to be referred to by her real name.) Maybe they'll actually do an investigation this time, rather than an editorial labelled as an investigation.