The BCA’s Game of Incomplete Compliance
A Case Study in Institutional Resistance to Transparency
Minutes after I published a LinkedIn post criticizing the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension for failing to respond to my government data practices request, I received an email from the BCA.
They claimed they had fulfilled my data practices request.
I had been waiting over two months for the information about their recent dry gas reference material debacle, a quality control failure that invalidated dozens of breath alcohol test results.
The timing was remarkable.
Two months of silence, then a response within minutes of public criticism.
But as I reviewed what they sent, the real story became clear: this wasn’t compliance. It was the appearance of compliance.
What I Asked For
My data practices request was straightforward. I asked for seven specific data fields from breath alcohol tests performed on the DataMaster DMT during the period when the dry gas reference material problem occurred:
Audit-ID
Date/time
BrAC1 (first sample)
BrAC2 (second sample)
Control Target
Control Reading
Control Lot Number
These fields are all maintained in the BCA’s records system. They’re all essential for conducting a meaningful review of the quality control data.
The Audit-ID uniquely identifies each test. The Control Lot Number identifies which specific batch of reference material was used. Without these fields, it’s impossible to properly analyze what happened during the dry gas cylinder failure.
What They Sent
The BCA provided five of the seven fields. They omitted the Audit-ID and the Control Lot Number.
Think about what this means.
I can’t see which lot of reference material was in use. My request has been rendered essentially useless.
A Pattern of Resistance
This isn’t an isolated incident. It’s part of a broader pattern of how the BCA responds to external oversight.
External review uncovered an error that had persisted for nearly a year.
The same pattern appeared in our research documenting systematic problems in forensic laboratories: external oversight consistently uncovers errors that internal systems miss.
Now, when someone requests the data needed to conduct that external oversight, the response is strategic incompleteness.
Provide enough to claim compliance, but withhold the key fields that would enable meaningful analysis.
Force the requester to file disputes, engage in additional correspondence, and spend more time fighting for access to public data.
It’s institutional resistance dressed up as a bureaucratic process.
The Integrity Problem
The BCA publishes its organizational values on its website. Two of those values are particularly relevant here:
“Integrity: Integrity is the cornerstone of public trust. This organization strives to always do the right thing.”
“Excellence: We value excellence in our people and our work to continually provide the best service to our partners, the Minnesota criminal justice community, and the citizens of this state.”
Providing an incomplete response to a data practices request while claiming to have fulfilled it doesn’t reflect integrity. It doesn’t reflect a commitment to “always do the right thing.”
It reflects an organization more interested in managing its image than serving the public interest.
Excellence doesn’t mean finding creative ways to avoid transparency. It means recognizing that transparency strengthens forensic science and that independent oversight is essential to maintaining public trust.
What Other States Do
The contrast with other jurisdictions is stark.
Iowa, Alaska, Washington, and Massachusetts routinely publish their breath testing quality control data online. Anyone can access it. Anyone can review it. These laboratories recognize that transparency isn’t a threat to their work. It’s a validation of it.
When your quality control systems are working, you want people to see the data.
When you’re confident in your procedures, you welcome external review. When you’re committed to scientific integrity, you embrace transparency as an opportunity to demonstrate that commitment.
Minnesota takes the opposite approach.
The BCA treats public data as something to be protected, managed, and strategically released in incomplete forms that minimize scrutiny while maintaining the appearance of compliance.
Moving Forward
I’ll keep pushing for the complete data. I’ll continue documenting these patterns of resistance. And I’ll keep making the case for why forensic laboratories need to embrace transparency rather than fight it at every turn.
Minnesota can do better.
The BCA can do better.
Other states have shown that it’s possible to operate forensic laboratories with genuine transparency and public accountability.
The question is whether Minnesota is willing to follow their lead, or whether the state will continue playing games of incomplete compliance while pretending to value integrity and excellence.