County accused of violating Data Practices Act

Former Steele County Attorney Dan McIntosh has accused the county of violating the Data Practices Act related to the high-profile case of Minnesota Court of Appeals Judge Renee Worke, according to court documents.

The accusation is creating legal wrangling in which McIntosh claims Steele County improperly released probation data related to Worke’s DWI case late last year.

Who released the data is what nobody seems to be taking accountability for.

Current Steele County Attorney Rob Jarrett disagrees with McIntosh’s claims.

The allegation comes in a case that saw McIntosh defend Worke, of Owatonna, in the DWI case.

Worke was sentenced on Jan. 2 after reaching a plea deal. Originally charged with two gross misdemeanor counts of third-degree DWI, she pleaded guilty to an amended count of fourth-degree DWI-Operate Motor Vehicle-Alcohol Concentration 0.08 Within 2 Hours, a misdemeanor.

The remaining count was dismissed as part of the plea agreement; Worke was placed on probation for up to a year and received a stay of imposition. She had preemptively completed all conditions of probation prior to her first court hearing.

The data practices issue was first raised in June, when McIntosh filed a motion for Worke to be discharged from probation early, according to a court document filed in Steele County District Court.

In his filing, McIntosh pointed to Minn. Stat. §609.135, subd. 2(g) which states that a “probationer is discharged six months after the term of the stay expires.”

The terms of Worke’s probation said that “Steele County Community Corrections may exercise their discretion and discharge the Defendant from probation early if they believe that it is appropriate.”

On June 8, just days after McIntosh filed his motion, Jarrett filed a motion, stating the county objected to Worke being released from probation.

He asked for a hearing, and gave notice he would be calling the following witnesses:

Steele County Community Corrections Director Timothy Schammel and Steele County Community Corrections Probation Officer William Bromley.

“Arguments of counsel for the objection and request to follow the Court’s original sentencing order will be provided at the hearing,” Jarrett wrote.

A court hearing is set for Sept. 1 – possibly the only fact on which both sides of legal counsel can agree.

Mislabeled item?

In a correspondence to Judge Adam Johnson, who is hearing the case, McIntosh on June 16 said Steele County Community Corrections filed a document on June 10 that he claims “was initially mislabeled as a ‘Memorandum’ and filed as a public document.

“It was, in fact, a probation recommendation to the Court and should have been filed as a non-public document,” McIntosh wrote. “The Steele County Court Administrator was able to change the document label and classification later in the day on June 10, 2026, but not before the document was publicly available for several hours.”

It is unclear if the document was ever downloaded by the public, and if so, how many times.

McIntosh sought the release of the audit trail data and said in his correspondence that the document “contained information that never should have been accessible to the public and with which my client strongly disagrees.”

The correspondence to the judge went on to say that Jarrett made a comment that McIntosh perceived as a threat.

“The document was filed after the Steele County Attorney informed me on June 5, 2026, after my client filed her motion for discharge from probation, ‘If your client wants to continue with the motion, probation will be filing a public report early next week.’ I objected to this statement,” McIntosh wrote, “characterized it as a ‘threat,’ and reminded the County

Attorney that probation data is highly protected under Minnesota law. Five days later, the public document was filed by Steele County Community Corrections.”

A judge on the same day approved the release of the non-public audit trail to McIntosh.

Jarrett disagrees with McIntosh’s assessment of the situation.

“Mr. McIntosh takes prior communication out of context,” Jarrett said. “The upcoming hearing is public and all information contained in the probation memo can be made (public) at the hearing.”

On June 18, McIntosh filed yet another correspondence, this time asking for notes between Community Corrections and the County Attorney Office, related to his client’s case.

“I am writing with an additional request based on my correspondence with Mr. Jarrett. In preparation for the motion hearing scheduled in this matter, I requested that Steele County Community Corrections provide me with all their chronological notes and entries regarding my client,” McIntosh wrote.

The request was granted by a judge on June 22.

Different classifications

When court documents are filed electronically – a common practice – there are different security classifications given to each type of document, said Kyle Christopherson, a spokesperson for the Minnesota Court Information Office.

“The security level of documents is applied in (the Minnesota Court Information System) after manual review by court staff,” he said.

Each document has a default minimum security level, “and staff are not able to reduce the security level below the default minimum,” Christopherson said. “Staff are able to increase the security level if needed but are required to identify why the document was made more secure.”

The security level applied in MNCIS is what determines which documents are available in the state’s public access applications, he said.

According to a handout provided by Christopherson, memos are considered public, while probation recommendations are considered confidential.

Christopherson went on to say that “every person filing non-public documents with the court in public case types is solely responsible for identifying and designating them as non-public.”

There are processes in place to allow staff “to send a Notice of Noncompliance to the filer and increase the security level if they notice that confidential information is included in the document, or that the document as a whole should be non-public,” he said.

“However, this is rarely done in criminal cases and is most often used when a financial account number or other restricted identifier is included in an otherwise public document.”

That review has been used 186 times in the past six months, out of hundreds of thousands of documents filed.

The “event code” is used only when staff notice non-public information in a public document, or when a non-public document is filed incorrectly and staff increase the security level,” he wrote. “We have no way to know about documents that staff haven’t noticed or been made aware of.”

Jarrett blames court administration

Jarrett said Steele County Community Corrections uploaded the document appropriately.

“The County did not violate the MGDPA – probation filed the memo appropriately as ‘confidential,’” Jarrett wrote in an email to the Times. “Court administration refuses to provide data to show who changed the memo to (public) on the court's end.”

Jarrett filed a motion June 22, also asking the Court to issue a “Judicial Determination indicating that State Court Administration may release the audit trail data to the State,” for the document in question – in other words, to track who did what with the document at the heart of the issue.

“Specifically, the County requests the following: what classification was submitted, what data was submitted, what actions were taken, and by whom,” he wrote.

Jarrett went on to say that “the Steele County Court Administrator advised the County that eFS internal data requires the Court's approval for release. This request is being made in light of Defendant's allegations that the County (Community Corrections) violated the Data Practices Act by filing a non-public document in the Court’s file. Defendant’s attorney, Mr. McIntosh, has put the County on notice of a civil claim. The County disagrees and believes the document was submitted as confidential and was changed to public at no fault of the County.”

Additionally, he stated: “The request is relevant to the criminal file because the State is concerned that the Defense is making claims to argue for a change in the supervisory agency.”

A judge denied Jarrett’s motion on June 30.

While he said could not speak on the specific case, Christopherson said, “in general, court staff will not provide confidential information without a court order authorizing release.”

McIntosh declined to answer a number of questions and instead provided a written statement.

“Significant disagreements remain regarding the manner in which Steele County Community Corrections and the Steele County Attorney’s Office have conducted themselves in this case,” he said. “Nonetheless, we are going to remain respectful of the Court process. We will not comment further on the pending motion and look forward to bringing this matter to a resolution shortly.”

Next steps

On July 29, McIntosh filed a motion asking for an earlier court date to discuss the case.

“On behalf of my client, we respectfully request that the Court set the hearing in this matter at an earlier date and by Zoom, if necessary,” he wrote. “The reasons for this request are that there have been issues raised regarding the improper release of my client’s probation data.”

McIntosh said the Defense has asked Steele County to recuse itself from this case “because of those issues, but that request has been denied.”

“My client continues to comply with all conditions of probation, but there is nothing active or of substance she needs to do or is being directed to do by probation,” McIntosh wrote. “We would like to get the issue of discharge addressed as soon as possible so that the parties have clarity of my client’s status going forward and to, hopefully, avoid unnecessary future conflict.”

Why Steele County Community Corrections is seeking to keep Worke on probation remains unclear.

Schammel declined to comment for this story, citing its status as an active case.