Early probation release dropped in Judge Worke DWI case

A Minnesota Court of Appeals Judge is reportedly dropping her request to be released from probation early. 

Former Steele County Attorney Dan McIntosh earlier this summer accused Steele 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 created legal wrangling in which McIntosh claims Steele County improperly released probation data related to Worke’s DWI case late last year.

Just who released the data is what still appears to be up for debate. 

Current Steele County Attorney Rob Jarrett disagrees with McIntosh’s claims in the case that saw McIntosh defend Worke.

Original case

Worke, of Owatonna, 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.

Jarrett requested a hearing, and gave notice he would be calling witnesses from the community corrections program.

“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 was set for Sept. 1. However, McIntosh, in a late-night motion on Aug. 26, asked for the hearing to be canceled. 

Change of plans 

McIntosh, in his motion, said his client pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor DWI, and then asked to be discharged from probation “pursuant to Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 9 (granting the Court authority to modify an imposed sentence).”

“As the Court is aware, at the time of sentencing, my client had completed the active terms of her probation, as was acknowledged by the County Attorney,” he wrote. 

McIntosh claimed that almost immediately after the motion was filed “the Steele County Attorney and Community Corrections began efforts that amount to retaliation against my client.

“First, there were efforts to improperly disclose my client’s confidential probation data, both in this court file and otherwise,” he wrote. “This was improper and unfair. Our need to address the breach may have left the public with an impression that my client had something to hide when, in fact, the issue was one of improper data disclosure regardless of the content.”

McIntosh said they then “observed what appears to be the County’s preparations to expand the scope of the hearing set on Sept. 1, 2026, beyond the motion that was filed.

“The purpose of our motion was not intended to stir interpersonal conflict,” he wrote. “But the County’s responses suggest they have taken my client’s well-supported motion personally.”

McIntosh said after his client’s motion for early release from probation was filed, “it has become clear that there has been very little probation supervision actually occurring.”

“As a result, the impacts on my client have been largely mitigated,” he said. “My client continues to meet all the basic probation requirements, as she has throughout this matter.”

McIntosh in his motion characterized the county’s responses to his client’s motion as “unexpected and perplexing.”

“But at this time, rather than fan further discord, we believe there is no benefit to continuing to expend time and resources pursuing our good faith request of the court,” he wrote. 

Instead, he said, to avoid “further controversy, my client has chosen to complete the short remaining time on probation and avoid further misplaced criticism of her or the judicial system.”

McIntosh did not respond to a number of follow-up questions for this story. 

Jarrett did not respond to claims regarding the alleged improper release of data, saying, “Given the claims made by Renee Worke and Dan McIntosh, the county filed an insurance claim with MCIT (MN Counties Insurance Trust) for legal coverage.”

“MCIT assigned attorney Dyan Ebert of Resolute Law to represent the County,” he wrote. 

Ebert did not respond to a request for comment for this story. 

“Regarding the criminal matters, given Ms. Worke remains on probation, it is not appropriate for me to comment any further,” Jarrett wrote.

Audit trail

In a June 16 correspondence to Judge Adam Johnson, who is hearing the case, McIntosh 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, and 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.

A judge denied Jarrett’s motion on June 30. 

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.

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.”

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.”

When asked Sept. 2 for further clarification about the allegations made regarding the improper release of probation data – and how it would be handled – Christopherson reiterated that a court order would be needed

“There’s nothing I can say that’s not in the public record of the case,” he wrote.