Disclosure: The subject of this article is also the author of this article.
A Minnesota Judicial Branch official recently blasted a popular local public safety watchdog account during a publicly broadcast meeting, raising questions about whether the judiciary is trying to stifle free speech and the free flow of information about crime and criminal case outcomes.
Crime Watch Minneapolis/Twin Cities is one of only a few dedicated public safety and court watchdogs in the state, which its nearly one million followers across several social media platforms rely on daily for safety information.
Crime Watch’s often exclusive content generates millions of views and engagements every month across Facebook, X, and Instagram and often includes calls to action for residents to get involved in contacting their representatives about public safety issues, as well as supporting candidates who will strengthen public safety and criminal consequences.
The information Crime Watch posts is often not covered by mainstream media and includes details about criminal cases and the prosecutors and judges involved in making bail release decisions, as well as plea deals and sentencing outcomes.
The Minnesota Judicial Branch apparently is not pleased with the exposure.
In the most recent monthly meeting of the Judicial Council, planned updates to the Judicial Branch’s social media policies were discussed.
An overview of the changes was presented by Kim Pleticha, director of public affairs for the Judicial Branch.
Pleticha explained that the Judicial Branch plans to expand its social media presence and formalize certain aspects of its social media policies in order to be “intentionally delivering purposeful content” so it can be on “offense” rather than defense on social media. Pleticha said members of the Judicial Branch want to “tell our own story,” rather than the media telling their story for them.
Pleticha eventually launched into a portion of the presentation where she talked about viral and “high arousal negative content.” Pleticha mentioned the public’s negative response when the Judicial Branch’s posts include images of Gov. Tim Walz. Pleticha blamed the response on people being “political.”
The Judicial Branch utilizes an application that tracks mentions of the Judicial Branch on social media in order to look for “lies or misinformation” about the Judicial Branch, Pleticha said.
Pleticha indicated that the most viral mentions of the Judicial Branch occurred late last year after Hennepin County Judge Sarah West overturned a jury’s guilty verdict against Abdifatah Yusuf, who was found guilty at trial in a $7.2 million Medicaid fraud case. Pleticha said her team listens for viral mentions like that so they can alert security.
Pleticha then discussed how they decide to respond or not respond to social media posts by saying, “we do not comment on the aforementioned ‘high arousal negative content’ posts because doing so can validate the person or the organization that made the post.”
For example, Pleticha said the Judicial Branch accounts did not respond when Elon Musk shared the news about Judge West’s reversal decision in the Yusuf case.
Then Pleticha specifically named Crime Watch, saying, “… nor do we comment on Crime Watch posts.”
“Crime Watch is a biased channel designed solely to be an echo chamber of negativity,” she continued.
Well this is utterly shocking and unacceptable. Kim Pleticha, @MNCourts Director of Public Affairs, publicly slandered and maligned Crime Watch last week during a recorded session of the Judicial Council while discussing planned updates to their social media policies.
Pleticha… pic.twitter.com/evqUQ9pPCO
— CrimeWatchMpls (@CrimeWatchMpls) September 24, 2026
Pleticha went on to say that commenting on some of Crime Watch’s posts and not others “would give the impression that we’re OK with some of their posts, right, content on which we don’t comment, but we’re not. We’re not OK with really anything they are posting.”
Crime Watch posted a response on social media to Pleticha’s comments, demanding a retraction of the disparaging characterization of Crime Watch and asking its social media followers to do the same.
Alpha News attorney Chris Madel was asked to weigh in on the unusual singling out of Crime Watch by a public official.
“Nobody associated with the judiciary should be in the business of commenting on, or characterizing, the exercise of First Amendment rights,” Madel said. “Courts exist to apply the law impartially—not to label journalists or commentators as ‘biased.’ Public confidence in the judiciary is strengthened by neutrality, not by its employees weighing in on protected speech.”
“We don’t follow CrimeWatchMpls because we enjoy bad news,” Madel said. “We follow it because we want information that is unavailable elsewhere.”
– – –
Crime Watch Minneapolis/Twin Cities publishes news, info and commentary about crime, public safety and livability issues in Minneapolis, the Twin Cities and Greater Minnesota.
Crime Watch MN
Minnesota Crime Watch & Information publishes news, info and commentary about crime, public safety and livability issues in Minneapolis, the Twin Cities and Greater Minnesota.
