DC Police Union Sues To Block The Release Of Names Of Officers Involved In Shootings

from the can't-be-making-info-about-public-servants-public dept

Washington DC responded to widespread protests following the killing of George Floyd with a set of police reforms that tried to address some systemic problems in the district's police department, starting with its lack of transparency and accountability.

The reform bill -- passed two weeks after George Floyd's killing -- placed new limits on deadly force deployment, banned the Metropolitan PD from acquiring military equipment through the Defense Department's 1033 program, and mandated release of body-camera footage within 72 hours of any shooting by police officers. The names of the officers involved are covered by the same mandate, ensuring it won't take a lawsuit to get the PD to disclose info about officers deploying deadly force.

But there's a lawsuit already in the mix -- one that hopes to keep the public separated from camera footage and officers' names. Unsurprisingly, it's been filed by a longtime opponent of police accountability.

The Washington, D.C., police union said on Monday it asked a court to block the mandatory release of body camera footage and names of police officers involved in shootings.

According to the union, releasing the names of officers will do bad things to the good names of cops who kill people.

“The release of the body-camera footage and names of officers will unjustly malign and permanently tarnish the reputation and good name of any officer that is later cleared of misconduct concerning the use of force,” the union said in a statement.

First off, it's almost impossible to "permanently tarnish" a cop's reputation. Even the worst cops often have little trouble resuming their law enforcement careers after engaging in egregious misconduct. They may have to shop their resumes around a little bit, but lots of PDs and Sheriffs' offices are more than willing to hire bad cops no longer welcome at their original agency.

Second, nothing about this should hinge on whether or not the force deployment was justified. If an officer is later cleared of wrongdoing, they'll be able to go back to work. If not, they'll probably still be able to go back to work -- either with the DCPD or with any other agency more interested in staffing their forces than performing due diligence.

And it's a little rich for the union to ask that officers' names be withheld on the off chance they might be found innocent. The names of people arrested or cited are public records, even if they're ultimately never convicted of a crime. Suing to get cops held to a lower standard is a terrible use of taxpayer funds. Public sector unions collect dues from paychecks and build their litigation war chests using donations from officers -- all of which can ultimately be traced back to the same public the union is trying to keep in the dark.

The lawsuit [PDF] (which inexplicably isn't included in multiple articles about the lawsuit) raises the specter of vengeful vigilantes hunting down cops who killed or maimed friends or family members.

When officers justifiably use force against a criminal suspect, the immediate public release of the officer's name and the body-worn camera footage will allow the suspect and their associates to identify the officer and potentially seek retribution against the officer and his or her family.

This is a ridiculous reason to withhold officers' names. This is Hollywood rationale -- an uninspired trope that's best left in an undeveloped screenplay. It's not that it never happens. It's that it happens so rarely it can't be raised as a plausible argument for blanket secrecy.

The lawsuit also argues -- equally implausibly -- that there's an inherent right to privacy contained in actions performed by public servants in public.

The release of the officer's name and other identifying information contained in the body-worn camera footage will further impermissibly invade the officer's fundamental right to privacy.

Doesn't seem there would be that much privacy in performing public service, especially when someone gets serviced to death by an officer's force deployment. But that's the argument the union will make to shield its fan base from public criticism. Hopefully, the DC court will route this lawsuit to its OUT box as quickly as possible so DC residents can start benefiting from the transparency the district has finally forced on its police force.

Filed Under: accountability, body cams, police, police unions, protests, transparency, washington dc

More NYPD Reforms: Super-Violent Plainclothes Units Disbanded, Body Cam Footage Given A 30-Day Release Mandate

from the keep-on-fixing.-it's-still-very-broken. dept

A bunch of police reform efforts are underway in New York City. NYPD officers may not have been responsible for the killing that has sparked protests around the country, but they've provided plenty of ammo for police critics and reformers over the years.

With Mike Bloomberg no longer running front office interference for the PD, the department has found itself absorbing more un-deflected criticism. This criticism is finally turning to action, now that it's incredibly inconvenient for ANY city to pretend its law enforcement agencies aren't in need of an overhaul.

Early last week, NYPD Commissioner Dermot Shea decided to dismantle the NYPD's plainclothes units. These officers didn't look like police officers. And since they didn't look like police officers, they didn't behave like police officers. Removing the uniform seemed to remove all pretense of accountability as well, resulting in the so-called (and strangely-named) "anti-crime" units being the NYPD's leader in crimes committed against citizens.

The plainclothes "anti-crime" units operated out of unmarked vehicles, and did not respond to 911 calls. Instead, they were charged with what Shea called "proactive" policing. The anti-crime teams across all 77 precincts will be disbanded.

"When you look at the number of anti-crime officers that operate within New York City, and when you look at a disproportionate, quite frankly, number of complaints, shootings—and they are doing exactly what was asked of them," Shea said. "I think we can do better. I think that policing in 2020 is not what it was in five, ten, twenty years ago."

While it seems strange Commissioner Shea would state that generating complaints and corpses is "exactly what was asked" of the anti-crime units, the good news is they won't be roaming around menacing the public as a cohesive unit. The 600 officers were responsible for 31% of fatal NYPD shootings, despite only being 6% of the total police force. In recent years, "anti-crime" officers were responsible for a number of high-profile killings of citizens, including Eric Garner, whose death similarly prompted protests all over the nation. The disbanding scatters the plainclothes officers across several other units, giving more divisions a chance to be corrupted by these bad apples.

On a more positive note, the NYPD can no longer act like body camera footage is a proprietary good the public shouldn't be allowed to have access to. The NYPD's body camera policy -- released months after the cameras were deployed (as the result of court-ordered reforms) -- gave the department every excuse it wanted to never release footage.

This followed a lawsuit against the NYPD by one of the city's police unions, which sought to block almost any release of footage ever under the state's infamous "50-a" law, which forbids the release of police officers' personnel files and disciplinary records. (Or at least it did... until it was taken off the books in another recent reform move.) How footage of interactions with residents fit these descriptions was left up to the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association's imagination.

The policy has been rewritten in light of national events. The previous version gave the NYPD up to 30 days to come up with a reason why it wouldn't be releasing recordings. The new policy mandates the release of certain recordings within 30 days, flipping the old policy on its head.

The new policy obligates the NYPD to release and eventually publish online all audio and video of officers’ interactions that involve gunshots fired in public spaces, the deployment of tasers and the use of force that results in death or substantial bodily injury.

“Effective immediately, the NYPD’s 24,000 body cameras now have a mandatory 30 day release policy,” he tweeted Tuesday morning.

Certainly the NYPD will do everything it can to prevent release of these recordings, despite the mandate. It has two powerful unions willing to sue the city and their members' employer over anything that might result in additional transparency or accountability. But the city's tolerance for these unions may finally be running out. Mayor Bill de Blasio, who talked a tough police reform game while campaigning only to dial back his rhetoric once in office, is back on the warpath and calling out the unions for their contribution to the destruction of the relationship between city residents and the NYPD.

“The SBA leadership has engaged in racist activities so many times I can’t even count it,” he said of the NYPD sergeants’ union.

“I’m just sick of it, I’ve been sick of it for years,” he added. “What I’ve seen of the SBA, and too often the PBA, is efforts to divide us, to hold us back, to create all sorts of negativity, to push back progress, to undermine efforts at unity. It’s literally anti-social what these union leaders do."

Whether these reform efforts result in lasting change remains to be seen. But it's far more than anyone's demanded of the NYPD in years.

Filed Under: anti-crime, body cams, dermot shea, nypd, plainclothes unit, police

Memphis Police Department Body Cam Program Being Undercut By Its Body Cam Policies

from the time-to-fix-it-now-before-it-gets-worse dept

The Memphis PD is facing quite a bit of scrutiny right now. In addition to just having lost a lawsuit over unconstitutional surveillance of protesters and activists, and being told to stop creating fake Facebook accounts (by Facebook itself), it's dealing with the heat of a recent shooting of a Memphis resident by police officers -- one that left the victim in critical condition. Body cameras were available but not in use by all officers on the scene. In addition, it appears at least two officers deliberately deactivated their cameras during the pursuit of the suspect, Martavious Banks.

In that same Tuesday news conference, [Memphis Police Department Director Mike] Rallings had also said that two other officers who encountered Banks during a traffic stop prior to the shooting weren't using their cameras properly:

“After further review, it was discovered that two additional officers who were involved in the original stop at Gill and Pillow deactivated either their body-worn cameras or in-car video systems during the pursuit from Gill and Pillow,” Rallings had said on Tuesday.

This has led to a discussion about the Memphis PD's body cam practices and policies. At this point, the MPD releases footage at its own discretion. In theory, this would allow the MPD to get out ahead of criticism by releasing footage of controversial incidents. In practice, however, this means the MPD usually refuses to release footage until forced to.

Director Rallings is now out defending his department from accusations that it covers up incidents by withholding footage or, in some cases, ensuring footage is never recorded. Records released to the Memphis Commercial Appeal show there is at least some officer misconduct being captured by cameras. The records also show a number of violations of body camera policies by officers.

Fifty three Memphis police officers have violated the department's body camera policy since the cameras were deployed in October 2016, according to police records obtained Friday by The Commercial Appeal.

The department has issued more than 20 reprimands to police officers who have violated its body camera policy. At least 10 of those officers were suspended. Four officers received oral reprimands.

The department's records also show allegations of officers using excessive force and displaying police misconduct while not operating their body cameras.

Rallings says the comparatively small amount of violations isn't indicative of a larger problem. Instead, he posits this shows a high rate of compliance by MPD officers.

“Out of 2.4 million videos, you are going to have some officers that either make a mistake or make a bad decision," Rallings said.

"But I want you to divide that (number of violations) by 2.5 million and you see that it is very rare there is a negative incident. Given the 1,650 officers with body-worn cameras, that is a very small percentage,” he said, referring again to the 53 officers.

It can be both. There can be a small subset of officers who've been caught violating policies or covering up misconduct and larger overall compliance by the rest of the MPD's staff. But assuming the ones who have been caught violating policy are the only ones violating policy is a mistake.

Even if it's exactly what it looks like, the MPD's refusal to release footage until forced to doesn't allow anyone outside the department to double-check this math. Director Rallings says the policy on withholding footage relevant to ongoing investigations will remain in place. This will continue to ensure no footage is released when it is of greatest public interest, as internal investigations can be extended to fit the timeframe needed for outrage to die down.

Rallings is right about one thing, though. Body cameras are in place for one reason -- and it's not the reason most law enforcement agencies would publicly acknowledge.

"We bought the cameras to be an independent witness, not because I don’t trust the police officers, and, officers, y’all need to hear this," Rallings said. "It is 'cause a lot of the public doesn’t trust you."

But his internal policy undercuts his words. He acknowledges that the PD needs to rebuild trust, but then says the PD won't release footage of controversial incidents until it's convenient for the PD. Collecting footage and locking it up behind restrictive policies won't make this trust problem go away. And discovering officers are still deactivating cameras during controversial incidents doesn't exactly give citizens much confidence the new tech will serve anything more than the PD's interests.

And Rallings heads completely off the rails by stating a deliberate lack of recordings -- like in the Martavious Banks shooting -- will have zero effect on internal investigations.

“The body-worn camera is just a tool, it’s not perfect," Rallings said. "There is no law in the nation that says for an officer-involved shooting to be justified, it must be captured on body-worn cameras."

So, that's what it's going to take, huh? That's a tacit admission officers will continue to act as their own film directors during questionable stops and deployments of force. They'll decide what the cameras capture and how it's framed and "no law in the land" will stop them from doing it. Director Rallings could put a stop to it by proactively releasing both footage and officers when questionable incidents are coupled with deliberate deactivation of recording devices. But he's chosen to go the other way and make the law force recordings out of his hands and accountability onto his officers. The law can only go so far. It's sad Rallings isn't willing to make up the difference.

Filed Under: body cams, memphis, memphis police department, mike railings, police

UK Schools Experiment With Police-Style Body Cameras To Tackle 'Low-level Background Disorder'

from the bringing-taser-technology-to-a-classroom-near-you dept

Techdirt has written dozens of stories about US police forces deploying body cameras, with all sorts of interesting consequences. Their use for school police means that body cameras are also turning up in US schools, but the next logical step of putting body cameras on the actual teachers has been taken not in the US, but in the UK, as the Guardian reports:

Teachers in two UK schools are trialling using body cameras in class because they are "fed up with low-level background disorder", a criminal justice academic has revealed.

…

The former Home Office researcher said the three-month pilot scheme, started within the last month, securely stores footage on a cloud platform like ones used by police forces.

Although only two UK schools are currently involved, a survey carried out by the Times Educational Supplement revealed that a third of the teachers who were asked said they would be willing to try wearing a body camera; two thirds said they would feel safer wearing it; and a tenth even thought it would eventually become compulsory for all UK teachers to use them. Another article in the Guardian responding to this news pointed out the many pitfalls of taking this approach, and noted:

as teachers we want children to be accountable for their behaviour. But increasing the spread of surveillance in schools isn't going to help us do that. Classrooms will be transformed from spaces cultivating inquiry, in all its forms, to centres wary of the threat of being caught out by an all-seeing eye. Ellis [the criminal justice academic who revealed the existence of the UK trial] is at pains to point out that the cameras will not be on all the time; only "where there is a perceived threat to a member of staff or pupils" will they be used. Quite how this will be decided, and how their use will not gradually become routine, is not clear.

One constraint on the routine use of body cameras by all teachers is the sheer quantity of footage that would be produced, and the near-impossibility of reviewing it all. However, that may not be a limiting factor for long if a move by Taser International, which controls around three-quarters of the body camera business in the US, bears fruit:

Taser International, the military hardware company that essentially owns the police body-worn camera market, believes the solution lies in artificial intelligence. It has acquired a startup called Dextro to build an AI research lab focused on developing tools that make it easier for police to search and analyze the massive video libraries hosted by Taser.

Once it gets easier and cheaper for the police to search through their vast video libraries, it will also become easier and cheaper for others to do the same. At that point, it might not be just schools that start deploying body cameras, but everyone interacting with the public in some way. What could possibly go wrong?

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: body cameras, body cams, privacy, schools, surveillance, uk

Police Unions To City Officials: If You Want Good, Accountable Cops, You'll Need To Pay Them More

from the 5%-pay-raise-for-'not-making-things-worse' dept

Three police unions in different cities have come forward to insert their feet in their mouths following changes to department policies. The thrust of their terrible arguments? Cops should be paid more for doing their job properly.

In Cincinnati, officers are being outfitted with body cameras. This, of course, has sent the local Fraternal Order of Police into defense mode. The FOP sent a letter to the city stating that officers won't be wearing the cameras until they're given more money. The union apparently believes any increase in officer accountability should be accompanied by an increase in pay.

A lawyer for Fraternal Order of Police Lodge #69, Stephen Lazarus, sent the city a "cease and desist" letter, saying until pay for wearing the equipment has been decided, officers shouldn't wear them. He asked that the city cease the program by Wednesday at the latest, pending the bargaining process.

The city's mayor has already suggested he'd be willing to grant an across-the-board 5% pay increase, but the union wants additional pay on top of that, simply for wearing body cameras. The union insists that cameras will alter many facets of officers' day-to-day duties, which -- judging from other cities' experiences with body cameras -- apparently includes discovering ways of ensuring footage of questionable arrests and uses of force aren't captured by the recording equipment.

Meanwhile, down in San Antonio, policies affecting misconduct punishments are receiving similar demands from that city's police union.

The San Antonio Express-News reports that the San Antonio police union demanded higher pay in exchange for accepting changes to their collective bargaining agreement that would have delivered stricter discipline for officer misconduct.

The Express-News notes that right now “the contract limits how far back a chief can invoke prior misconduct in punishing an officer — no more than two years in most instances — and automatically reduces suspensions of three days or less to a reprimand after two years.”

Once again, a union is fighting officer accountability with increased salary demands. In both cases, neither union seems to understand (or care) how tone deaf these arguments are.

Police reform is needed because officers aren't doing what they're being paid to do, or they're doing it in a way that results in civil rights lawsuits and DOJ interventions. The main obstacle to reform appears to be police unions, which often seem to offer hardline opposition to minor changes that even most of those supposedly represented by the union don't agree with.

It would be one thing if law enforcement was a historically-underpaid profession. But it isn't. These demands are simply a way to make cash-strapped cities rethink plans to introduce more accountability into the process.

But it's not always the unions that are at fault. The rank-and-file has its own issues with increased accountability. The city of Boston is outfitting its officers with body cameras. The pilot program asked for volunteers to wear the recording devices. There were no takers.

When the City of Boston called on 100 volunteers from the police department to help pilot a body camera program, something very expected, predictable, and heard of happened: Nothing.

Even with $500 bonuses as a result of negotiations with their union, not a single police officer in Boston volunteered to wear a camera.

If no one responds when asked nicely, the optional aspect goes away.

Speaking during the monthly “Ask the Commissioner” segment on WGBH-FM’s Boston Public Radio on Tuesday, Boston Police Commissioner William B. Evans said that a consultant has selected officers of all ages and races from five sections of the city and the department’s Youth Violence Strike Force to wear the cameras for a six-month trial. Any officer selected who chooses not to wear the camera would be subject to disciplinary action, Evans said.

It's not as though the police union here decided to sit this one out. When no officers volunteered to wear the cameras, the union claims that randomly selecting officers somehow breaches the department's contract.

Boston Police Patrolman’s Association President Patrick M. Rose told the Herald that goes against the deal the union reached with the department, which he says specifically states participants must be volunteers.

“The selection process must be from volunteers,” Rose wrote in an email to the Herald, adding that the union still supports that agreement.

“To require non-volunteers to participate in the program would clearly violate the agreement,” he said. “The BPPA would hope that the City and the Department would honor its written agreement with the BPPA concerning (body cameras).”

The Boston Police chief saw it differently, however, pointing out that no volunteers stepping forward to take part in a voluntary program also violates the agreement.

Somewhat ironically, civil rights and accountability activists were skeptical of the volunteer pilot program, fearing that the only cops that would volunteer would be exemplary models of the law enforcement profession and unlikely to generate much footage of misconduct or abuse. What a relief it must be to discover the Boston PD has no officers that fit that description.

Filed Under: accountability, body cams, police, police unions

Body Cam Footage Leads To Federal Indictment Of Abusive Las Vegas Cop

from the accountability:-1,-cops-getting-away-with-stuff:-a-billion dept

Body cameras are working as intended. Of course, this is a very limited sampling and the fact that anything happened at all to the abusive cop was reliant on him being either too stupid or too arrogant to shut his body-worn camera off.

A former Las Vegas police officer was indicted by a federal grand jury Tuesday on felony charges of roughing up a woman he suspected was a prostitute.

Richard Scavone, 49, was charged with violating the civil rights of the woman when he used excessive force while arresting her in January 2015 and falsifying his report of the encounter to obstruct an FBI investigation, according to the Justice Department.

The woman was identified in the indictment only by her initials, A.O.

Scavone, who also faces a local misdemeanor battery charge in the incident, has been summoned to answer the two felony counts in federal court on Jan. 20. He is to appear in Las Vegas Justice Court that day, as well.

The Las Vegas Review-Journal's depiction of the events ("roughed up") is far kinder than the DOJ's press release.

According to the indictment, on Jan. 6, 2015, while acting as a police officer, Scavone allegedly assaulted “A.O.” resulting in bodily injury. The indictment alleges that Scavone grabbed the victim around the neck with his hand and threw A.O. to the ground; struck A.O. in the forehead with an open palm; twice slammed A.O.’s head onto the hood of his patrol vehicle; and slammed A.O. into the door of his patrol vehicle.

And that is far, far kinder than the Las Vegas Sun's description of the incident from early 2015, when Scavone was only facing a misdemeanor battery charge.

Scavone said in a statement that the woman turned her back to officers, a statement police said was refuted by the corrections officer.

When she asked how she could put her palms together if he had her hands, Scavone threatened to "dump (her) on the floor" and handcuffed her, the report said.

He then told her to spread her feet, and when she replied, "My feet are straight," he grabbed the back of her neck and threw her on the ground, according to the report.

The woman cursed and told him to take her to jail, and Scavone struck her face with an open hand before grabbing her left shoulder and dragging her several feet away from his vehicle to get her on her stomach, the report said.

Scavone asked the woman if she was "finished fighting" him, the report said.

The corrections officer and Scavone picked the woman up and walked her back to the vehicle, where Scavone grabbed her elbow and reached for her necklace, police said.

When she turned away, he slammed her head twice on the patrol car, police said.

He reportedly told her not to pull away from him and reached inside her dress, pulling out a condom and a cellphone, the report said.

Scavone said in his statement he retrieved the items, which were in the area near her breast and armpit, at least partially for officer safety because they could have been weapons, police said.

The woman, who was not wearing a bra, told Scavone multiple times not to touch her breast, and Scavone pinched her right breast through her dress before removing an undisclosed item from inside the dress, police said.

Police did not find any weapons on the woman, the report said.

Scavone accused the woman of reaching for something, and he grabbed her ponytail and slammed her head on the patrol vehicle again, police said.

He pulled her ponytail as he pushed her head against the vehicle, and she screamed, the report said.

He led her to the back seat of the patrol vehicle while holding her ponytail and slammed her into the passenger window, police said.

"You resisted and fought me," he told the woman, according to the report.

The federal grand jury indictment is just that: a grand jury indictment. It doesn't take much to convince a grand jury to hand down an indictment, but it is rather unusual to see one stick to a law enforcement officer. The video captured by his camera apparently played a significant part in the bringing of charges -- something that will be applauded by accountability advocates and derided by police unions, etc. who still believe body cameras are nothing more than a nefarious conspiracy to punish cops for doing normal cop stuff.

The assault charge is one thing. It's the falsification charge that's going to hurt, if it sticks. According to the DOJ, Scavone lied in his use of force report. That's netting him a federal obstruction charge which could add another 10-20 years to his sentence if convicted. The civil rights charges alone come with a potential 10-year sentence and $250,000 fine.

Without the footage captured by his own camera, it's very likely Officer Scavone would still have his job and zero indictments. After all, the woman he apparently abused was suspected of being a prostitute. When it comes down to "her word against ours," a woman portrayed as a sex worker has no chance against an officer who had previously received a commendation for meritorious service. And contrary to the assertions of body camera critics, the department Scavone worked for doesn't appear to be poring through its recordings in hopes of finding cops to bust.

Las Vegas police Undersheriff Kevin McMahill said it’s the first time his police department brought “criminal charges associated with the review of a body camera on an on-duty use of force incident.”

That the DOJ's press release doesn't mention the use of body camera footage in the indictment process is a little strange considering its push to spread this technology to law enforcement agencies around the nation. Of course, the DOJ is also instrumental in defending law enforcement officers against alleged civil rights violations. Sure, it investigates agencies with abusive histories, but it also works hard to ensure agencies remain legally immunized from the consequences of their actions and has mounted several efforts to keep Fourth Amendment protections to a minimum.

It's often a house divided against itself, which may explain why this detail has been glossed over, even if the tech that turned a non-event (according to the officer's police report) into a federal indictment is part of its overall plan to improve the nation's policing.

Filed Under: body cams, las vegas, police, richard scarvone

Minnesota Law Enforcement's Request To Treat All Body Camera Footage As 'Classified' Rejected By State Administrator

from the sudden-respect-for-citizens'-privacy-incredibly-suspicious dept

Minnesota law enforcement's last-ditch effort to keep body camera footage out of the hands of the public has failed. Back in February, legislators made the first effort, pushing a bill that would have limited recording requests to the subjects of the recordings. It also included a 90-day destruction period for any footage not part of an ongoing investigation, which would have allowed agencies to destroy damning footage of police misconduct, provided involved subjects hadn't requested a copy within the limited timeframe.

After that effort failed, a coalition of the state's police chiefs petitioned the governor directly, asking for all footage to be declared "classified" until legislators further defined what footage is or isn't responsive to public records requests. Obviously, the hope was to make a second run at severely limiting public access to body cam footage -- and all done in the faux interest of protecting citizens' privacy.

"We're in a little bit of an awkward and precarious spot in law enforcement: More and more people are calling for use of body cameras and their potential benefits," [Maplewood Police Chief Paul] Schnell said Thursday. On the flip side, Schnell contends wide access to data amounts to "window peeping into events that may be highly personal, emotionally traumatizing and not intended for the eyes and ears of others" -- particularly when their interactions with police are in private dwellings.

Given that police seldom seem interested in adhering to the limits of the Fourth Amendment and its privacy protections, this sudden concern for the privacy of people on the other end of law enforcement interactions is very suspect.

The good news is that this effort has also failed. No footage will be classified.

In his rejection letter, [Commissioner Matt] Massman wrote that he could not grant the request, because it would turn private data that is already public under state statutes—such as public arrests, responses or request for police services.

There are still some privacy concerns to be addressed, as Massman points out, but there will be no blanket order issued to prevent the public from requesting body camera footage.

“That decision, however, is not a conclusion that the law adequately addresses the complex and sensitive data circumstances that arise with the use of body cameras.” Massman wrote…

“Minnesota’s data practices are designed to be neutral to technology,” Massman wrote. “The reality is, however, that body cams have the potential to collect substantial amounts of video and audio in private and very sensitive circumstances. Body cam data can include much greater detail than might be contained in a written law enforcement report, such as footage of a private home and personal belongings. Greater statutory clarity regarding how data practices laws should apply to such data would provide essential guidance for all interested stakeholders.”

Hopefully, legislators crafting future bills will remember the general public is an important stakeholder. That was pretty much ignored during their first attempt, which was very much crafted from the law enforcement point of view. Fortunately, the House rejected the proposal and killed the bill. The legislature doesn't reconvene until March of next year, so for the time being, body camera footage is freely available to requesters.

Filed Under: body cams, classified, law enforcement, minnesota, police, public records

ACLU, Lawyers Group Sue Cali Police Department Over $3,000 Fee Demand For Body Cam Footage

from the fingers-crossed-for-a-fee-shift dept

Once again, a government agency is attempting to price itself out of the public records market. The Hayward (CA) police department told the National Lawyers Guild that it needed to come up with $3,000 before it would turn over requested body camera footage.

In response to this gouging, the ACLU, in conjunction with the NLG, has opened up its wallet legal fund.

The suit alleges that, on Jan. 27, 2015, the NLG, San Francisco Bay Area Chapter, submitted a PRA request to Hayward PD for body worn camera footage from Hayward police officers who participated in crowd control during demonstrations in December 2014 to protest the refusal of grand juries to indict police officers involved in the deaths of two African American men, Michael Brown and Eric Garner. A number of protestors were injured by the police during these demonstrations. On May 15, 2015, Hayward PD informed the NLG that they would have to pay the department $2,938.58 in order to receive the first round of body camera footage requested. The NLG paid this amount under protest, and faces similar cost bills for the additional video footage requested.

The ACLU points out that the PD's demand for nearly $3,000 in fees violates several parts of California's public records law.

Information that is in an electronic format must be made available in an electronic format when requested by any person and, when applicable, must comply with the following: (1) The agency shall make the information available in any electronic format in which it holds the information. (2) The agency shall provide a copy of the electronic record in the format requested if the requested format is one that has been used by the agency to create copies for its own use or for provision to other agencies.

The cost of duplication shall be limited to the direct cost of producing a copy of a record in an electronic format. Gov. Code § 6253.9(a).

An agency is only permitted to impose additional charges when the request would require data compilation, extraction, or programming to produce the record. Gov. Code § 6253.9(b).

The body camera video requested do not require compilation, extraction or programming.

Respondents have failed to make the records "promptly available" as required by Government Code § 6253(b).

Respondents require payment of unauthorized and excessive charges for the duplication and production of police body camera and hand held videos as a condition of producing such records to members of the public.

Furthermore, the ACLU notes that a failure to rein in the PD's demands for excessive fees will not only dissuade others from exercising their right to examine public records, but encourage the department to continue levying unlawful fees.

I do think the PD can legitimately argue some form of compilation and extraction has been performed to isolate the video footage requested, but it offered no explanation for the amount it charged for processing, much less what steps it took that resulted in this unknown number of billable hours.

Using fees to stymie requesters is one of the easiest ways for government agencies to maintain the opacity they're used to operating under. Even when the demand for excessive fees is accompanied by an explanation of the "costs" the agency is looking to recoup, the breakdowns seem to raise just as many questions as they answer. Whether it's the insistence on charging page duplication fees for responses served electronically, or somehow claiming a record system is impervious to existing search methods, the government still holds most of the cards when it comes to keeping the public separated from public records.

Filed Under: body cams, fees, foia, hayward, hayward pd, police
Companies: aclu, national lawyers guild

DC Mayor Reverses Course On Body Cam Footage, Opens Up Recordings To Citizens And Researchers

from the putting-the-'public'-back-in-public-records dept

Back in April of this year, Washington DC mayor Muriel Bowser sided with the city's law enforcement against transparency and accountability. The mayor promised to outfit officers with body cams in the wake of several, high-profile police-involved shootings. But two weeks after this promise in her State of the District speech, Bowser tucked a provision into a budget bill that would exempt the footage from public records requests.

Supposedly, this was done in the interests of "privacy," but the blanket exception just meant local law enforcement would never feel compelled to hand over less-than-flattering footage. Bad news, to be sure, but only a few months later and Mayor Bowser has completely reversed course.

Police in the nation’s capital would release more footage from body cameras than in any other major U.S. city under a plan from Mayor Muriel E. Bowser that reverses her previous opposition to making such videos public.

Bowser’s proposal, which has the potential to shed light on thousands of recorded interactions between police and the public, would allow private citizens to obtain copies of video recorded on street corners, during traffic stops and elsewhere outdoors.

There will still be some exemptions. Anything recorded in a private residence would be limited to court proceedings and footage of traffic stops resulting in no arrests or citations will be heavily redacted to prevent the inadvertent release of personal information.

The reason for Bowser's change of heart? Police officers just kept right on killing people.

In a statement to The Post, Bowser cited continued police shootings over the past year as a reason for the change, saying the tide has tilted in favor of greater disclosure even as governments must strike a balance between privacy and transparency.

The balance has been tipped back in favor of the public, thanks to the actions of law enforcement. In addition to making most camera footage responsive to public records requests, DC citizens will also be allowed to view footage of incidents they're involved in by heading to their local police station within 90 days of the event. Access to all footage will be granted to researchers studying the effects of body-worn cameras.

DC cops who thought their videotaped misconduct would be stashed away from the prying eyes of the public aren't going to be thrilled with this reversal. And they have no one to blame but their colleagues.

Filed Under: body cams, dc, muriel bowser, privacy, washington dc

LAPD's Body Cams To Be Synced To Taser Deployment

from the recorded-into-compliance dept

The Los Angeles Police Department is going to be compiling some pretty graphic footage in the near future, thanks to Taser International.

Los Angeles police on Tuesday ordered Tasers that, when used, automatically activate cameras on officers' uniforms, which will create visual records of incidents at a time of mounting concern about excessive force by U.S. law enforcement officers.

The 3,000 new digital Taser X26P weapons record the date, time and duration of firing, and whether Taser wires actually strike suspects and how long the thousands of volts of electricity pulse through them.

This is the functional synergy of buying your "less lethal" weapons and body cameras from the same company. A Bluetooth connection between the two engages the camera once the Taser's safety is disengaged. This should provide a fairly decent record of incidents involving this particular form of force, while simultaneously addressing fears that officers might forget to engage the camera during heated situations or lose valuable seconds turning them on manually.

That the device will also record key data about the Taser itself is also encouraging. Even if the camera angle is less than helpful, the captured metrics should give overseers a pretty good idea whether the use of force traveled into "excessive" territory.

On the downside, this is the LAPD, which has already stated that body camera footage will be available only via court proceedings. By cutting out the general public, the LAPD has removed a very important layer of accountability. And the incidents mentioned in the Reuters article as examples of public concern over police use of force (Eric Garner, Michael Brown, Ezell Ford) all notably did not involve the use of a Taser (Garner was choked to death, Brown and Ford were both shot). The new Taser/camera system closes the accountability gap for one particular area, but use of other types of force are still subject to officers' control of their body cameras.

The LAPD has proven in the past that its officers don't care much for being recorded, so the rollout of 7,000 body cameras needs to be treated with more skepticism than optimism. Widespread abuse of DOJ-mandated audio recording devices (missing/disabled antennas, deliberate disengagement) has been greeted by LAPD supervisors with timid hand slapping and "accountability is hard" complaints. There's no reason to believe certain officers won't be able to find a way around this new, automatic recording technology as well.

But, on a theoretical level, it's a better system than relying on officers themselves to engage recording devices before deploying Tasers. Its application in the real world will probably not be quite as foolproof as Taser's spokesman portrays it. And, even if it does roll out smoothly and work as advertised, we're still left with the unfortunate fact that the general public will have very limited access to either the Taser data or the automated recordings.

Filed Under: body cameras, body cams, lapd, police, taser