What you need to know about body cams right now, served up by the LMC Research and Information Service team. Definition: Body-worn video cameras, also known as “body cams,” are closed-circuit television video recording systems often placed on the front of a law enforcement officer’s uniform.
Plain-language explanation:
Body cams are typically worn by law enforcement to record their interactions
with the public or to gather video evidence at crime scenes, and have the
potential to increase both officer and citizen accountability. Body cams are
notable because they can provide a first-person perspective and a more complete
chain of evidence than, say, a dash cam.
In the news:
Several high profile cases of officer-involved shootings have made the use of
body cameras a hot topic. Here in Minnesota, some local
governments and law enforcement agencies are choosing to adopt body cam use, or are in the process of figuring out how to pay for them, while others are waiting for clarification from the Legislature on how data from body cams should be handled before deciding whether to adopt this
new technology.
Pros: Police-worn
body cameras have the potential to provide evidence when investigating crimes
and prosecuting criminals, and to strengthen trust of citizens in law
enforcement by increasing the accountability between peace officers and the
public. The data collected in use-of-force incidents can help determine whether
an officer used appropriate force and clarify conflicting accounts of events.
The data from body cameras can also help protect peace officers who are falsely
accused of wrongdoing.
Cons: The
Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA) generally classifies this video data as
public. A peace officer can never know when a routine interaction will become important
or controversial, and in order to ensure that body cams record important information
the cameras will likely be turned on in many situations that ultimately do not
result in criminal investigations such as traffic stops, welfare checks, and medical
assistance calls—i.e. those really crummy days when you’d rather not have your
cameo made available for all to see. The MGDPA provides privacy protections for
certain crime victims, witnesses, minors, and vulnerable adults, but the video
data collected on the vast majority of citizens who would otherwise be
protected by these privacy protections or are not part of a criminal
investigation would be available to anyone who requested it.
In
addition to privacy concerns, departments using body cameras must have the
resources available for collecting and storing these video files, and for responding
to requests for video data. This cost may be too expensive for small cities,
and larger cities with lots of video data may need to hire new staff for
managing the data.
League position: Local law enforcement
agencies should be allowed to decide whether to equip law enforcement officers
with body cams and be given the flexibility to decide how they are used in the
field. In order to protect the privacy rights of citizens, to maintain trust
between law enforcement and the public, and to protect all crime victims, the
MGDPA should be amended to classify video data as “private data on individuals”
or “nonpublic data” unless it is part of an active criminal investigation, in
which case it should be classified as “active criminal data.”
This classification of active criminal data balances the interests of
transparency and privacy by allowing the subjects of data to access video and
share it with the public if they desire. (See definitions of data
classifications in MN law here)
Video
data involving the use of force by a peace officer that causes at least
demonstrable bodily harm should be classified as public data despite an active
investigation to ensure public accountability by law enforcement. Law
enforcement agencies should also have the discretion to make public any videos that
would otherwise be classified as private data on individuals or nonpublic data
when necessary to dispel suspicion or unrest, such as in cases when an
accusation of misbehavior is made but no “demonstrable bodily harm” was
involved.
Resources:
The League of Minnesota Cities has developed a memo and model policy
for police departments considering the use of body cameras. You can learn
more about body cam legislation being discussed at the Capitol in the Cities Bulletin.
This information has been compiled by Amber Eisenschenk, staff attorney with the League of Minnesota Cities. Contact: aeisenschenk@lmc.org or (651) 281-1227.
This blog post conveys general information. It’s not legal advice. Please check with your city attorney before acting on this information.
This information has been compiled by Amber Eisenschenk, staff attorney with the League of Minnesota Cities. Contact: aeisenschenk@lmc.org or (651) 281-1227.
This blog post conveys general information. It’s not legal advice. Please check with your city attorney before acting on this information.