The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2015 07-26 Paul Schnell: Body cams record more than most people should see PIONEER PRESS Paul Schnell: Body cams record more than most penple should see Updated:07/262015 01:24:21 PM CDT TwinCities.com �'`�f�fl�;°� �► Historically, police reports have been the standard means and �� °� �'�. � method of documentin g police response to calls for service along � ; �-� � with the self-initiated actions of officers. Police-officer-worn body � cameras document police-citizen interactions without the filters. ? ` � ' "''� ��' Body-wom cameras also capture images in incidents and , � ;�:' II `'� � locations where privacy is most expected--even inside a �� person's home. � �i LeYs consider a couple of examples: t � , } A police report might contain the sentence, "The victim was highly � �� . emotional while describing the threats made by her boyfriend." �; `` While this sentence is entirely accurate,the video of that �t �'` � "�-� � Y interaction shows the intensiry of the victim's emotional state in ,�.�,� - ways that provide greater context to the victim's experience and the very nature of the crime. The video is not something that most believe should be publicly available except as needed for court proceedings. Consider this scenario.An o�cer's report in response to mental health crisis might have the following description, "The subject had taken the remaining quantity of his antidepressants, had lacerations on both wrists, and was shouting that he wanted to be left alone to die."While the officer's report provides a description,you can imagine that up close, and personal,body camera images of this interaction could be intense and sensitive. No doubt the subject of this data would want pubiic access to the interaction held as privately as possible. If such video of what may be the worst day of person's life were publicly available, it could be highly embarrassing, even destructive. Or this;you call a police officer to your home because someone broke into your car and stole your GPS unit and other low- value items. The officer sits at your kitchen table getting report information all the while capturing body-worn-camera video of you,your family members, and the inside and contents of your home. The officer later prepares a report describing the theft from the time spent with you--who,what,when,where, and how of the crime was committed. Obviously,the police report is about the theft, but the body camera captured a good deal more. To think that video of the encounter in any of the above-described incidents could be requested and watched by anyone who asks for it may seem absurd. Minnesota law, as it is today,would provide access to this data to anyone who asks. More concerning is that anyone could make a bulk video data request for all of a police departmenYs body-worn-camera video data.With limited exceptions law enforcement agencies would be compelled to turn over the video data. Police work includes a steady dose of human drama and tragedy, but the day-to-day of policing in communities big and small includes a lot of relatively short encounters with a wide range of people. Some seek advice, "What are my options for dealing with my"out of control"teenage child?"Some seek help, "Can you talk to my neighbor about his dog that won't stop barking and keeps my kids awake?"Some don't expect police contact, "Ma'am,there's been an accident and your son was seriously hurt(or worse)."All of these occurrences happen every day across Minnesota.And, if current sentiment continues, any number of these police-citizen encounters could be recorded on an officer's body-worn camera. Should law enforcement document police-citizen encounters with body worn cameras?While each community will need to struggle to answer this question, law enforcement appears to be heading in that direction. Some say the move toward cameras is because police want the latest toys. �disagree. High-profile police incidents across the U.S. have resulted in calis for the use of this technology.We all know iYs not the use of a body-worn camera at issue;iYs the data. Some will argue that all body-worn-camera data should be wholly public to ensure the ability to provide oversight and accountability. I don't disagree that full access to body-camera data provides a additional level of checks and balances, but that comes at the high price of individual privacy.Allowing the subject of the body-camera data access to the data puts the subject in control of what happens with the data. Because video is different from the written word, it makes sense to classify body-worn-camera data differently. Police reports that are today public should remain so. But images taken inside people's homes or other locations where there is an expectation of privacy(hospitals, schools,or social services facilities)should be private—available only to the subject of that video upon request. Images of people who are unclothed, victims of a medical emergency, or a mental-health crisis should feel confident that such video will only be shared with them or their lawfully designated representative. aul Schnell: Body cams record more than most people should see - TwinCities.com Page 2 0: A police report is intended to be an accurate summary of a police-citizen contact. Video data is more. Video shows how I looked that day, it shows how clean or dirty my home was that day, and it depicts the exact words I used to describe the problem no matter how imperfect. Sure, the police report and body-camera data are different mediums documenting the same interaction, but it seems clear that video imagery is different and should be treated as such. A good many of my police chief colleagues and I recognize that one of the most prevalent concerns as it relates to law enforcement is transparency in the use of force. To that end, body-camera video documenting law enforcement use of force deserves a status that allows broader levels of access by the public or the media who have a constitutionally protected role in government oversight. After all, it is the high-profile use-of-force occurrences that resulted in the call for expanded use of body-worn cameras. But, it is the day-to-day communications between police and community members �� that should be honored in a manner that reflects the privacy rights of the person with whom the officer interacts. The debate of legislators to forge a long-term solution for the management of data resulting from body-worn cameras and other emerging technologies is necessary. In the meantime, some of my colleagues and I, on behalt of the communities we serve, are preparing and will submit a temporary data classifcation application to Minnesota's Commissioner of Administration. This request will seek to protect certain body-wom-camera data from unfettered public access. The request is not an effort for law enforcement to have a curtain to hide behind as some have suggested. Instead, we seek protections of the data where there are reasonable expectations of privacy, by limiting its availabiliry only to the data subjects or the courts. Should a temporary data classification be granted, individual privacy rights will be protected until community and legislative debate results in the creation of a comprehensive and lasting public policy. The use of this or any technology comes with a range of implications -- some positive and some complicated. Body-worn- camera data can provide increased transparency. The data can provide law enforcement executives a valuable accountability tool. It can also serve to protect the interests and rights of crime victims, those accused, and Minnesota's law enforcement officers. I encourage continued debate and discussion as we seek to ensure fair, measured, and humane law- enforcement service delivery. Paul Schnell is chief of police in Maplewood. His email address is paul.schnell@ci.maplewood.mn.us.