HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015 09-28 State agency rejects request by cops to classify body camera footage as private STAR TRIBUNE (http://www,sta rtri bune.com/pol itics/statelocal/hot_dish_politics/)
State agency rejects request by cops to
classify body camera footage as private
By Abby Simons SEPTEMBER 28,2015-4:35PM
A state agency on Monday rejected a move by several Minnesota police departments to
classify body camera footage as private,saying that state law should clarify how the
data is handled in the wake of the fast-growing technology.
The request,made by the city of Maplewood and joined by 181aw enforcement agencies
across the state,asked Department of Administration Commissioner Matt Massman to
temporarily classify the footage as private,unless it involves the use of a dangerous
weapon by an officer or the use of physical force by an officer that causes bodily hann.
The Sept.14 application letter notes the concern by officers over victims of domestic
violence or sexual assault who may be reluctant to give a statement if they kne�,the
footage could be public.Current law does not adequately address the issue of addressing
both a citizen's right to privacy and the public's right to information,they argued.
"'This balancing test begs the question:Is public purpose served by allowing unf'ettered
public access to body worn data showing a vicum in distress,a person experiencing
traumatic stress,wlnerable or mentally ill person in a[compromised]state due to their
life circumstances or the nature of their victirnization?"Maplewood Police Chief Paul
Schnell wrote in the Sept.14 application letter."If the answer is`yes'then does a citizen's
constitutionally protected right to privacy outweigh the public's right to access the body
camera data?"
In his rejection letter,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.
`"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.
Massman noted that the application raises important questions of how the state should
balance the public's access to data with their own right to privacy in the wake of the new
technology.
"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 sensirive circumstances.Body cam data
can include much greater detaIl than might be contained in a written law enfarcement
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."
Efforts to limit access to police body camera footage stalled in the Legislature.The
Senate passed a series of regulations for the still-fledgling devices—worn by a handful of
police departments across the state—that would largely classify the video they gather as
private.However,the House rejected the amendment.The issue is almost certain to
arise again when the Legislature reconvenes in March 2016.
Bod Cam A htt s://www.scribd.corrUdoG283030537/Bod -Cam-A