The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2016 05-02 Police body camera bill passes Minnesota Senate, House looking shaky PIONEER PRESS5/3/2016 Police body camera bill passes Minnesota Senate, House looking shaky Police body camera bill passes Minnesota Senate, House looking shaky By: TAD VEZNER May 2, 2016 tvezner@pioneerpress.com Sgt. Chris Wcklund of the Burnsville Police Department wears a body camera beneath his microphone in November 2014. (AP Photo/Jim Mone) Despite strong support and passage in Minnesota's Senate on Monday, a comprehensive bill governing how police could use body cameras looks increasingly like a long shot this year. With some police agencies saying they'd like some state guidance before they spend money on expensive camera systems, one issue in particular is proving to be a tenacious sticking point between a critical pair of legislators. That issue — the concept of "consent," as in cops needing it to film citizens in their private homes — is a nonstarter for Rep. Tony Cornish, R -Vernon Center, who chairs the House's public safety committee. "All law enforcement together said in unison said they can't stomach consent," Cornish said, saying any such provision would put an officer in an on -the -spot bind trying to figure out who homeowners are, and whether there are circumstances demanding they film anyway. "Plus, the way things are today, turning the camera off would give birth to conspiracies ... There's no way the officer would be protected." But it's something another House Republican — Rep. Peggy Scott, of Andover, who chairs the civil law and data practice committee — says she absolutely needs in a bill. http://www.twi nciti es.com/2016/05/02Jm i nnesota-pol ice -body -cam era-bi I I -senate -passes/ 1/4 09TW1S[y Z Police body camera bill passes Minnesota Senate, House looking shaky ointing out that most police calls to a home are not emergencies, Scott — a civil liberties proponent whose personal information was illegally accessed by law enforcement officials during the recent driver's license data debacle — worries that people would hesitate to call cops if they knew a video of the interior of their homes would be recorded and stored, whether that video becomes public or not. The idea of everything from magazines or tax forms on a coffee table to embarrassing details during a medical call being put into a digital vault scares those concerned with government overreach. "I think it runs into Fourth Amendment issues if they've got a camera rolling in your house, especially if there's a (police) partner walking around while the other's talking to you.... How is that not a search?" Both representatives have! Sponsored bodycamera bills, though neither has received a hearing this year. Scott's bill would have to pass through Cornish's committee, and Cornish's would have to pass through Scott's. So you see the problem. `CONSENT' A STICKING POINT The topic of "consent" was also discussed at length Monday on the Senate floor, before the eventual 47- 14 passage of a body camera bill by Sen. Ron Latz. Latz came out against the idea of officers being required to get consent, while some Republicans spoke in favor of it. Sen. Scott Newman, R -Hutchinson, used an example of a friend who got tangled in their underwear, fell and broke a hip. The police were the first on the scene. "You talk about being in a situation where you lost all your dignity, I think that person should have the right to tell a police officer, turn that camera off," Newman said. Latz offered arguments largely identical to Cornish's, and an amendment requiring consent failed. Latz's bill has largely the same language as one he passed through the Senate last year, but was dropped in conference committee. Police watchdog groups and transparency advocates have criticized Latz's bill, saying it is — like Cornish's — too closely aligned with law enforcement interests and keeps too much data private. Latz disputed that on the Senate floor, saying his bill is meant to balance transparency with the rights of citizens wanting to keep their most embarrassing moments private from "nosy neighbors." Latz's bill states that the general public can only see footage if it's on public property — and involves police use of force that results in substantial bodily harm. Still, someone involved in the incident could get the video and make it public — after an effort is made to redact the identities of others in the video http://www.twi nciti es.com/2016/05/02Jm i nnesota-pol ice -body -cam era-bi I I -senate -passes/ 2/4 5/3/2016 Police body camera bill passes Minnesota Senate, House looking shaky who don't sign off, and after the active investigation is done. Police or a court could order the video released, as well. Most data would be deleted in a year, with a few exceptions, such as an officer causing substantial bodily harm or a formal complaint being filed. A CONTROVERSIAL AMENDMENT Back in the House, Reps. Scott and Cornish have been talking for weeks about ways to come together. Scott said she has made concessions, agreeing to remove a portion of her bill that would stop police from reviewing body camera footage before writing a report. That rule is strongly supported by police watchdog groups, who say allowing police to watch videos before writing police reports would ruin the evidentiary value of those reports, and note accused citizens aren't allowed to view videos before they give police statements. Police groups say watching videos would just improve the accuracy of their reports. In a tight vote Monday, an amendment allowing police to review videos before writing reports was added to Sen. Latz's bill by Sen. Tomassoni, DFL – Chisholm. "I think in the final analysis this is the appropriate way to go.... The goal is to have as accurate a report as possible," Latz said. It was strongly opposed by Sen. Bobby Joe Champion, DFL -Minneapolis, who called it a 11mischaracterization of justice." Cornish said that if he and Scott can't come together in the House, he'll at least introduce a smaller piece of legislation doing just what Tomassoni's amendment does: bar any police agency from preventing cops from reviewing footage before writing reports. He'd likely introduce that in conference committee, a negotiating process where House and Senate legislators get together to iron out any differences. In the meantime, top police officials say they're hoping for a bit more. "I know of (police) agencies saying we're ready — they have the dollars allocated, but they have not made a purchase, because there isn't legislative clarity about the policies," said Maplewood police chief Paul Schnell, who often represents the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association at the Capitol. "And we feel some level of community demand that we implement these cameras." But Don Gemberling, a spokesman for the Minnesota Coalition on Government Information, said he'd rather have no bill than something he believes is weighted toward law enforcement interests, which he http://www.twi nciti es.com/2016/05/02Jm i nnesota-pol ice -body -cam era-bi I I -senate -passes/ 3/4 5/3/2016 Police body camera bill passes Minnesota Senate, House looking shaky believes will erode trust between police and minorities, when it should have helped it. The amendment about police reviewing tapes is strongly opposed by both the St. Paul and Minneapolis NAACP. "The objective since day one has been transparency," Gemberling said. "If you have one that keeps most data private, when you run that by regular folks, they say, why did we spend all that money?" http://www.twi nciti es.com/2016/05/02Jm i nnesota-pol ice -body -cam era-bi I I -senate -passes/ 4/4