Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016 12-06 Police union argues in court against body camera policy PIONEER PRESS MainPage 1 of 2 Police union argues in court against body camera policy Maplewood By Tad Vezner tvezner@pioneerpress.com Are police supervisors placing officers with body cameras under “surveillance?” That’s the argument Maplewood’s police union used Monday to ask for a temporary injunction against the city’s body camera law. The term caused Ramsey County District Court judge Jennifer Frisch to smirk and spar. “I’m using a different term than you,” she told attorney Tim Louris, representing Law Enforcement Labor Services, the state’s biggest police union, representing numerous suburban and rural departments. “I’m using the term ‘supervise,’ not ‘surveil.’ … Supervisors are hired — that’s why these positions exist — to monitor the work of employees.” The union was arguing against a provision in Maplewood’s law, which has been in effect since mid- November, requiring sergeants to randomly pick a couple video clips a month from officers’ body cameras to review, in order to see if department policies are being followed. “They’re being surveiled, and I would call that a harm,” Louris said. “How is that a harm?” Judge Frisch asked. “It’s a change in working conditions.” The basis of the union’s suit is that these kind of provisions should have been covered during a collective bargaining process — and to not do so deprived the union of its purpose for existence, and thus caused it harm. “Isn’t that something supervisors … have the right to do anyway?” Frisch asked. What was so different than following an officer under supervision around in a car? Louris argued that the body cameras were much more pervasive than what officers are typically used to. If a supervisor followed an officer around in a car all day and watched them, that would be a change in working conditions, too. Maplewood’s policy calls for cameras to be turned on during all calls for service but not during “incidental contacts” with citizens or when officers are driving around between calls. Attorney Susan Hansen, representing Maplewood, argued the city had the right to manage its own employees and noted that any disciplinary procedures were still under union guidelines. The only other aspect the union argued with is a longstanding sticking point — one that prompted a veto threat from Gov. Mark Dayton when body camera legislation was under debate at the Capitol this year. http://saintpaulpioneerpress.mn.newsmemory.com/ee/_nmum/_default_bb_include_infram...12/8/2016 MainPage 2 of 2 That point: whether officers can review footage before writing up reports or statements on incidents. In Maplewood, the policy narrows the debate to “critical incidents” — in which officers cause great bodily harm or death — and statements made to whatever agency was investigating the incident. In Maplewood’s case, that agency is the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. In order for an officer to look at the footage before giving a statement, which they aren’t required to do, they’d need permission from three entities: the police chief, the BCA, and whoever the prosecutorial agency (such as the Ramsey County Attorney’s Office) would be. Such instances would likely be rare, given the fact that the BCA has come out against allowing officers “prior review” in cases they investigate. Critics have argued that allowing police a prior peek at video footage, rather than writing their impressions in the moment, would ruin the evidentiary value of such statements in court. They also said the practice would create a double standard against defendants who didn’t get to review footage before making statements of their own. The law enforcement lobby argued that increased accuracy in reports trumped other concerns. Louris argued Monday that officers didn’t always have exact recollection after traumatic incidents and had to rely on their “faulty memory.” “Where is that in the record?” Frisch asked, asking whether he had presented anything to support the claim in his filings. “That’s not in the record,” Louris replied. Maplewood currently has four officers using body cameras. St. Paul’s policy, currently in draft form, allows officers to review footage after they have “met with the investigative entity or designee regarding the process for a critical incident,” again likely referring to the BCA. Tuesday, 12/06/2016 Pag.A04Copyright © 2016, St. Paul Pioneer Press. Please review new arbitration language here. 12/6/2016 http://saintpaulpioneerpress.mn.newsmemory.com/ee/_nmum/_default_bb_include_infram...12/8/2016