PA Supreme Court permits access to police videos

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled the public should have access to dash camera video footage unless the police agency can prove it amounts to criminal investigative material and may be redacted, reported the Associated Press.

The Supreme Court ruled 5-2 in favor of a lower-court decision granting access to video shot by the dash cameras of two state troopers’ vehicles as they responded to a 2014 crash near State College. The majority says police vehicle recordings, as a general rule, are not exempt from public disclosure.

The state police had argued the recordings always contain criminal investigative material, but Justice Kevin Dougherty wrote that such determinations must be made on a case-by-case basis.

In the dispute before the court, he said, the video showed troopers investigating the crash scene and talking to the drivers and bystanders.

The decision said the only part of the recordings that is potentially investigative was the audio from witness interviews — portions that had been ordered redacted by a lower court.

“PSP simply does not explain how the video portion of the (recordings) captured any criminal investigation,” Dougherty wrote.

State police had argued the videos should be exempt under the Right-to-Know Law and a state law limiting access to criminal records. An agency spokesman said the case was under review.

The state associations of county commissioners and township supervisors had supported the state police’s position, arguing the response to a traffic crash made the recordings investigative in nature.

The requester, Michelle Grove, wanted videos taken after a crash in Potters Mills, about 15 miles east of State College. One driver was cited for not wearing a seatbelt and the other for failing to yield.

To read more CLICK HERE

The many uses of a police body camera beyond interaction with the public

A Miami Beach police officer worried about his words being twisted at trial, recently used his newly outfitted “body camera” to record a hallway interview by a defense attorney — without telling her first, reported the Miami Herald. 

The resulting objection from the Miami-Dade Public Defender’s Office, it is safe to say, was strenuous.

The episode and backlash have spurred Miami Beach police to ban officers from using the new technology at such so-called “hallway depositions” — and underscored the difficult balance of providing the public a transparent view of how law enforcement operates while protecting privacy rights.

“These are issues we are all struggling over as we are learning this technology,” said Miami Beach Police Chief Dan Oates.

The incident sparked outrage from the Public Defender’s office, which called the recording “a violation of Florida law” and re-ignited long-running complaints that defense attorneys in minor cases are generally not allowed formal interviews with witnesses before trial.

“My biggest issue is that there are no depositions in misdemeanor court. For too long, we have treated misdemeanors as if they are not serious,” said Miami-Dade Public Defender Carlos Martinez. “They can seriously impact people’s abilities to get jobs. They can get their driver licenses suspended.” 

Body-cam programs for police have increased along with national scrutiny of law enforcement tactics amid a series of high-profile deadly encounters between officers and citizens. Lethal police shootings from Missouri to New York to Florida have spurred calls for outfitting officers with the small digital cameras, mounted next to an officer’s badge.

“One officer did it for a narrow reason in that he was worried whatever he said was going to be misrepresented by the public defender in the courtroom,” Oates said.

The police union said there is no expectation of privacy in in the courtroom hallway.

“It’s a public area,” said Kevin Millan, the fraternal order’s vice president. “Any member of the public, including the media, can tape in that area.”

Ultimately, the case  was dismissed. Although the department said the officer did nothing wrong, after meeting with prosecutors, the department has ordered officers to leave the cameras off in the hallways. Officers can now ask that prosecutors stand in on misdemeanor “hallway depositions.”

“For these misdemeanor cases, both the State Attorney’s Office and the Department want to avoid a continuance and avoid formal depositions,” Oates wrote in an email on March 15. “This is because any postponement of a misdemeanor trial almost always favors the defendant and increases the likelihood that the case will be dismissed.”

The decision was met with dismay from the union, which while not in favor of body cameras in general, thinks they should be allowed so that officers can “protect their rights.”

The new policy has done little to mollify Martinez, the public defender who now plans to file a public-records request to determine exactly how many times Miami Beach police officers have recorded his lawyers in court. He believes that officers will now stop consenting to the informal interviews, leaving defense lawyers less prepared to defend the accused.

“You have a constitutional issue here. You cannot prepare to go trial,” Martinez said. “You cannot adequately advise your client. It’s outrageous.”

To read more CLICK HERE

DOJ report on police body-worn cameras

The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office) released Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned.   The report analyzes some of the costs and benefits of law enforcement using body-worn video technology, according to a DOJ press release.

“Law enforcement agencies across the nation are contemplating how best to use body-worn cameras and these guidelines will help them weight the costs and benefits,” said COPS Office Director Ronald L. Davis.   “There are many considerations when implementing a body-worn camera and this report will help chiefs and sheriffs make the best decision for their jurisdiction.”

The publication was developed jointly by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) and COPS through a cooperative agreement under the FY 2013 Community Policing Development Program.   PERF conducted research on the use of body-worn cameras, identified promising practices and lessons learned from the field, and produced a set of guidelines for agencies interested in implement a body-worn camera program.   Included in this effort was a one-day executive session with more than 200 police chiefs, sheriffs, scholars, representatives from federal criminal justice agencies, and other experts present to share experiences and lessons learned about body-worn cameras, to identify promising practices from the field, and to engage in a dialogue about the issues surrounding cameras.

The publication reviews the perceived benefits of body-worn cameras and considerations surrounding body-worn cameras before proposing a set of comprehensive policy recommendations that reflect the promising practices and lessons that emerged from PERF’s conference and its extensive discussions with police executives and other experts following the conference.

The policy recommendations cover all aspects of what a police department should consider when deciding to use body cameras including:

·          Basic camera usage, such as who will be assigned to wear the cameras and where on the body the cameras are authorized to be placed;

·          Recording protocols, including when to activate the camera, when to turn it off, and the types of circumstances in which recording is required, allowed or prohibited;

·          The process for downloading recorded data from the camera, including who is responsible for downloading, when data must be downloaded, where data will be stored, and how to safeguard against data tampering or deletion;

·          The length of time recorded data will be retained by the agency in various circumstances;

·          The process and policies for accessing and reviewing recorded data, including the persons authorized to access data and the circumstances in which recorded data can be reviewed; and

·          Policies for releasing recorded data to the public, including protocols regarding redactions and responding to public disclosure requests.


The Full Report