Local police chiefs react to proposed statewide body cam policy

With the help of Vermont law enforcement, the Vermont Department of Public Safety has finalized a model policy report for officers using body cameras.

www.eagletimes.com    

2016-12-28 / Front Page Local police chiefs react to proposed statewide body cam policy By TORY JONES toryb@eagletimes.com With the help of Vermont law enforcement, the Vermont Department of Public Safety has finalized a model policy report for officers using body cameras. The department of public safety’s Law Enforcement Advisory Board (LEAB) report, “Model Body Worn Camera (BWC) Policy: Report to General Assembly and House and Senate Committees on Judiciary and on Government Operations (Act 163),” was available for view on Thursday, Dec. 22. Springfield Police Chief Doug Johnston said the Springfield Police Department does not use body cameras at this time, and that he has no immediate plans to purchase them. “It is going to be interesting to see what the state will do,” Johnston said in an interview on Tuesday, Dec. 27. He said state legislators would need to clarify several issues, including whether officers can review video before completing paperwork. Johnston said he has heard that some of those involved in setting policy have suggested that officers should not be able to review their body-cam footage before writing their reports. “That doesn’t make sense,” he said. To complete the report, the LEAB gathered information from state law enforcement agencies already using body cameras. The board also received input from American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) representatives and from the Vermont Network Against Domestic Violence and Domestic Abuse. They also relied on a comprehensive report prepared by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), incorporating those policy guidelines into an Appendix A - which includes officer responsibilities, and permitted and prohibited actions - to provide agencies with suggested language for a model policy’s essential components. The ACLU had requested that officers be “prohibited from viewing BWC recordings” before writing a report after an incident involving serious use of force, according to the report. When that idea was presented to the law enforcement community at large, it was “vehemently rejected,” the advisory board said in the report. The report stated that at this time, the LEAB would “recommend against specific policy provisions in statute because the science around human memory and perception relative to traumatic events is still evolving,” citing U.S. Supreme Court provisions around what is considered a reasonable use of force in the case of Graham v. Connor. Johnston said that for his department to consider using BWCs, there are a “lot of issues that need to be ironed out.” For instance, the state would need to further work to clarify how police would protect juveniles’ identities in video that may be released to media, because the SPD would not have the technology to blur a minor’s face in video before releasing that video, according to the chief. If body cameras were state-mandated, lawmakers would also need to clarify who pays for digital storage, and for copies of the videos if members of the media make Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, he said. At this time, the department has cameras in its vehicles, and audio recording when officers enter a home. The state requires they notify homeowners that an officer is recording them, he said. Johnston said that he is not opposed to body cameras, but that he has a “lot of questions.” The state may be leaning toward making BWCs mandatory, but many police departments in Vermont are tiring of the state putting forth “unfunded mandates,” Johnston said. In Bellows Falls, Police and Fire Chief Ron Lake said that the police department has been talking about BWCs, but that they don’t have them yet. Lake said he would like to have the cameras if the department could find the funds for it. With a cost of about $1,000 per camera, a lot of small police departments do not have the funding right now, he said. Lake said he thinks body cameras would be a useful tool, and that he is looking forward to finding a grant he can apply for to fund the purchase and setup. “We would ask for 14-15 of them,” he said. The department currently has one body camera it has been using in a wear test, but that camera is heavy and outdated. Newer, state-of-the-art body cameras are lightweight and easier to attach to a uniform, he said. Lake said the law enforcement budget in the Bellows Falls and Rockingham community is “significant,” but does not have the extra funds at this time to support the use of body cameras. If the state makes BWCs mandatory, he would have to ask taxpayers for those funds, he said. Once the BFPD can obtain body cameras, officers would train with instructional videos and other training, he said. The model policy report issued on Dec. 22 recommends that agencies apply for grants to help mitigate the costs, if a statewide policy is established. Grant funding would usually only be available to cover the initial equipment purchase price, however, according to the report. Costs to establish a BWC program would center on equipment purchase and associated storage. A single camera purchase ranges from $400 to $1,000, depending on agency’s choice of model, according to the report. Storage costs varied from a one-time cost of $2,500 to annual “cloud” storage fees ranging from $99 to $500 per unit. Law enforcement agencies have already adopted some strategies to minimize costs, and the LEAB “would not be able to offer anything to agencies that would significantly improve what they were already doing about managing costs,” the report stated. The advisory board said a few agencies have taken advantage of grant funds to absorb or offset the initial purchase. In general, grants would not help agencies adding to or replacing existing equipment, unless that was part of the initial grant terms, according to the report. The model policy also includes provisions for when a law enforcement officer should wear a body camera, under what circumstances the officer should turn the camera on and off, and a requirement that the officer provide the reasons for doing so, each time it is turned on and off. It also touches on when a BWC recording should not have to be disclosed under the Public Records Act, and treatment of situations when the camera malfunctions, or is unavailable. The LEAB, when reviewing existing policies in police departments in Vermont, found that most already had policies in place that met the board’s requirements. The full report is available at http://legislature.vermont.gov/assets/Legislative-Reports/LEAB-BWC-Repor....