Laserfiche WebLink
further restrictions on their use or any <br />reduction in the current 60 -day retention <br />period. <br />DP -9. Police -Worn Body Cameras <br />Issue: Police -worn body cameras have the <br />potential to provide invaluable evidence <br />when investigating crimes and prosecuting <br />criminals, and to strengthen trust of citizens <br />in law enforcement by increasing the <br />accountability between peace officers and <br />the public. The data collected in use -of -force <br />incidents can help determine whether an <br />officer used appropriate force and clarify <br />conflicting accounts of events. The data <br />from body cameras can also help protect <br />peace officers who are falsely accused of <br />wrongdoing. <br />Each community in Minnesota is unique, <br />and the Legislature should allow each <br />community and local law enforcement <br />agency to determine whether to use police - <br />worn body cameras. Due to the complexity <br />of implementation, local communities <br />should retain the authority to determine, in <br />consultation with their citizens, how body <br />cameras will be used by their officers. <br />Police -worn body cameras also raise <br />unprecedented questions regarding the <br />personal privacy of citizens who interact <br />with peace officers. A peace officer can <br />never know whether a routine interaction <br />will become important or controversial, and <br />in order to ensure that body cameras record <br />important information they will be turned on <br />for many interactions that take place outside <br />of criminal investigations. The vast majority <br />of peace officer interactions with the public <br />do not involve criminal investigations, and <br />individuals have legitimate concerns about <br />whether these non -criminal interactions with <br />the police should be made available to the <br />general public. The Minnesota Government <br />Data Practices Act (MGDPA) provides <br />privacy protections for certain crime <br />victims, witnesses, minors, and vulnerable <br />adults, but the video data collected on the <br />vast majority of crime victims and citizens <br />would be public data and available to <br />anyone who requested it. All individuals <br />who ask peace officers for help should be <br />protected by the MGDPA—making public a <br />video of an officer giving advice to parents <br />of a child experiencing emotional turmoil or <br />trouble at school should not be a trade-off <br />for the increased transparency that body <br />cameras bring. <br />Similarly, an arrest report that is currently <br />public data does not contain images of a <br />person's home or family members that may <br />appear in the background of a video taken <br />by a body camera during an investigation or <br />interview. There is no public policy reason <br />to make this additional type of content <br />public. Conversations between citizens and <br />officers are the bedrock of community <br />policing, and these routine interactions, even <br />if held in public places, should not be <br />classified as public data. If the privacy rights <br />of citizens are not well -protected by the state <br />citizens may be hesitant to call for help, <br />allow peace officers to enter their homes, or <br />even to engage in a conversation with an <br />officer on the street. This threatens to erode <br />the trust, and resulting cooperation, that <br />body cameras are intended to strengthen. <br />While privacy is important, the public <br />should have access to certain types of police <br />encounters, such as those involving the use <br />of force by peace officers that results in at <br />least demonstrable bodily harm, regardless <br />of whether the subject of the data chooses to <br />make the video public. Law enforcement <br />agencies should have discretion to make <br />public videos in order to dispel suspicion or <br />unrest. <br />Finally, the massive amount of data that will <br />be collected by police -worn body cameras <br />League of Minnesota Cities <br />2016 City Policies Page 90 <br />