Laserfiche WebLink
make it extraordinarily difficult and <br />prohibitively expensive to comply with all <br />of the requirements to categorize, protect, <br />and provide data, or respond to broad or <br />standing requests for data. Law enforcement <br />agencies cannot identify every individual <br />who is a subject of video data, especially if <br />the video is of a large crowd. Similarly, it is <br />impossible for officers to know all of the <br />information that impacts the classification of <br />data. For example, it is certain that <br />mandated reporters will be captured on <br />video discussing a concern but not be <br />identified by their protected classification. <br />The fact that the individual is a mandated <br />reporter who should receive privacy <br />protection under the law may not become <br />known until after the data is released. The <br />cost and administrative burden of complying <br />with the MGDPA will preclude some <br />communities from outfitting their <br />departments with body cameras, regardless <br />of whether the community wants them. <br />The MGDPA classifies most government <br />data as public unless otherwise classified by <br />statute. This system does not work for body <br />camera data, both because of the sensitive <br />nature of much of the video and the sheer <br />volume of inherently mixed data that will be <br />collected. The default classification of body <br />camera video data should be not public data. <br />This will better protect the privacy of <br />citizens and ensure the right of data subjects <br />to access body camera video that is not part <br />of an active criminal investigation or <br />otherwise classified as confidential. Data <br />subjects will still have the right to obtain and <br />share videos with the public, while treating <br />all victims the same, regardless of whether <br />they are the victim of a sexual assault, a <br />mugging, home invasion, or any other <br />crime. It will also keep peace officer <br />conduct subject to public review. <br />Response: Local law enforcement agencies <br />should be allowed to decide whether to <br />equip law enforcement officers with body <br />cameras and be given the flexibility to <br />decide how they are used in the field. In <br />order to protect the privacy rights of <br />citizens, to maintain trust between law <br />enforcement and the public, and to <br />protect all crime victims, the MGDPA <br />should be amended to classify video data <br />as private data on individuals or <br />nonpublic data unless it is part of an <br />active criminal investigation, in which <br />case it should be classified as active <br />criminal data. This classification balances <br />the interests of transparency and privacy <br />by allowing the subjects of data to access <br />video and share it with the public if they <br />desire. <br />Video data involving the use of force by a <br />peace officer that causes at least <br />demonstrable bodily harm should be <br />classified as public data to ensure public <br />accountability by law enforcement. Law <br />enforcement agencies should also have the <br />discretion to make public data that would <br />otherwise be classified as private data on <br />individuals or nonpublic data when <br />necessary to dispel suspicion or unrest. <br />Federal Employment Law <br />FED -1. Consolidated Omnibus <br />Budget Reconciliation Act <br />(COBRA) <br />Issue: The federal Consolidated Omnibus <br />Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) law, <br />which requires employers to offer continued <br />health and dental insurance group benefits <br />after an employee terminates, has been <br />interpreted to apply to Employee Assistance <br />Programs (EAPs), health funding <br />mechanisms such as Health Reimbursement <br />Arrangements (HRA)/Voluntary Employee <br />Benefit Accounts (VEBAs), and flexible <br />benefits. The application of COBRA <br />League of Minnesota Cities <br />2016 City Policies Page 91 <br />