Laserfiche WebLink
Readers law and the Police -Worn Body <br />Camera law. <br />License Plate Readers (LPRs) are an <br />important tool that assist law enforcement <br />agencies in locating wanted individuals, <br />recover stolen vehicles, and many other <br />types of investigations. Nevertheless, the use <br />of this technology raises legitimate privacy <br />concerns. In 2015, the Legislature passed <br />compromise legislation regulating the use of <br />LPRs, the classification of LPR data, and the <br />retention period for LPR data that struck a <br />fair balance between the need for robust law <br />enforcement and individual privacy rights. <br />Police -worn body cameras (or portable <br />recording systems) provide invaluable <br />evidence when investigating crimes and <br />prosecuting criminals, and strengthened trust <br />of citizens in law enforcement by increasing <br />the accountability between peace officers <br />and the public. Different than other kinds of <br />data, body camera data use involves the <br />unique complexities of the sensitive nature <br />in its use in private homes as well as the <br />sheer volume of data in daily use. In 2016, <br />the Legislature contemplated all of these <br />issues and passed compromise legislation <br />regulating use of body cameras, <br />classification of body camera data, retention <br />period for body camera data, release of body <br />camera data, audit requirements, and written <br />policy requirements. <br />Response: Cities and/or law enforcement <br />agencies should be allowed to decide <br />whether to utilize technology and be given <br />the flexibility to decide how they are used <br />in the field. The League supports the <br />continued use of License Plate Readers <br />under the terms of the 2015 legislation, <br />and opposes any further restrictions on <br />their use or any reduction in the current <br />60-day retention period. <br />The League supports the continued use of <br />Police -Worn Body Cameras under the <br />terms of the 2016 legislation, and opposes <br />any further restrictions on their use, data <br />classification, retention period, or written <br />policy requirements. <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). The application of <br />COBRA benefits to these programs results <br />in unlikely and impractical outcomes. <br />Response: Congress should clarify the <br />intended benefits to which COBRA law <br />should apply, excluding EAP programs. <br />FED-2. Flexible Spending Accounts <br />Issue: Health care costs are rising <br />dramatically and employees need financial <br />relief. Flexible spending accounts provide <br />some relief, but the current "use it or lose it" <br />provision for medical spending discourages <br />employees from participating in this <br />program. <br />Response: The League of Minnesota <br />Cities supports legislation that would <br />allow employees to roll unused funds over <br />to the next plan year, or into a tax - <br />qualified retirement plan, or a 457 plan. <br />League of Minnesota Cities <br />2018 City Policies Page 99 <br />