Not all that long ago some groups demanded police wear body cameras as they policed their streets; some police agencies thought so too.
The thought was this would provide an accurate account of what happened during encounters with the people being policed, perhaps protecting everyone involved.
I didn’t think the idea was a bad one, but I’m also not convinced it would make much difference.
Turns out though, the practice of wearing the cameras wasn’t as easy as just putting one on and hitting the streets.
Besides the cost of equipment, there are legal questions about the recordings taken during routine police work, and even when the cameras should be turned on.
Beyond that, the storage of the recorded data and whether it is a public record and subject to public records requests wasn’t clear either, I guess, so House Bill 2362 was submitted to try and clear that up.
The bill was designed to do a few things.
First, set the rules about what camera footage can be requested as public information subject to public records requests. As seen by testimony in another recent hearing on the cost of public disclosure requests, these requests have a significant cost and can take from a few minutes to weeks to comply with. Video and audio would just add on to that.
The bill once again divides us by identifying certain groups who can request and receive the redacted records for free. I’m not sure how they can do that, or why they would. It seems to me if it’s free from some, it should be free for all.
It also creates a task force made up of many interested parties to study and recommend policies for camera use; this proposed list was long, but it didn’t appear to include the cops who have to wear it and manage the data, which seemed odd.
It requires police departments to have policies on things like when the cameras should be turned on or off. This one is more confusing and I can see all kinds of problems with it. If the camera is off and something happens I can only imagine the accusations some will make against the officer.
I’m not sure how an officer can know what’s going to happen before it does.
The Associated Press article said the Seattle Police Department collected 670,000 hours of dash cam video in a pilot program ending in 2015. They said there is no way they could afford to handle the potential volume of records requests in the future if their officers all had body cams.
It even sounded like the ACLU of Washington wasn’t a big fan and neither were several black advocacy groups who want the whole thing scrapped for now.
I doubt much will be come of this legislation, at least not this session, because typically, if there isn’t near unanimous support, the bill dies or worse, becomes just a study bill. But maybe more study is just what’s needed if it really is that complicated.
A while back, a young Oregon State trooper pulled up behind me as I sat alongside an Oregon roadway to use my celphone. It surprised me when he announced his name and that I was being recorded before he even asked me for my driver’s license, insurance and what was I doing.
After he left and I had a chance to think about it, I really wasn’t too concerned about being recorded during our conversation. But I suppose I could understand how some might be, especially if I’d been doing something illegal and he had captured it all on video. Could be pretty convincing evidence of guilt.
If the use of body cams to protect the officers and the public, and record their interaction with people, is really important, it shouldn’t be that difficult to put into practice. But it does look like it’s more complicated than just buying the equipment.
•••
John McCroskey was Lewis County sheriff from 1995 to 2005. He lives outside Chehalis, and can be contacted at musingsonthemiddlefork@yahoo.com.
