Administration Commissioner Matt Massman on Monday rejected an application supported by two dozen Minnesota cities that would have made most video private ahead of possible action by the state Legislature.
Massman said in a two-page letter to cities that the state data practice law is designed to be "neutral to technology" and said agencies should await "greater statutory clarity" from legislators on the hot-button issue.
"The application raises many important issues regarding the best practices for balancing the expectation of data subjects that government maintain the privacy of their personal information, with the right of the public to know what government is doing," Massman wrote. "The application clearly demonstrates both the national and statewide significance of these issues, ones that can only be fully addressed through the legislative process."
The application was filed by the city of Maplewood on Sept. 14, with co-applications and letters of support from cities including Duluth and Grand Rapids.
Maplewood Police Chief Paul Schnell said in a letter at the time that without considering privacy "this technology has the potential to undermine the very nature of the relationships law enforcement as a profession is working to develop with the communities they serve."
Law enforcement officials have expressed concern that private and sensitive video of victims and witnesses can be recorded by the cameras — and theoretically be released to the public.
Open government and civil rights advocates have pushed back against restrictions, arguing that existing laws already govern the release of video. Data in a criminal investigation, for example, remains private until the case has been closed.
Massman agreed that body camera video is already governed by existing law and said that granting the cities' request to would serve to "reclassify data" already defined in the statute.
"Given the limited temporary classification authority, I cannot accept and must reject the temporary classification request," he wrote. "That decision, however, is not a conclusion that the law adequately addresses the complex and sensitive data circumstances that arise with the use of body cameras."
Massman last December rejected a similar application from the city of Duluth, which was among the earliest adopters of body cameras and has the largest department in the state that is fully equipped with the technology.
Massman said at the time that the 2015 legislative session would be the appropriate time to address concerns. The Legislature, however, failed to send a bill to Gov. Mark Dayton's desk. The Senate passed a bill that would have made most video private, but a vote was never taken by the House.
The Legislature is not set to reconvene until March.
©2015 the Duluth News Tribune (Duluth, Minn.) Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
