IE 11 Not Supported

For optimal browsing, we recommend Chrome, Firefox or Safari browsers.

Minnesota Lawmakers Debate Body Cams, Pit Privacy Against Accountability

Key issues include when the police cameras are turned on, who can access the footage and how long the footage is stored.

(TNS) — ST. PAUL — Lawmakers continue to struggle with crafting a statewide policy for police body cameras even as several police departments, including Rochester's, have already deployed the new technology.

Legislators gathered for a joint House-Senate committee hearing on Wednesday to talk about three different proposals. Bryon Republican Rep. Duane Quam told fellow lawmakers it's critical the Legislature take action as more and more police departments start using these cameras. Under current law, all police camera footage is considered public, unless it's part of an active criminal investigation.

"We really have some urgency because, again, the data is out there. As we've seen, once it's out, the damage is done, lives are affected," Quam said.

Much of Wednesday's debate centered on the challenge of balancing personal privacy rights with public accountability. Key issues include when the police cameras are turned on, who can access the footage and how long the footage is stored.

Past legislative efforts stall

Last session, efforts to pass a body camera bill stalled. The Minnesota Senate did approve sponsored by Sen. Ron Latz, DFL-St. Louis Park, that would make body camera footage private, except in cases where a police officer uses a dangerous weapon or takes action that cause substantial bodily harm.

Two different bills are being considered in the Minnesota House. Rep. Tony Cornish, R-Vernon Center, is sponsoring that makes all body camera video private unless part of an active criminal investigation. Another bill was unveiled on Wednesday by Rep. Peggy Scott, R-Andover. Body camera footage taken in a public place would be public, unless it's part of an active investigation. Camera footage taken on private property or in a location where individuals have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" would be classified as private. The bill would also require police offers to get consent to film on private property unless there is a valid search warrant or "exigent circumstances" that would prevent law enforcement from getting consent.

No votes were taken on any of the bills. The measures are expected to be debated in the upcoming legislative session that starts in March.

Should footage be public or private?

Police organizations urged lawmakers to classify police body camera footage as private.

"There really is, from our perspective, no compelling need for the public to have access to the huge majority of things we do every day," said Dennis Flaherty, executive director of the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association.

He did add that the association does see the value of making footage public in situations where an officer causes substantial bodily harm to an individual — provided it would not harm the investigation. His organization supports requiring footage be kept a minimum of 30 days and not more than a year because the storage costs could start to pose a problem for local police departments

But police watchdog groups asked lawmakers to require footage be kept longer and that some of them be made public.

"If one of the stated purposes at least is to promote police accountability, some of this footage must be available publicly, it must be available to review on a reasonable basis. And cost, in my mind, cannot be a consideration for that. Otherwise, there's no purpose for these things," said Michelle Gross, president of Communities United Against Police Brutality.

Rochester has its own policy for body camera use. It took four months to craft the policy and was a joint effort of the Rochester Police Department and the Police Policy Oversight Commission. That policy requires uncategorized footage be kept for 60 days. Footage that involves an arrest, citation and charge must be kept 60 days after sentencing or relevant statute of limitations if there are no charges. Footage involving officer misconduct must be kept for six years. If lawmakers do pass a body camera policy, Rochester would be required to comply with the new law.

Rochester Police Chief Roger Peterson could not be reached for comment on Wednesday.

Allowing officers access to footage

Another hot topic during Wednesday's meeting centered on whether an officer should be able to view the body camera footage before writing a police report. Scott's bill would prohibit officers from seeing the footage before writing the report in cases that involved use of force. Rochester body camera policy allows officers to see the footage before writing a report.

Some of Wednesday's testifiers want police officers to be prohibited from viewing the footage in all cases until after they have written their reports.

"The video and the report are two independent pieces of evidence and remain so only if the report is written without the use of the video. Then it becomes only one piece of evidence. This is particularly important in cases where there may be police misconduct," said Dave Bicking, Communities United Against Police Brutality.

But law enforcement groups pushed back, saying it's important officers have a chance to review the footage to make sure their reports are accurate.

"I would think that everybody would want to make sure that the officer's report that is filed is accurate and to simply review the camera footage is very important," Flaherty said.

©2015 the Post-Bulletin, Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.