Body cams raise privacy concerns
By Kat Russell, Reporter
The Paducah Sun
May 3, 2015
http://www.paducahsun.com/news/local/050315_PS_Body_Cams
As law enforcement officials and legislators across the country consider whether officers should be wearing body cameras, more questions about privacy and who will have the right to view the videos are being raised.
Locally, the McCracken County Sheriff's Department has 25 body cameras and officers are required to record when they know they are walking into a potentially volatile situation.
The Paducah Police Department is currently in a testing phase where they are using five cameras and rotating them among the officers on a weekly basis.
But, if a situation involves a minor or a sexual assault victim or a search inside a person's home, should video be recorded and if so, who gets to obtain and see the footage?
"There are not any statutes that specifically address that as far as open records for body cams, so what we have to do is use the existing open records law," McCracken Sheriff Jon Hayden said.
The sheriff added that without policy specific to body camera footage, the video acquired is treated the same as dash cam video or video of a police interview.
"If the video is part of an open criminal investigation, that would not be subject to open records," he said. "It would be no different than someone filing an open records request for our investigative file in some type of criminal case. If body cam video is evidence in a criminal case that's open ... then it would not be subject to open records."
Hayden added that the department has the right to deny any open records request that is made in an attempt to harass or annoy the department or an individual.
In The Sun's previous story on body cameras, Paducah Police Chief Brandon Barnhill pointed out that if body cameras were mandated, officers would be forced to record sensitive situations, such as interviews with rape or assault victims, and also juvenile victims.
Additionally, he added, officers are often required to enter a person's home and if they are filming, what would prevent nosy neighbors from obtaining that footage to satisfy their own curiosity?
"Before these cameras are fully implemented, we need to have a clearly defined policy as to when they are used, the types of situations they need to be used for and how the footage is then protected and treated," he said.
No answers yet
According to a report published in March by the Police Executive Research Forum, most police departments that have implemented a body camera program require officers to activate the device when answering all calls for service and during any law-enforcement-related encounter.
But, privacy is one area, the report states, that still needs a clearly defined policy.
"Body-worn cameras have significant implications for the public's privacy rights, particularly when it comes to recording victim interviews, nudity and other sensitive subjects, and when recording inside people's homes," the report states. "Agencies must factor these privacy considerations into decisions about when to record, where and how long to store data and how to respond to public requests for video footage."
Without a clearly defined policy to answer these questions, departments must rely on rules currently in place.
Where to go from here?
The questions surrounding body cameras cannot be answered overnight, said State Sen. Danny Carroll (R-Paducah), who worked in law enforcement for 24 years.
"It's something we need to take the time to research ... and make sure that, if we pass legislation, we cover all the issues related to privacy and how the information will be used," he said.
As of now, Carroll said, he is not aware of any legislation being proposed or drafted in Kentucky regarding the devices.
Whatever comes, Carroll added, it's going to take some time to find the right balance between privacy concerns and the needs of local law enforcement agencies.
"It could potentially reshape a lot of our laws," he said.
When shaping policies regarding body cameras, Carroll said, many factors need to be examined.
"You have to try to standardize what should be recorded and when the officer should record. Those are issues that you have to look at, and ask 'Is that something, as a state, we want to make specific requirements for?'" he said. "Then you get into the question of the costs - storage of all (the video), and the time and the staffing it would take to redact images of any minors or protected groups. So it's a whole can of worms once you start looking into it."
Regardless of how long it takes to define a policy or whether it should be done on a state or local level, Carroll said he believes body cameras are here to stay.
"I think there will come a day when this will just be status quo," he said. "I just don't think that having the body cameras is as much of an issue as it's being made. It's just a tool and it's not the end-all, it's not going to solve everything. There are many factors involved in having good relationships and trust."
Contact Kat Russell, a Paducah Sun staff writer, at 270-575-8653.
Locally, the McCracken County Sheriff's Department has 25 body cameras and officers are required to record when they know they are walking into a potentially volatile situation.
The Paducah Police Department is currently in a testing phase where they are using five cameras and rotating them among the officers on a weekly basis.
But, if a situation involves a minor or a sexual assault victim or a search inside a person's home, should video be recorded and if so, who gets to obtain and see the footage?
"There are not any statutes that specifically address that as far as open records for body cams, so what we have to do is use the existing open records law," McCracken Sheriff Jon Hayden said.
The sheriff added that without policy specific to body camera footage, the video acquired is treated the same as dash cam video or video of a police interview.
"If the video is part of an open criminal investigation, that would not be subject to open records," he said. "It would be no different than someone filing an open records request for our investigative file in some type of criminal case. If body cam video is evidence in a criminal case that's open ... then it would not be subject to open records."
Hayden added that the department has the right to deny any open records request that is made in an attempt to harass or annoy the department or an individual.
In The Sun's previous story on body cameras, Paducah Police Chief Brandon Barnhill pointed out that if body cameras were mandated, officers would be forced to record sensitive situations, such as interviews with rape or assault victims, and also juvenile victims.
Additionally, he added, officers are often required to enter a person's home and if they are filming, what would prevent nosy neighbors from obtaining that footage to satisfy their own curiosity?
"Before these cameras are fully implemented, we need to have a clearly defined policy as to when they are used, the types of situations they need to be used for and how the footage is then protected and treated," he said.
No answers yet
According to a report published in March by the Police Executive Research Forum, most police departments that have implemented a body camera program require officers to activate the device when answering all calls for service and during any law-enforcement-related encounter.
But, privacy is one area, the report states, that still needs a clearly defined policy.
"Body-worn cameras have significant implications for the public's privacy rights, particularly when it comes to recording victim interviews, nudity and other sensitive subjects, and when recording inside people's homes," the report states. "Agencies must factor these privacy considerations into decisions about when to record, where and how long to store data and how to respond to public requests for video footage."
Without a clearly defined policy to answer these questions, departments must rely on rules currently in place.
Where to go from here?
The questions surrounding body cameras cannot be answered overnight, said State Sen. Danny Carroll (R-Paducah), who worked in law enforcement for 24 years.
"It's something we need to take the time to research ... and make sure that, if we pass legislation, we cover all the issues related to privacy and how the information will be used," he said.
As of now, Carroll said, he is not aware of any legislation being proposed or drafted in Kentucky regarding the devices.
Whatever comes, Carroll added, it's going to take some time to find the right balance between privacy concerns and the needs of local law enforcement agencies.
"It could potentially reshape a lot of our laws," he said.
When shaping policies regarding body cameras, Carroll said, many factors need to be examined.
"You have to try to standardize what should be recorded and when the officer should record. Those are issues that you have to look at, and ask 'Is that something, as a state, we want to make specific requirements for?'" he said. "Then you get into the question of the costs - storage of all (the video), and the time and the staffing it would take to redact images of any minors or protected groups. So it's a whole can of worms once you start looking into it."
Regardless of how long it takes to define a policy or whether it should be done on a state or local level, Carroll said he believes body cameras are here to stay.
"I think there will come a day when this will just be status quo," he said. "I just don't think that having the body cameras is as much of an issue as it's being made. It's just a tool and it's not the end-all, it's not going to solve everything. There are many factors involved in having good relationships and trust."
Contact Kat Russell, a Paducah Sun staff writer, at 270-575-8653.
