Despite a push from one lawmaker to open up public access to police body camera recordings, it appears as if the state is planning on passing a much more restrictive bill in terms of who will be able view certain police recordings. The proposed bill is considered one of the nation’s more restrictive laws governing public access to police body camera footage.
The proposal, sponsored by Rep. Tony Cornish, R-Vernon Center, and supported by law enforcement, would classify body camera recordings as private unless they were filmed in a public place and the incident involved an officer’s use of a dangerous weapon or force that caused “substantial bodily harm.” An exception to the strict law would be made if the person requesting the video is a subject in the video, and even then they could only access the footage after the faces of other citizens in the video are blurred.
Other inclusions in the bill state:
- In most situations, police would not need to ask permission to record inside a person’s home.
- Law enforcement could block access to footage should they deem it to be “clearly offensive to common sensibilities.”
- Cops could redact their own images when citizens request a video.
- The public would need to pursue court action in order to request recordings deemed private. A judge will only grant access should they feel the benefits outweigh the harm of making the video public.
- Officers could review video footage before submitting incident reports.
Many Oppose The Strict Bill
Although the bill was passed with an 11-2 vote by the House data practices committee, many others voiced opposition to the bill. Rep. Peggy Scott, R-Andover, said the bill lacks necessary public protections. Rep Scott had drafted a more open proposal, but could not find support for it among her colleagues.
“I think it lacks transparency and does not protect privacy in our own homes, and I think as we go through the testimony … that that may become apparent.”
Other opponents suggested that vague language in the bill leaves it up to the police to determine what constitutes, “substantial bodily harm” or “offensive content,” effectively giving police even more power to restrict access to the recordings. They questioned whether actions like police chokeholds or slamming a person to the ground would constitute “substantial bodily harm,” as that video could certainly help determine whether excessive force was used.
Nekima Levy-Pounds, president of the Minneapolis chapter of the NAACP, said the bill is being fast-tracked into law, and while she supports police body cameras, she wants to ensure the public has fair access to the recordings.
“At the end of the day, it’s more important to take the time and do this right than to hastily enact legislation that is going to cause more harm than good,” said Levy-Pounds. “[The proposal] weighs too heavily in favor of the perspective of law enforcement at a time in which trust by the African-American communities and other communities of color in law enforcement is at an all-time low.”
The bill will go before the House in the near future.
