Advertisement

Minnesotans should have access to police body cam videos

This is an emerging tool for transparency, and two legislators want to shroud it. Consider their proposals in light of recent events.

By Pat Doyle and Gary Hill

April 6, 2016 at 11:26PM
In a Friday, March 6, 2015 photo, a body cam with flexible mounting options for multiple officers at one scene is shown by a Grand Rapids police officer during a media event at the Grand Rapids Police Department Headquarters in Grand Rapids, Mich. Grand Rapids City Commission on Tuesday, March 10, authorized spending $674,124 from a special tax fund to pay startup costs for 200 body cams. (AP Photo/The Grand Rapids Press, Hugh Carey) ALL LOCAL TELEVISION OUT; LOCAL TELEVISION INTERNET OUT ORG XM
Proposals in the Minnesota Legislature would restrict public access to videos shot by police officers wearing body cams, such as the one above. (The Minnesota Star Tribune)

Minneapolis was tense last week after Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman announced that police officers would not face criminal charges in connection with their killing of Jamar Clark along a street in the city.

Imagine the potentially explosive public anger had Freeman also said that the Minneapolis Police Department had body cam video of the shooting, but was keeping it secret.

Such a scenario makes the positions of two key Minnesota legislators and their police union allies puzzling and disturbing. Instead of giving the public another, better view of police conduct, the lawmakers' body cam proposals would deny public access to much or most of future videos shot.

The most restrictive bill comes from Rep. Tony Cornish, R-Vernon Center, chairman of the House Public Safety and Crime Prevention Policy and Finance Committee. A former police and conservation officer, Cornish would bar the general public from seeing police body cam video — even after a criminal investigation is completed, as in the Clark case.

A companion measure by Sen. Ron Latz, DFL-St. Louis Park, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, decrees police body cam video "private" with limited exceptions. The video could be released after an investigation if it captures police use of a weapon or force that causes substantial bodily harm in a "public place," but not use of a weapon or force where there is "a reasonable expectation of privacy."

The bill doesn't define those terms. But presumably a police body cam video of a fatal shooting inside a home or school would be routinely withheld from the general public.

Both the House and Senate bills are stalled at the Legislature, but entrenched opposition to public access to body cam videos endures, raising concern that some version of the restrictive measures could emerge as law.

Even if the bills remain tabled for this year, the question of public access to body cam evidence is certain to grow more pressing.

Advertisement

The police officers involved in the Clark shooting were not wearing body cameras. But Minneapolis recently announced that it will be issuing body cams to officers, joining a growing list of police departments that are adopting the technology.

Burnsville police have operated body cams since 2010 under the state law with no serious problems. Recently, Burnsville police shot and killed a man reported to be armed with a knife and acting erratically in a McDonald's parking lot. Burnsville Police Chief Eric Gieseke, who believes body cams improve police performance and accountability, told the Star Tribune: "This video will be public, and we will do everything we can to release it as soon as possible."

The foes of public access stoke unfounded fears that the cameras will invade citizen privacy if action isn't taken now. The existing Minnesota Data Practices Act already offers substantial privacy safeguards, protecting the data of child-abuse victims, vulnerable adults, victims of sexual assault and other crimes, as well as the identity of juveniles. The law doesn't distinguish among written, photographic or video data, so all of those protections apply to body cam videos.

Given the privacy safeguards already in place, the Legislature would be wise to postpone action this year and take more time to strike the proper balance between protecting privacy and assuring public access. Expectations for improved police accountability will be dashed if the public is virtually walled off from seeing the videos.

And police have much to gain by better accountability. Had Minneapolis officers been wearing body cams last November when Clark was shot, the ensuing investigation may have been completed sooner, with the public's questions answered more decisively.

Pat Doyle and Gary Hill are board members of the Minnesota Coalition on Government Information, which provides public education on government transparency and information policy. Hill is chairman of the board.

Advertisement
Advertisement
about the writer

about the writer

Pat Doyle and Gary Hill

Advertisement

To leave a comment, .

Advertisement
Advertisement