Lawmakers weigh private vs public in body camera bill
Go Deeper.
Create an account or log in to save stories.
Like this?
Thanks for liking this story! We have added it to a list of your favorite stories.
A bill that would restrict the public’s ability to see video from police body cameras got its first hearing Thursday in the Minnesota Senate. But controversy over who would have access to the video stymied both the bill’s author and some of the lawmakers considering it.
“There’s isn’t going to be anyone at the end of the day here who is going to feel that whatever we do is entirely satisfactory,” said Sen. Ron Latz, DFL-St. Louis Park. “Because I think there isn’t any way to strike a complete balance that recognizes everyone’s interest in privacy and everyone’s interest in public accountability.”
Latz, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, is making an attempt to strike that balance by proposing a bill that makes the video recorded from body cameras private except in cases where the subject of the video asks for it.
Latz said he crafted the bill after taking advice from police officers, privacy advocates and groups who want more police accountability.
Turn Up Your Support
MPR News helps you turn down the noise and build shared understanding. Turn up your support for this public resource and keep trusted journalism accessible to all.
Representatives of police departments and police unions said body cameras would be an effective law enforcement tool that would reduce the number of unwarranted complaints from citizens and liability for police departments.
Dennis Flaherty, executive director with the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association, said he thinks body cameras will make police more accountable to the public. But he said some of the video could show people in difficult circumstances and make communities less safe.
“We could be creating a new classification of persons who simply won’t want to contact police,” Flaherty said. “They’re not going to want them to come into their homes. They’re not going to meet with cops if the camera is going to be rolling and then later made public for everyone to see.”
Flaherty said making the video public “really serves no public purpose.”
Several groups arguing for the video to be accessible to citizens think otherwise.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, the Minnesota Newspaper Association and the Minnesota Coalition on Government Information all said the video should be public.
Mark Anfinson, with the Minnesota Newspaper Association, said there are exceptions in law that allow police to keep data private. He said keeping all the videos private would actually hurt police departments.
“This will interfere with their credibility,” Anfinson said. “I don’t think it’s fully appreciated how much the current language of the bill will tie their hands from releasing video that exonerates them.”
Anfinson added that the Burnsville Police Department hasn’t had any problems with data requests since it started using body cameras in 2010.
Burnsville Police Chief Eric Gieseke told the committee there haven’t been any unusual requests, but that he worries citizens could ask for hours of data which would consume department time viewing and redacting the video.
“We haven’t experienced major issues because of that to this point,” Gieseke, said. “But obviously as more agencies start to use it, I think that’s the concern, it could be problematic moving forward.”
The committee didn’t vote on amendments or the bill at Latz’s request. He said he wants to allow some time for the public to weigh in before the committee takes action on the bill.