SE Portland Citizen’s Advisory Council feedback
This document summarizes member comments and feedback from the Body Worn Camera presentation at the SE Portland Citizen’s Advisory Council meeting held on Mar 14, 2019. After a brief introduction, the Bureau proposed key policy topics and emerging trends from other police agencies and asked for feedback on what Portland’s policy should reflect. The feedback will be used in the policy decision meetings held later this year.
Mandatory Activation: Oregon law states a camera worn upon an officer’s person will be set to record continuously, beginning when the officer develops reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that a crime or violation has occurred, is occurring or will occur and the law enforcement officer begins to make contact with the person suspected of committing the offense.
- In cases of officer involved shooting and the person has mental illness, the recording would show what happened and it would protect both parties.
- What are the automated triggers for the cameras?
- The first few seconds of a situation are the most critical and most important to have.
- What if the police bring a person to the ER and once there they begin to fight or go berserk, will the officer be recording?
- Will the police record if they go into someone’s home just to talk? What if they see other things in the house?
Prohibited Activation: Oregon law allows for exceptions to mandatory activation provided they are based on reasonable privacy concerns, exigent circumstances or the safety of officers and other persons.
- Turn off in a private residence.
Deactivation: When should an officer be allowed to turn the camera off?
- What about interactions with the media, can you turn it on when talking to the media so they cannot misuse your words?
Discretionary or Temporary Deactivation: When should the officer have discretion?
- What happens if the officer is in a public meeting and tensions get high and someone starts to cause a problem, can they turn on the camera for that?
Officer reviewing video: Should officers be allowed to review the video prior to writing a routine report? What about reviewing the video after a critical incident (Officer Involved Shooting, Use of Force, and In-Custody Death)?
- PPB is shorthanded and officers are running from call to call doing the reports much later in the day. They are not going to remember everything and should be able to view the video for a refresher.
- The middle ground is the most acceptable, write the report first, then watch the video and do a follow up report after if needed.
Supervisor reviewing video: When should supervisors be able to review the video? Randomly to look for compliance with policy? Only when there is a complaint?
- They should review for complaints.
- Is there a way to review for a good job or positive interactions?
General Feedback:
- Are you bringing in the officers to look at the cameras? Will there be the ability for the community to come in and see the cameras too?
- What is the DOJs position on BWCs? What is their recommendation?
- Does this need to be negotiated with the union?
- Will the videos be blurred when used for trial?
- No, the blurring is required for public release, the unredacted version will be used at trial.
- Are there going to be live feeds?
- Does the person carrying the camera have the ability to view the recording?
- The officers can do 99 things right and 1 wrong and it’s the one that is focused on.
- Officers should be able to record if a person agrees to record the positive community engagement.
- Will this be stored on the cloud?
- Do you still have K9 cameras? Are they still using them?
- What is the recording time of the camera?
- In the RFP we asked for a battery life of 12 hours and minimum record time of 8 hours.
- Does this add work for the officers?
- Is there an ability for officers to delete or modify?
- No, the cameras do not allow any changes or deletions to be made to the videos. That has to be done on the back end and only a select few will have those privileges and they will be audited.
- Cameras are a great protection to officers and community members, this is protection for all.
- People who complain about privacy done understand how many times they are in pictures or videos every day just walking down the street. Everyone is recording everywhere.
- Dash cameras are useful.
- What if they forget to turn the cameras on?
- If there are multiple officers on scene will all their cameras be on?
- Yes.
Citizen Review Committee Feedback
Portland Police Bureau Body Worn Camera Project
Citizens Review Committee feedback
Mar 6, 2019
This document summarizes member comments and feedback from the Body Worn Camera discussion at the CRC meeting held on Mar 6, 2019. After a brief introduction, the Bureau proposed key policy topics and emerging trends from other police agencies and asked for feedback on what Portland’s policy should reflect. The feedback will be used in the policy decision meetings held later this year.
Mandatory Activation: Oregon law states a camera worn upon an officer’s person will be set to record continuously, beginning when the officer develops reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that a crime or violation has occurred, is occurring or will occur and the law enforcement officer begins to make contact with the person suspected of committing the offense.
- Like the Albuquerque outlier of if they are not complying with an officer commands like they are walking away. The video can be used later if there is a case of questionable use of force.
- Where in the protest timeline should officer activate the cameras? Before deploying flashbangs? What about when police start making loudspeaker warnings to the crowd? The incident commander should tell officers to turn them on at that point.
- What about officers using pole cameras during protests? How do those fit into this law?
- Not complying with an officer’s commands could be a catch-all for activation.
- Concerned about splitting split second when officer needs to record during a rapidly evolving incident. They may not have time to turn the camera on before the situation gets out of control.
- Goals stated improve community trust and training, how will BWCs do that?
- When police engage community members in “mere conversations”, it sometimes goes beyond that and all pat-downs for weapons should be recorded.
- Roll call and other discussions between officers should be recorded because they may denigrate members of the community.
Prohibited Activation: Oregon law allows for exceptions to mandatory activation provided they are based on reasonable privacy concerns, exigent circumstances or the safety of officers and other persons.
- Sexual assault victims is a good case not to record.
- Can someone ask to turn it off? Does the officer have to comply?
- Does the public know when the camera is recording? (Most cameras have a visual light that indicates it is currently recording.)
- Strongly recommend not following Cleveland’s model (no recording in entertainment venues). (Prohibited activation can be overruled when a mandatory activation incident occurs.)
Deactivation: When should an officer be allowed to turn the camera off?
- What is an example of the Oakland rule? (administrative, tactical or LE sensitive)
Discretionary or Temporary Deactivation: When should the officer have discretion?
- Oregon law about reasonable suspicion is broad, is that a floor or ceiling? (That is more of a floor, we can expand on it and make it tighter if needed.)
- Like the part about the officer stating why they are turning off the camera before they actually do it.
- There should be fewer opportunities to remember to turn cameras on and off.
- Does the bureau have a stated grace period (like for Taser rollout) about forgotten camera activation?
Officer reviewing video: Should officers be allowed to review the video prior to writing a routine report? What about reviewing the video after a critical incident (Officer Involved Shooting, Use of Force, and In-Custody Death)?
- What is the justification for why an officer can’t view their own video?
- If the situation goes sideways, officer may want to view the video to try to adjust their initial report.
- Review for any use of force has to do with what the officer was actually doing at the time. They should not be reviewing footage before writing the report.
- Officers should not clarify reports after watching footage.
- Officers should only be able to watch their own videos not those of other officers on scene.
- If giving the officers the footage on scene, why not the public?
- Can a victim get an unblurred copy? (No, all public released videos will have faces blurred.)
- Does the server save an unblurred version? (Yes, the original is kept on the server, unaltered. We will use a copy to blur.)
- Can a victim come in and ask to see the video (unblurred) but not get a copy?
- If the community cannot see the video, then the officers should not be allowed to see it.
Supervisor reviewing video: When should supervisors be able to review the video? Randomly to look for compliance with policy? Only when there is a complaint?
- East Haven example is good (supervisors shall review all recordings of incidents involving injuries to prisoners or officers, uses of force, vehicle pursuits, or misconduct complaints.”
- Ferguson is good too (for the purpose of training, performance reviews, critique, early intervention inquires, civil claims, and administrative inquiry.”
- On the PPB timeline, the bargaining was not in there. (It is built into the community engagement/policy discussion piece but not called out specifically.)
- What about if a supervisor is reviewing a video and sees an issue? Are they required to report it?
General Feedback and feedback received by comment card:
- Is there a memory card that is used? What is the chain of custody for the recordings?
- Is there any way for an officer to delete or remove videos? (No there are security restrictions.)
- Can the camera be “lost”? Do they have GPS? (The cameras are attached in varying ways to the uniform, but it is possible for it to be knocked off during a struggle. )
- Who has access to the database of recorded footage? (The BWC team and public records release personnel.)
- Do the devices have removable SD cards? (No, I believe most cards are secured internally to the device and cannot be removed.)
- Do they turn on if there is a g-force event (traffic accident)?( Some cameras have different triggers for activation; weapon removed from holster, activation of lights and siren, officer goes horizontal, etc.)
- What are the minimum requirements for the cameras? (Too many to list, but we asked about battery life, focal point, triggers, standardized video formats)
- What extent will the final selection process be visible to the public? (We will announce the ones we plan to pilot.)
- How many cameras are there to choose from? (There are dozens of vendors but really only 6 or so that can handle a department of our size.)
- Will SERT wear the cameras? (To be determined who will wear them besides the day to day patrol officers.)
- Do other first responders like fire wear them? (Not that we know of.)
- What is the penalty for not turning on the camera? (That will be in the disciplinary matrix.)
- Has there been any feedback from communities of color? Have you reached out to specific groups like the ACLU or NAACP? (We have met with a variety of groups and others were unable to schedule a meeting but sent us their recommendations. The notes from all meetings and the position papers are all available on the website.)
- Have other agencies ask the community about their thoughts? (Not that I have found. Most agencies just notified the public that they were instituting the cameras but did not ask for thoughts on the policy piece. Portland is unique.)
African American Advisory Council feedback
Portland Police Bureau Body Worn Camera Project
African American Advisory Council feedback
Feb 19, 2019
This document summarizes member comments and feedback from the Body Worn Camera presentation at the African American Advisory Council meeting held on Feb 19, 2019. After a brief introduction, the Bureau proposed key policy topics and emerging trends from other police agencies and asked for feedback on what Portland’s policy should reflect. The feedback will be used in the policy decision meetings held later this year.
Mandatory Activation: Oregon law states a camera worn upon an officer’s person will be set to record continuously, beginning when the officer develops reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that a crime or violation has occurred, is occurring or will occur and the law enforcement officer begins to make contact with the person suspected of committing the offense.
- When dealing with teenagers, the camera should always be on. Any enforcement contact, teenagers tend to push the limits and do not follow commands leading to escalation. The camera will help document that. Young people don’t listen.
- Juveniles can be charged as an adult under measure 11, as young as 15.
- Measure 11 recordings are required when interviewing juveniles.
- Cameras should be on as the officer exits the vehicle, and not wait until he makes contact. That way it covers the hold event and is consistent.
- All mental health responses should be captured.
- If asked to turn it on, they should. There is not harm in turning it on and it is the respectful thing to do. It makes a person feel like they are being heard.
Prohibited Activation: Oregon law allows for exceptions to mandatory activation provided they are based on reasonable privacy concerns, exigent circumstances or the safety of officers and other persons.
- Religious or cultural exceptions are reasonable.
Discretionary or Temporary Deactivation: When should the officer have discretion?
- If 5 officers are all recording at an incident, which camera do you use or keep?
- We would keep and use all. The different camera views are helpful and assists in the analysis of the officer’s actions through their camera views.
- If a higher ranking supervisor tells them to deactivate the camera, their name should be noted in the statement for turning off the camera as being the responsible party for the deactivation.
- How will officers remember to turn them off and on again?
- Just like any new equipment or technology, there will be a learning curve until it becomes second nature.
Officer reviewing video: Should officers be allowed to review the video prior to writing a routine report? What about reviewing the video after a critical incident (Officer Involved Shooting, Use of Force, and In-Custody Death)?
- Why is this a contentious issue? Officers should be allowed to review the video. It will make the report better and more accurate.
- For routine reports, officers carry notebooks for information and refer to them for reports. Video is just a high tech notebook. Officers also worried that they will be viewed as a liar if there are any difference between the report and the video when in truth their memory was just not 100%.
- For critical incidents, it is important to know what was going on in the officer’s head before the video changes their recollection of the event forever. There is brain science that shows viewing a video can change someone’s view of the event.
Supervisor reviewing video: When should supervisors be able to review the video? Randomly to look for compliance with policy? Only when there is a complaint?
- Why is there a concern over supervisors looking at the video?
- There is concern that supervisors might “fish” looking for bad behavior. We need to be careful that we don’t send the message that “we don’t trust you” to the officer.
- Why would supervisors fish? Did the officer call attention to themselves with a history of behavior?
- Supervisors should be regulated to misconduct and complaints. Not a good use of supervisor’s time.
General Feedback:
- We need BWCs. We should do this in Portland.
- On notification requirements, there can be some subjectivity to what is a safety issue for the officer when they cannot notify immediately.
- I would like to see public filming where the community members who have recorded something can send it to the police like road rage incidents.
- Cameras were not made to pick up darker tones, which is why black people do not photograph well and end up even darker in the photo. PPB should look for cameras that capture more natural tones (true to the eye) so that reality is properly reflected.
- How will officers be selected for wearing the cameras?
- That will be worked out when we start drafting the policy internally. However, at a minimum, the patrol officers who respond to the calls will all have assigned cameras. Detectives and those that work in office positions will most likely pull from a bank of cameras when they need them.
- Will the backgrounders’ wear them?
- No.
- Who determines when the release is in the “public interest”?
- Requests for videos will go through the same process as any public records request with PPB. People will not be allowed to do a blanket request (“all the videos”). Specific requests will be reviewed on a case by case basis.
- It would be nice if you returned a year after full implementation and reconvened with community members to discuss the project results.
- Is there any erase button on the camera?
- No, officers will not be able to erase, edit, or manipulate the videos.
- If 900 offices are doing everything right and 2 are bad, unfortunately the news will only show the 2 doing bad.
- How much of a role did the current media trend influence the BWC decision?
- The National narrative and PPB not always doing the best they could in some communities historically. This will help with level of complainants of rudeness or poor encounters. Interpersonal encounters, day to day. Media is not the motivation. PPB want to do good work and this will help improve and do more good work
- What is the budget for this project? Why do you need something to show the public the value? Reducing complaints is valuable.
- To PPB, it is worth it from the level of transparency stand point. BWC is a good effort to work towards the seriousness about transparency.
- Do the officers want the cameras?
- Yes, the overwhelming majority do.
- Has there been much change in other agencies with the cameras?
- DOJ agencies show little impact due to the addition of cameras, mostly because they have changed a lot of other things in their policies trying to make improvements. So you don’t see a huge improvement with the cameras because they already made other changes that made a difference. It is hard to tie the changes directly to the cameras.
- Need to make sure the policy if right for Portland, not other national agencies. Portland is unique.
- Have you talked with many youth? I recommend you talk with the juveniles at McClaren, I can help arrange that.
- We would definitely be interested if you can help arrange it.
Slavic Advisory Council Feedback
Portland Police Bureau Body Worn Camera Project
Slavic Advisory Council feedback
Feb 14, 2019
This document summarizes member comments and feedback from the Body Worn Camera presentation at the Slavic Advisory Council meeting held on Feb 14, 2019. After a brief introduction, the Bureau proposed key policy topics and emerging trends from other police agencies and asked for feedback on what Portland’s policy should reflect. The feedback will be used in the policy decision meetings held later this year.
Mandatory Activation: Oregon law states a camera worn upon an officer’s person will be set to record continuously, beginning when the officer develops reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that a crime or violation has occurred, is occurring or will occur and the law enforcement officer begins to make contact with the person suspected of committing the offense.
Major Theme Feedback
- If a community member asks for the camera to be turned on they should have to turn it on.
- If they are asked to turn it on, they should. Bystanders are records, but the police are not right now. This will support transparency.
- This is supported. Equal chance should be recording.
Additional Feedback:
- What about people doing ride-alongs, is their conversation recorded?
- The camera is on during the shift but only recording when the officer hits the record button.
- When it is on but not recording, is it going somewhere?
- It should not be since it is not recording, but we will check with the vendors. Some cameras can go back 30 seconds before the record button is pushed and capture that data as well.
- Such a low number of agencies have cameras, does this include the sheriff’s office? Why is it not mandatory across the state?
- The number is increasing every year. Currently the Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office does not have the cameras. Clackamas County is currently testing a few and Washington County is in the process of implementing a system. Each agency has the power to decide if they want to use the technology or not.
- What is the benefits of the cameras?
- Complaint resolution, critical information for cases, transparency and accountability. Remember, cameras are not a silver bullet and will not capture everything. They are an added tool.
- If video are not release, people will think that something is being hidden.
- There are voyeurs who want to see the videos.
- Where will the videos go from the camera? Can someone take the camera and run away?
- Depending on the camera and vendor, the videos are uploaded either via Wi-Fi or when docked in the charging station. Vendors also have differing levels of encryption. That is something we will look at during the RFP.
- In Moscow, everyone has an in-car camera and it is very helpful.
- Are all faces blurred?
- Yes, Oregon law requires it.
- This is great, PPB should have cameras.
Prohibited Activation: Oregon law allows for exceptions to mandatory activation provided they are based on reasonable privacy concerns, exigent circumstances or the safety of officers and other persons.
Major Theme Feedback
- What if they are asked to turn the camera off?
- Why not record the whole time they are on-duty?
- There are some situations where we should not record. Additionally, the more videos and data, the increased cost to store it.
- We ask many news reporters not to film in the churches. Most churches broadcast a mass but there is no filming of a persecuted group.
Additional Feedback:
- With the agencies that already started, how often do the officers forget to turn it on?
- Like any new tool, there will be a learning period to build up the muscle memory for it to become habit for the officer. Failure to follow the policy will be addressed.
- How long can the camera record?
- It varies but in the RFP was asked for a minimum of record time of 8 hours and a minimum battery life of 12 hours.
- What if the officer is involved in a big case like a homicide and the camera runs out?
- We will have spares in case of issues.
- Will someone like dispatch be watching the camera live?
- There are some camera that have a live video feed ability.
- What do the officer feel about the cameras? Will they be more protected?
- We have not done a survey yet, but we believe the majority are looking forward to the cameras. 3 Officers present at the meeting agreed.
- How does the public respond to being videoed? Does it change behavior?
- That is something a couple of agencies researched with varying results.
- Consider finding a vendor with build in GPS for safety.
- Many of the devices the officers use already have GPS as do many of the camera on the market.
- Can the cameras be used to recognize people?
- No, Oregon law prohibits paring this technology with facial recognition.
Discretionary or Temporary Deactivation: When should the officer have discretion?
Major Theme Feedback
- This is going to be trial and error for a while.
- What about recording a juvenile?
Deactivation: When is an officer allowed to turn off the camera?
Major Theme Feedback
- This makes sense.
- If the event has been recorded, it is easier to hear the conversation especially if there are language issues.
Officer reviewing video: Should officers be allowed to review the video prior to writing a routine report? What about reviewing the video after a critical incident (Officer Involved Shooting, Use of Force, and In-Custody Death)?
Major Theme Feedback
- Critical incidents are very trying and the officer is not going to remember everything. The video helps.
- They should be reviewing the video before writing the report, it helps memory.
- Officers can review their notebooks, why is video any different? It is a tool.
Additional Feedback
- The suspect can always ask to see the video through their attorney.
- In situations where there are mistakes and accidental recordings, can the officer remove them?
- No, officers will not be able to edit or delete the recordings.
General Feedback:
- Are you adding additional staff?
- Why do we need to release videos to the public?
- We would like a follow-up discussion after the pilot.
- There may be a language barrier when the officer is informing the community member about the recording.
- This was discussed during the Muslim Advisory Council. We will look into a simple language card that explains the cameras in a variety of languages. The Council will for a small workgroup to help with the language.
- The Slavic community does not watch local American news or read the paper. You should hang a flier in Russian language in the local Russian market where everyone will see it.
- Publish pictures of the officer with the cameras and media to share this.
- Announce in group this is coming with what it means.
PCCEP Feedback
Portland Police Bureau Body Worn Camera Project
Portland Committee on Community Engaged Policing feedback
Feb 26, 2019
This document summarizes member comments and feedback from the Body Worn Camera discussion at the PCCEP meeting held on Feb 26, 2019. The introduction was given at the January meeting and PPB was asked back to the February meeting to answer some questions on the community engagement and policy discussions. The feedback will be used in the policy decision meetings held later this year.
What involvement does the BWC program have with the EDO? How is the EDO involved in the development/implementation of this program? We have discussed the community engagement plan with the Equity office and discussed the presentation and feedback loop.
How do I get copies of the videos?
The public release of videos will go through the same procedures as a request for a police report.
Is there any way to disable the ability to turn off the camera?
I don’t know if you can disable the turn off, but for privacy reasons you can’t leave them running continuously because officers will need to use the restroom or have private conversations with an informant and other reasons it will need to be turned off.
But that also allows officers to turn them off when they are doing something they are not supposed to be doing. You can always edit out restroom breaks and talks with informants before you give out the video.
The only editing should be the blurring of faces for redaction. The officers have privacy rights as well and have to weigh privacy rights of both the officer and the community member.
Once they put on the badge, they have no privacy rights.
Officers have privacy rights just like anyone else and are allowed to take breaks during their shift.
They shut down radio traffic to priority calls only because they don’t have enough officers, so why can they make private calls?
Officers are allowed breaks just like anyone else.
Cameras shouldn’t go off for breaks.
Who owns the videos?
The City and PPB owns them, not the vendor
What is the life of the video from when it is taken until used in prosecution? From the capture to be presented as evidence?
Camera is downloaded to server, either on premise or cloud, depending on the vendor and stored for the minimum 180 days. Officers will tags the videos with event details, case number, type of event, etc. which determines the retention. The video sits until it is needed. If not needed, it sits until it is deleted.
Who deletes the videos when it is time?
Someone on the BWC team.
What is the archive process?
Depending on the solution we purchase, the videos will stay on the server or the cloud until they are deleted.
What is the policy development status?
We are gathering the feedback on the policy piece now and the last community meeting is scheduled on March 13. We will then form a policy group in PPB to go over the other agencies policies and the community feedback to determine what our policy should say. The draft will then go to the stakeholders committee, followed by the union, before going out for public comment. Finally it will go before city council. All that has to be done before we start the pilot.
If violence breaks out during a protest or weapons are being used would the cameras be turn on?
If the officers are just monitoring the demonstration, the cameras should not be on. If they witness a crime or have reasonable suspicion, that is when they should turn them on.
What about if an officer is using flash bangs or other uses of force.
Good question, we need to add that to our notes to look at.
Is there any plan for feedback for officer improvement, performance plans, analysis, or other non-court reasons?
From discussions with other agencies, roughly 80% of these videos are never looked at because they are not used for a criminal case or a complaint. It will depend on what the policy is on officer review if they can review the videos prior to writing the report. The research idea came up in another community discussion and we will have discuss that separately as there are other legal requirements for viewing CJIS (Criminal Justice Information Systems) data similar to data collection out of a police report. If we do end up with an agreement for research collection, it would be general data with the specifics of officer and community member identification removed. It would be more collecting data on use of force, etc. For the training piece, we are looking at that in the supervisor review portion so when they see something that would be helpful for training they can identify it.
There is an article from Memphis, TN where three officers turned off their cameras to hide things. They talked on a radio channel that dispatch did not monitor and conspired to turn off their cameras before the shooting. What are the policy violations to hold officers to? Are they just going to get administrative leave or a slap on the wrist? Are there laws being created to stop this?
I can’t speak on creating laws, but as we develop the policy, we will look at the violation side as well. Violations will be built in and those go through the Professional Standards Division of PPB and will be dealt with accordingly.
Why is this information not being treated as evidence?
They are, if they are related to crimes and retained IAW the retention schedule.
What will be the cost of maintaining the library?
The cost will depends on the vendor, where the videos are saved (on premise/cloud), how many videos we have. We are hoping to learn about the costs of this program during the pilot.
Glad to hear you are considering the information gathered in the last round a few years ago. At the town halls I was told you made everyone sit at different tables. This open forum is better, we can all build off each other’s ideas.
I expected a larger crowd and we had planned on discussing the topics at different tables but ended up consolidating to three tables due to the smaller crowd. I wanted small groups to promote discussion and give everyone a chance to have their voice heard so that one person did not monopolize the time. We are taking notes at every table.
The texting information was released unredacted with people’s phone numbers and it is causing them problems. There could be things on video similar and the Bureau will need to think about how to handle that in the future.
The records division does the redaction piece and I cannot answer for the Bureau on that incident.
ORS 181A.250 does not just go to demonstrations, it could apply to other places/situations, such as mosques. LE may call to exemptions prior to release. We believe that the body worn cameras are in violation of this law because they are constantly collecting when there is no suspicion of criminal activity.
There are several laws the deal with body cameras, not just 181A.250, that one is specific to demonstrations. Prohibited activation is 133.741 and it talks about exigent circumstances. Mandatory activation is also covered under 133.741. if there is a conflict, then that would need to be taken up by the Oregon legislature.
What will be the oversight of the data? There is a suspicion of how the data is kept. Is there oversight outside the Bureau?
The original video is not altered or edited. The redaction is done to a copy. Auditing piece, will take this idea to leadership and discuss this piece.
Important for trust and transparency – it would be great to have outside group look at it (the data).
It says in the law that footage will be released in the publics’ best interest – who defines this?
The law does not state, but in discussions with the PPB leadership and the District Attorney, the videos will go through the same process as the records goes through now.
Is there any specific written reference that people can read that says what passes the qualification for public interest?
No, there is nothing specific. The request decision will be a discussion between the Public records personnel, city attorney, DA.
What have we learned from past experience with the union when they rejected the policy? What will make this time different?
We have the advantage of lesson learned from other agencies who have gone before us. The PPA is aware we are looking at camera again and they have made some recommendations of policies they like aspects of. Although, we have the policy previously created, we are scrapping that and starting fresh. So we don’t have a policy written yet. We are looking at the current technology and what is best for Portland. Hopefully, they will look at the draft and understand that we are basing it off of tried and true methods from other agencies as well as the feedback from the community.
Question what is the Bureau looking for in the pilot? What makes it a success?
In the pilot we are testing the differences in the technology. We will also be testing out the policy, does it cover everything or did we miss something. We are also looking at a research partner where we can gather data prior to the pilot and a few years after to see if the cameras make a difference. I believe it will really take 2 to 3 years of gathering data before we get good performance measures. The research partner will do a pre-survey, post-survey and 1 year after survey to collect data. Research data gathering piece takes time. We are planning for this.
You said that officers will be dealt with by Professional Standards and that 80% of the video will not be reviewed. Will there be review of conduct even if nothing actually occurs?
That raises the question again of supervisor review, a question we are asking for the policy considerations. Should supervisors only be required to review videos when there is a complaint? Or should they do random reviews to check for compliance or to see if there are any training lessons that can be utilized. The policies vary on how to handle this. However, if we have them do mandatory reviews it will take a lot of time to review.
All Seattle officers wear body worn cameras. I asked officer what happens if he turns off the camera. Officer stated that they are terminated.
Ok.
Will facial recognition software be used in any way? What about symbolism recognition?
No, the law states the cameras and videos will cannot be tied to facial recognition. I believe the law only addresses facial recognition cannot be used.
The police are already filming at protests, whether a crime is going on or not. Why is that not implicated? And the Bureau has a Nazi fascist Mark Kruger working in digital forensics? Does that fall under Kruger? Is it under Kruger now?
We are here to discuss the body worn cameras and policy for that program, not individuals of the Bureau. Forensics is responsible for evidence capturing and is part of FED. That program is different that the body worn camera unit under Tammy. This will be in the BWC policy.
Seems like a conflict between cameras always on versus privacy and recognition. One solution to explore is to link autonomous automated engagement of the camera, like taking the gun out of holster?
Yes, we are looking at what kind of events can trigger the camera. The mayor asked us to see what vendor have a trigger for when a weapon is drawn. In the RFP we asked about that and other triggers like when the lights or siren are turned on or when the vehicle door opens.
What happens when a reviewer looks at the video and sees a red flag in the videos? What do they do? The review of videos will be done mostly by public records personnel and perhaps officer if allowed. They will be responsible for reporting a red flag to the appropriate personnel.
The officer is going to have a camera and be allowed to film, what about citizens either involved or observing, do they have the right to film?
As long as they do not interfere with officers and the event in which they are involved.
It would be great to have a defined definition about how far you have to be away. The officer wants you to back up out of audio range.
You want people away for reaction time and your personal safety when dealing with an issue. I don’t believe there is a actual defined distance.
We went to your police academy and were told 20 feet. Recognizing the average person is not going to stab an officer with a camera, a written definition would be nice.
What does the pilot project look like?
We will conduct the pilot at Central Precinct and the Traffic Division. Central, because we know the IT infrastructure is already in place and the video load is expect to be high. Traffic so we can test the ruggedness and durability of the technology in all sorts of weather and exposed situations.
Will it be certain officers? Certain shifts?
All street officers.
The cameras on officers are facing out so you are not seeing what the officer is doing. That will only be used to prosecute people. Are they going to be left on during roll call so we know if the officer says “lets go out and shoot some black people”.
No, roll call discussions include intelligence.
I believe the Supreme Court ruled 10 ft. I have been told to back up one or two blocks from a homicide scene there is no way to video tape from that distance. I have been threatened with arrest if I did not back up. People complain to me that officers have made threats like “I’ll shove that up your a.” There are issues with the police being filmed by people in the public and I try to get information about what officer said what.
What the pilot you named Central and Traffic are most ready. Why not work where there are the most stops, where stops are happening, north and northeast. How soon will it be where community engagement with police is highest?
Once a decision is made to fully implement, the timeline for implementation is March – Oct next year. We will do one precinct at a time. During the pilot we will be testing the IT connectivity at the other locations and getting it ready. It will take 7 months to fully implement.
PCCEP would like to create a document of their position and recommendation on the cameras.
Town Hall #1 Feedback
East Portland Community Center, Feb 16, 2019
Mandatory Activation: Oregon law states a camera worn upon an officer’s person will be set to record continuously, beginning when the officer develops reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that a crime or violation has occurred, is occurring or will occur and the law enforcement officer begins to make contact with the person suspected of committing the offense.
- Really like having the Miranda Rights called out as mandatory. Believe this to be a good policy for the community benefit and the officer benefit.
- If there is not crime in progress or harm to self/others, then a person experiencing a mental health crisis should not be considered mandatory recording. The criminal component/harm to self or others would trigger the mandatory recording.
- Liked Albuquerque’s policy of mandatory recording when not complying with an officer’s commands or appearing to pose a threat to self or others.
- Should be mandatory to record all persons in the back-seat during transport, even if all we can get is the sound.
- Policy should set when the camera is on and off.
- What if officers forget to turn the camera on until later in the incident?
- Explained that many vendors have an option to capture 30 seconds prior to when the record button it activated.
- Can you ask to have the camera turned on? What if the officer does not want it on?
- As far as camera on or off, no room for flexibility always on
Prohibited Activation: Oregon law allows for exceptions to mandatory activation provided they are based on reasonable privacy concerns, exigent circumstances or the safety of officers and other persons.
- In general, agreed with the provided statement for most agencies policies on prohibited recording. Thinking of instances where young child or other members of the public not expecting to be recorded.
- If there is suspected criminal behavior, then the prohibition is overruled. For example in general, in a medical facility it should be prohibited unless the situation involved a criminal activity taking place.
- PPB needs to be mindful of areas of worship as being prohibited or treated similar to the places identified in the typical policies reviewed.
- Like Baltimore’s policy, especially recognizing the sensitive nature of the crimes when taking victim/survivor statements.
- Really believe it comes down to the incidents and the criminal nature. For example, if someone is in a mental health crisis and is not a danger to self or others, then there is no reason to record the interaction. However, if there is a criminal component, or if the person is suicidal (standing on the bridge thinking about jumping) then there should be a mandatory recording.
- Have concern with the messaging of what is released and how often we do not see the full picture of the incident. Like the idea of having the pre-record option for some cameras to record for up to 30 seconds before the actual record button is activated.
Deactivation: When should an officer be allowed to turn the camera off?
- Other agencies policies make sense.
- Keep recording while collecting physical evidence.
- Like Oakland’s thoughts on turning it off when discussing administrative, tactical or Law Enforcement sensitive information away from the community member.
- No need to record coaching.
- Should record 24/7. What if there is an ambush, or if the officer forgets to turn it on, or sees something like a car wreck before turning it on.
- If recording constantly, then the officers are not free to talk everyday issues as a coping mechanism for what they deal with.
- Are there any analytics or review of when officers are turning the cameras on and off?
- Interviews with victims or witnesses when they request to not be recorded while giving a statement.
- When it may escalate a situation but then if use of force, officer needs training on how to deescalate.
- If you are not a suspect, you should have a choice if you want to be recorded, if you are a suspect then you do not get a choice.
- Officer should state why they are stopping the recording.
- Should be left to a supervisor on when to shut it off and the officer describes even over the radio.
- Cannot turn off any time they want.
- Supervisors should not leave access to activation or recordings unless there is cause.
Discretionary or Temporary Deactivation: When should the officer have discretion?
- When a victim or community member does not want to be recorded.
- Must state why they are stopping the recording and have supervisor approval.
- Supervisor to officers in tactical or coaching situations.
Officer reviewing video: Should officers be allowed to review the video prior to writing a routine report? What about reviewing the video after a critical incident (Officer Involved Shooting, Use of Force, and In-Custody Death)?
- Things happen quickly, officers should be able to review to refresh their memory.
- Officers should be able to review all videos.
- Officers may see things on camera upon review that they did not see at the scene themselves. Should they be able to use that later? For example when review the video from a domestic, they see drugs on the video.
- Officers should be able to review after critical incidents.
- It is okay for the officers to review the video because it will not be deleted or edited.
- For critical incidents, Officers should not review them alone but with a supervisor or community review. There is concern for the officer’s mental health in revisiting those types of events.
- Reviewing videos will increase the officer’s work load.
- Police should not be able to view until they write a report, for transparency.
- Avoid the temptation to adjust the report with the video. If use of force video, they would adjust the information on the report to match.
- Force events and critical events they should not be allowed to review. What about for low level force?
- What about events such as Tag Gruel case in St Johns? What if the video does not match up with the report?
- Prefer officers not view videos. Reports should be organic.
- Routine or critical officer should not view video at all.
- Can see where video would be helpful for writing reports but concerned on how the tool will be used.
- Who else views the videos?
- If criminal evidence, the DA and Defense will both view it. If it is a use of force, then command, IPR, IAD, possibly the CRB and public records.
- Will there be monitoring of the video?
- An overwhelming majority of the video will never be viewed. Only evidence and complaint videos will most likely been seen.
- No review for officers.
- Should only be reviewed after writing the report.
Supervisor reviewing video: When should supervisors be able to review the video? Randomly to look for compliance with policy? Only when there is a complaint?
- Supervisors should have cause and not random review. There should be a complaint or use of force.
- Random leads to targeting of officers.
- Use for training should be okay if approved by the city attorney, the officer in the video and any other members of the public in the video.
- If a member of the public is in the video and it is to be used for training, their face should be blurred just like in a public release request. If not, it may cause implicit bias if they see that person again.
- Should review for serious events and complaints.
General Feedback:
- Can dispatch turn on the cameras?
- Concerned with the whole process. Where is the stakeholders group City Council approved? This is a disservice to the City Council. Would like follow up on bargaining unit and stakeholder’s group. Bureau is going about this the wrong way.
- When will the DA review the video for officer involved shootings? Will they have access from the very beginning? When making decisions, the DA favors the officer.
- Will the Bureau have some way to get feedback along the way?
- The website has a feedback link.
- Part of the process is working with a research partner to develop performance measures throughout the pilot and implementation.
- That will be determined by the policy, however, there are additional concerns to the cameras on for the full 10 hour shift such as officer’s private conversations, restroom breaks, and the unmanageable amount of data that would create and the cost that goes with it.
- The old policy was never formalized and we are starting from scratch.
- This is the ORS that deals with camera use during public demonstrations. We will follow the law and the cameras will only be turned on in the event a crime is being committed.
- The camera is turned on at the beginning of the shift but only records when you hit the record button.
- How effective are the camera? Will we measure the value of the effect?
- What about communications with a deaf person? Do they have interpreters?
- What about recording in front of a home and its identifiers such as address? Or in a home there are documents, will these be redacted?
- Will field interviews be recorded?
- Will the camera be on all the time?
- What about mere conversations? If they are recorded then a complaint can be answered later.
- When both sides are recording it may have an equalizing effect.
- I publically film officers for protection and escalation. And to show some officers in a good light.
- Cameras should be on for the greater good. Officers to feel nitpicked and I understand that.
- How does the 180 day removal work?
- Is the 48 hour rule still in effect?
- Have you examined BWC from other jurisdictions?
- Would like to see the old draft policy. Recommend having that available for future community meetings.
- What is the impact of cameras on 181A.250 ORS?
- The Lents Community would welcome BWCs. They already self-monitor with door cameras etc. because there is so much crime. Would like to see things that would support the officers in doing their jobs in the community.
- What is the difference between activation and recording?
- Need to ensure there is protections against intentional deletion.
Town Hall #2 feedback
Matt Dishman Community Center, Feb 22, 2019
Mandatory Activation: Oregon law states a camera worn upon an officer’s person will be set to record continuously, beginning when the officer develops reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that a crime or violation has occurred, is occurring or will occur and the law enforcement officer begins to make contact with the person suspected of committing the offense.
- Should be started at the beginning of the call (radio dispatch).
- Any time weapons are drawn (e.g. gun or Taser).
- It should capture the conversation enroute to a call.
- Need footage that provides a fair account of events but don’t want police to be able to manipulate the context for protest videos.
- As soon as an officer leaves their vehicle.
- Liked the examples from other agencies and believes they should be included in our policy if not expanded upon.
- Confrontational needs to be clarified as it seem ambiguous.
- Psychiatric assessments would need clarification given HIPAA laws and patient privacy concerns.
- Once disorder or a disturbance is declared at a protest.
- Should be automatically turned on when the officer gets out of the car by RFID tag (concerned about officers forgetting to turn the camera on).
- When seizing evidence.
- During searches.
- Should be required during evidence collection, searches, etc. Even if just searching for bullet casing.
- Should be on when collecting evidence.
- Searches, arrest, transport, evidence collection.
- Concerns about during a hot incident that a manual activation may not occur.
- What if the button is not pressed?
- Someone may feel there is unconscious bias when the police say you are on camera. People may feel it is activated because the officer has a bias against them. Recommendation: policy that specifically delineates what will be said “I am recording because all stops are recorded”.
- If turned on midway through an interaction, there may be concern that the situation is elevating. If citizen sees officer reach up and press button they may think, uh oh things are about to go wrong, could increase anxiety. Subj may see that as a threat
- What is the protocol for activating camera?
Prohibited Activation: Oregon law allows for exceptions to mandatory activation provided they are based on reasonable privacy concerns, exigent circumstances or the safety of officers and other persons.
- Personal breaks (lunch, bathroom, etc.)
- Social interaction.
- Death notification (some yes, some no).
- Strip searches.
- Evidence collected inside a protected space that is evidence of a new crime that is not perceived by the officer at the time they are present. That should not be used to charge a crime later on.
- At schools unless a crime in is progress, due to the presence of minors.
- The Cleveland example is not workable if it conflicts with a mandatory activation. (Cleveland prohibits activation at entertainment venues that may have prohibitions against recording the event or facility; like a sports game or concert).
- There should be an ability to record even it private.
Deactivation: When should an officer be allowed to turn the camera off?
- “At full conclusion” – who decides when the incident is concluded?
- Officers should inform the community member when the camera is turned off, and there should be a visual indicator like the light goes off.
- What happens if the equipment fails to turn off when an officer means to? How do we make sure sensitive info is not released or used).
- What happens if the community member no longer wants the officer to record during the interaction?
- Should have GPS to document the crime, evidence location, officer on location, etc.
- On during public areas, not during constitutionally protected areas.
- Officer should have to explain why they are turning off the camera.
- Sexual assault victims, bias crime victims as to not cause more trauma. Other victims should be discretionary.
- Videos should be time stamped especially if turning on/off between interviews.
- There is a gray area around social services areas (detox or shelter), should not record during those times but may need for officer protection.
- Medical calls should not be recorded unless there is suspicion of a crime.
- Getting permission from a higher authority could cause issues that officers are not trusted.
- Supervisor needs to note the reason for deactivation, but this may be discounted by the public.
- A citizen can suggest deactivation but the officer should decide, officer protection is more important.
- How is deactivation done? Is there a visual cue? Recommend officer tell people they are deactivating.
- What about when someone consents to recording then changes their mind? Must balance evidence vs request.
- Do suspects have the right to not be recorded?
- Does it have a GPS associated so it documents the location when collecting evidence?
- Public vs. private, some difference in whether video should be on during a search (constitutionally protected area vs public search). Where there is no privacy interest, less need for recording.
- Officers may need to do a commentary to say why they are recording or not recording.
- Recommend deactivated for sex assault and bias crimes interviews?
- Any victim should have the discretion for recording, not officers.
- Perhaps on civil issue like barking dogs.
- Should be restrictions on when a supervisor can authorized deactivation.
- Recommend keeping camera on when collecting evidence even when no suspect. Camera on the entire time beginning to end.
- Is there ability to mute audio but continue to record? Capture someone in crisis but don’t need audio. Ability to filter out HIPAA discussions?
- Deactivated in a medical facility. The camera sees everything, where is the line?
- Should be deactivated when collecting evidence, unless a homicide scene.
- Should be left on for evidence, even when no suspect. Will help show where the evidence is.
- The public deserves to know that these deactivations and reports are the exception, and are not being abused.
- For “at the full conclusion of the event or encounter or incident” and “member has left the scene and anticipates no further involvement”, these should be fleshed out as definitions – Perhaps using examples where police/public trust has eroded.
Discretionary or Temporary Deactivation: When should the officer have discretion?
- Can the camera stay on but just turn the audio off so you cannot hear the sensitive conversations?
- Documents, computer screens with HIPAA should be blurred for public release requests.
- Should be supervisor discretion as opposed to exhaustive list of reasons.
- The conditions on the example are good: cultural/religious objections, death scene notification.
- Bad idea to turn off the camera when searching for or collecting evidence. Needs to be on. Car search, need to have the video evidence. Can help protect the officer.
- Police should have no discretions for criminal contacts, but any non-criminal are discretionary.
- Between interviews similar to other agencies.
- Recommend time stamps for on-off in temporary deactivations
- During booking, this should be officer discretion.
- Should be on through the end of the contact, including booking as it is part of the event.
- Community members should not be able to say when the officer turns it off.
- Supervisor must be notified if turned off in a discretionary situation and must be documented in the report.
- Recording during a death notification could later be used as training aid to review how officers treat someone with empathy.
- When someone is naked and answers the door.
Officer reviewing video: Should officers be allowed to review the video prior to writing a routine report? What about reviewing the video after a critical incident (Officer Involved Shooting, Use of Force, and In-Custody Death)?
- The Ferguson example doesn’t make sense (officers allowed to review recordings prior to being questioned about an event). Seems like it would give officers the opportunity to create a story or excuse for unethical behavior.
- Officers should not be allowed to view and write their own encounter.
- 3rd party should be allowed to view videos and get both officer and community perspective.
- 3rd party should be allowed to watch the video before the officers.
- This can be a training aid. The video can be used to make sure the report and video are the same.
- Is there a live stream capability?
- Should be able to be reviewed prior to writing reports, just like reviewing the notebook entry.
- Officers should be able to view their own but not other officer’s videos who were on scene.
- If an officer’s report differs from the video, people may think they are lying.
- Can there be a 3rd party review? Like IPR?
- Disagree with the policies listed allowing access prior to writing the reports. The video can change the officer’s perception of what happened.
- The public is at a disadvantage if the officer can see it but not them.
- What is the point of an officer wearing a camera if they can review it first?
- The intent of the camera should be invisible. It should be used to validate the behavior of the officer. There should be no difference between normal review and critical events.
- There should be criteria, and express purpose to reviewing the video.
- Emergent situations, could be viewed like other video (surveillance, etc.)
- Video is dehumanizing / depersonalizing – best advantage is to make human advantage
- Video is an extension of using notes, should be able to review.
- This must be clearly stated, it is a bargainable issue and may cause conflict if officers and review but not full reports.
- They should only be able to review their own videos, not others.
- An assigned investigator should be able to review all videos.
- The video can be used to explain the gaps in the report.
- Shouldn’t write a report based on what is in the video.
- A routine incident can become critical later on.
- An officer’s culpability is determined by their state of mind, the video doesn’t express the state of mind.
- Should be able to view after report writing.
- Officers may not be 100% sure of memory. Are there be negative consequences if officers reviews – benefits to victims / public?
- Law enforcement is a response to, not a prevention of crime. It does catching officers lying for cultural problems.
- Officer review may cause issues of trust between public and police.
- Video should be treated the same regardless if it is an everyday issue or something that can lead to discipline like a use of force.
- Officers should not be able to use videos (camera body worn) to aid their reports. Their reports come first, then that needs to be contrasted by independent review of video and other evidence.
Supervisor reviewing video: When should supervisors be able to review the video? Randomly to look for compliance with policy? Only when there is a complaint?
- Supervisor should be used for training and review
- Supervisors should be able to randomly review and screen calls as training reviews.
- It should be reviewed as a training aid. Shows how the officer interacts with the public, if they are objective, if supervisor needs to give them feedback.
- Is there any case law around using videos for discipline?
- Is live-streaming possible, where a supervisor can watch if they are not on scene?
- Supervisors should be able to review in special circumstances like use of force, misconduct, feeling that the officer is not doing their job.
- They shouldn’t spend 8 hours just watching videos.
- Review for performance, not only negative circumstances. Random reviews, not just annually for performance report.
- Boo. (Individual literally booed supervisor review).
- Should review use of force.
- Keep in line with existing use of force policy regarding use of videos.
- Should be reviewed for complaints and used as a tool to prove or disprove.
- Videos could address targeting.
- Random sampling.
- Cause could be a purpose for more training, like a random urinalysis.
- Supervisors shouldn’t review because they will not look at the entirety of the video.
- Absolutely.
- Shouldn’t be used to make an example of the officer, embarrass the officer or misinterpret their work.
- Should be shared for training.
General Feedback and feedback received by comment card:
- 85% of the officer’s day is boring and the camera should be for the critical events.
- Need to dispel the assumptions about the cameras with correct information.
- There is perception vs reality in how cameras will be used and how they work.
- Trust has to be part of the policy end game.
- I feel strongly about footage being on from first knowledge that officer is responding to the very end. How can we make that happen? Change policy on length stored.
- Will there be new positions to process audio/video?
- How will video/audio data be logged and organized?
- No body cameras. Use the money to have more cops. If you are dead set on going through with this anyway. The premise is wrong. First of all: how the heck did cops do their job before? If technology is so uncertain, how does this help? (if not hinder). If cops (as has been proven in these other cities) use the footage or lack there of to their own advantage / bias. How does this make a difference? Push the button when you get out of the car. Take recordings, tag where you might need a review later (to supplement your incident report after you submitted it) and use discretionary deactivation as necessary. I thought I was coming here to be convinced that the body cams were helpful. Nothing anybody said today convinced me that cameras help (e.g. if for example you need footage to supplement or prove your description of your incident “help me to document” is disconcerting, sad.
- There should be a light to notify the public that the camera has been activated.
- Officer should explain why the camera is turned on, e.g. “we record all traffic stops” or “I see a joint”.
- Video should not be used for other crimes outside of why officer is originally there or suspect is charged with.
- Publish video of rolls calls, provide more information of what goes on in police.
- Pending legislation that suggest drivers getting citation would have right to refuse search, BWC may impact policy. Is BWC considered a search? Could pending legislation change this? Some policy cover this specifically.
- Good idea to publically post policies, use media outlet to roll out.
- Make sure policy covers every aspect, and ensure policy covers not recording.
- Is there technology to do remote activation? Can supervisor do that?
- What can officers do with the video they have and where are the lines with privacy? DV where you are there for something else and later in reviewing for legitimate reason, you see something in the video, what can the video be used for? What are the privacy interests for those being recorded outside the scope of the officers’ reason for being there?
- Would value the ACLU’s input on body cameras.
- PPB should work with the ACLU’s recommendation to develop their policy.
- I don’t see why camera
Town Hall #3 feedback
First Unitarian Church, Feb 28, 2019
Mandatory Activation: Oregon law states a camera worn upon an officer’s person will be set to record continuously, beginning when the officer develops reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that a crime or violation has occurred, is occurring or will occur and the law enforcement officer begins to make contact with the person suspected of committing the offense.
- Have you considered triggers that will activate the cameras, like when an officer touches or removed his weapon from the holster?
- Yes, in the RFP we ask the vendors if their systems allow for triggers and what are they.
- How is reasonable suspicion defined?
- That is a legal term and is defined by the courts.
- Cop Watch is neutral on Body cameras.
- Mere conversations when you pat someone down or ask questions about criminal activity should be recorded. If it goes past a casual conversation and the officer starts digging for information it should be considered a stop. They should be informed if they are free to go.
- If the intention of a mere conversation is to lead to a drug arrest then the video should capture the entire encounter so it will show if they were coerced or not.
- There is an advantage to turn it on when you talk to the homeless. It should be used for training and may give better ways to approach situations that are common here.
- Is there training on how to enter and engage in a mere conversation and how they evolve?
- How do I know what your intensions are as an officer? It should be made clear with the camera on what the intentions are.
- The cameras should be on once you get past the pleasantries and start asking questions about activity.
- It seems like all we are talking about is using the videos for prosecution, what about your goals for accountability.
- When can you ask the officer to stop recording?
- If you decline a breathalyzer, there are consequences. It should be the same for declining being on video.
Prohibited Activation: Oregon law allows for exceptions to mandatory activation provided they are based on reasonable privacy concerns, exigent circumstances or the safety of officers and other persons.
- What does privacy of the house mean?
- All domestic violence calls should be recorded.
- What is a field interview?
- Victim interviews should not be recorded.
- Victims should be able to request the camera being on or off. The officer should ask for their preference.
- Victims should get legal counsel before talking to police.
- Physical abuse victims should not be recorded.
- What about minors?
- How are audio recordings from 911 handled?
- There would be use on recording some minors, but if there are prohibitions.
- Releasing videos of minors would not be in the public interest mostly. Faces blurred will help.
Deactivation: When should an officer be allowed to turn the camera off?
- What does the Oakland example mean? What is administrative, tactical, LE sensitive?
- Officers stepping away from the community member to discuss tactics or LE sensitive information.
- Those should still be recorded. Is there an option to turn off the audio?
- Side conversations are still relevant to the incident. What if they use bias language during those side conversations? They should also be recorded.
- Why would you shut it off during evidence collection? It should be recorded to show that the officer did not tamper with the evidence.
- For shootings, you should have it on. You want to capture the whole scene.
- We actually use 3D filming for shooting cases, better quality than the body cams.
- Keeping it on for evidence collection makes sense.
- The prohibitions against recording during public demonstrations (ORS 181A.250) covers more than just demonstrations. Anytime a person espouses their views.
- Officers should not use a minor issue during a protest to continue recording long after the event is over. Needs to end at the end of the criminal event. One person does not represent the entire crowd.
- Can you ask the officer to leave it on?
- Relevance of the video is important, much of the day is boring with brief periods of craziness.
Discretionary or Temporary Deactivation: When should the officer have discretion?
- People going through the worst day of their lives are not going to be thinking straight. Officers should have discretion in these cases.
- I like the idea that the officer has to state on camera why they are deactivating.
- There should be an ability to object to the recording in a house of worship.
- If you are in a church, you should ask the religious leaders first if it is ok. If not then it should be off.
- Should be off in all churches, it violates the religious affiliation laws.
- It should not be on for death notices or any other event that does not have an active scene.
Officer reviewing video: Should officers be allowed to review the video prior to writing a routine report? What about reviewing the video after a critical incident (Officer Involved Shooting, Use of Force, and In-Custody Death)?
- DOJ said officers should not view prior to interviews, it will change their perspective.
- The ability for officers to review but not the citizen is an unfair advantage.
- Concerned about officers looking for additional evidence in the videos. Should not be used for infractions or misdemeanors.
- Do officers write the reports right after the event?
- It depends on how busy they are, if there are other calls waiting. Sometime it can be at the end of shift or the next shift before they get to the report.
- The videos would be helpful for recollection but it is good for them to do the initial statement first.
- In the report you may want to capture their impression and why they did what they did then watch the video to enhance the thought.
- Allowing to review prior, then the public perception is lessened. The report should reflect their impression on scene.
- How do you define critical incident? Where do you draw the line?
- Most agencies define it as a use of force, in-custody death, officer involved shooting, or serious complaint against the officer.
- There should be a balance between the public and police needs.
- There have been tragic incidents like police shootings caught on camera where it has not lead to the prosecution of the officers. The public is looking for a balance to the David and Goliath situation. The Public need to have tangible benefit and great example is no review prior to the report.
Supervisor reviewing video: When should supervisors be able to review the video? Randomly to look for compliance with policy? Only when there is a complaint?
- What are the consequences of violating the policy?
- Where does it go on the decision guide?
- Can the system be used for accountability to see whether an officer is in or out of policy?
General Feedback and feedback received by comment card:
- You should have Domestic Violence advocates on the stakeholder’s committee.
- It should not be tied to a license plate database or any other database.
- Who determines if a release is in the “public’s interest?”
- What are the national stats on how often the recordings are used in prosecution vs in an incident where an officer receives a complaint?
- Very few agencies we talked to have tracked any stats. We plan to use a research partner to help us develop and track performance measures.
- Faces of officers should not be blurred.
- What is the main purpose of the cameras in the national arena?
- If the videos are released to a third party like the FBI, can they use facial recognition?
- Have you asked the officers questions on their thoughts?
- The stakeholder committee should be open to the public to listen but not comment.
- In your loopback to these meetings, compare to current stipulations in PPA collective bargaining agreement, what public recommendations are plainly unworkable in light of the CBA?