×

Local police gather input on body cameras

Staff photo by Connor Cummiskey Commander Dave Borchert, left, addressed a crowd of interested citizens along with the New Ulm Police Department to get input on body-worn camera policy.

NEW ULM — A small crowd gathered at city hall to discuss policy concerns surrounding body-worn cameras (BWC).

The big question Monday night during the New Ulm Police Department’s (NUPD) policy meeting involved when the BWCs are on and access to that data.

One of the first concerns was of how an officer can decide on when to turn the camera on or off.

“It is up to the discretion of the officer if he wants to put you on camera,” attendee Michael Hasse said.

The cameras will be turned on when an officer responds to a call and will remain on until the conclusion of the event or the officer determines that further recording will not provide evidence, according to a draft policy.

“The policy does state if we shut it off, we have to give a reason prior to shutting it off,” Cpl. Keith Anderson said.

Officers do not have to inform a person that they are being recorded.

Based on the discussion, if a person at a scene requests that the officer turns off the camera, they can. There were concerns over what situations an officer can comply with a request to stop recording.

“In a situation where you have an escalated call and the person who is escalating, like a domestic dispute, says ‘oh I don’t want the camera on,’ is the policy going to say at that point (the officer says) ‘no, I have to keep the camera on?'” asked one woman.

The policy draft states if an officer believes more evidence could be collected, they should re-activate the BWC.

Officers are not required to record medical-related calls but the draft policy suggests they record transportation of victims or suspects.

They are not required to record during an apparent mental health call unless documenting use of force or reasons for it.

Along with what gets recorded, what data can get accessed was discussed. Commander Dave Borchert explained that there are three levels of classification of the data.

All data is presumed private according to the policy draft, meaning it is only accessible to the subjects recorded. Data that is part of an active criminal investigation is considered confidential and requires a court order to access aside from law enforcement duties.

Data that is classified as private or nonpublic under state statute, such as data that identifies minors, maintains that classification.

All documentation of officers discharging firearms, except for training or killing a sick, injured or dangerous animal, use of force by an officer that results in substantial harm, and data requested by a subject are considered public.

Any data of a subject who has not consented to the release must be redacted. Borchert said he presumed the department had the duty to secure consent.

The basic process for accessing data would be to contact the department’s police records manager, in this case Borchert, and submit a request following the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.

The department cannot ask why, nor will it collect identifying information except what is necessary to deliver the data or to ascertain an identity in the case of private data.

Unless the video is part of an active investigation, the individual should receive it with redactions of other subjects who do not consent to the release and undercover officers.

On-duty officers, not undercover, cannot be redacted, and an officer’s consent to release the data is not required.

If access is denied, a requester can contact Police Chief Myron Wieland or the city attorney for appeal.

All data will be retained for a minimum of 90 days before being destroyed. Some recordings, including use of force or those containing reason for complaints against an officer, are retained for six years.

The policy draft lays out a schedule of other data retention from 90 days to seven years depending on if there is a report and the nature of the video.

Borchert expects all officers who are on duty, responding to calls, should be equipped with a camera.

The policy draft does allow for video to be randomly pulled for reviews of officers’ compliance with policy, and videos may be used for training purposes.

Input is still being collected, and none of the policy is final yet. It will not go into effect until after the City Council approves it. The council will also have the final say on what cameras get purchased.

To read the whole draft, go to ci.new-ulm.mn.us and find the police tab under the public safety department. There will be a link to the body worn cameras page where the policy draft can be downloaded.

To provide further input call Borchert or Wieland at (507) 233-6750.

Connor Cummiskey can be emailed at ccummiskey@nujournal.com.

Newsletter

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

I'm interested in (please check all that apply)
Are you a paying subscriber to the newspaper?
   

COMMENTS

Starting at $4.38/week.

Subscribe Today