Access to police body cam video debated
MUNCIE — A bill backed by state Rep. Kevin Mahan, former sheriff of Blackford County, would give police departments the right to either release or not release police body camera videos to the public.
Under House Bill 1019, "police body cameras would become an exoneration tool, not an accountability tool, because any copy of video will be made public solely at the discretion of the law enforcement agency," Steve Key, director/general counsel of the Hoosier State Press Association (HSPA), told The Star Press.
Mahan, a Hartford City Republican and chair of the Government and Regulatory Reform Committee, noted in an interview that police would be required to allow a person depicted in a police video — or the person's relatives, if the person is deceased — and his attorney to inspect the video at least twice. However, the person would not be allowed to copy or record the video.
In addition, the public, including the press, could petition to obtain a court order to inspect or copy a recording.
But the proposed law puts the burden on the public to convince a judge to overrule the police, "and the public makes the argument blind because it can’t see the video in question," Key said. "And unlike other records disputes that end up in court under the Access to Public Records Act, even if the citizen wins the case, he or she is prohibited from asking for reasonable attorney fees and court costs."
As written, the bill "gives law enforcement all the incentive to deny access to video and gives the public all the disincentive to fight for the ability to see how an officer actually acted in a controversial incident," says Key, whose organization represents more than 160 Indiana newspapers.
"HSPA hopes to convince the Legislature to flip the language so that the public can benefit from police body cameras as a tool that holds both the police and those who interact with the officers accountable for their actions," Key said.
Police-worn body cameras have become popular in the wake of the shooting of Michael Brown and the death of Eric Garner, who had been placed in a chokehold by New York City police.
"I don't think it's going to protect the police," Mahan said of the bill, citing lack of a current state law regarding body cam videos. "A judge will make that decision."
Under current law, "you could have a situation where a recording could be deleted (by police) tomorrow," Mahan said, noting that HB 1019 requires police to retain a recording for at least 180 days. That's just one example, he added, of how the proposed law holds police accountable.
Luke Britt, the Indiana Public Access Counselor, agrees with HSPA's argument that the burden should be on the police to justify withholding videos. In all other instances involving public records, that burden is on public agencies, not the public.
In the case of police videos, HB 1019 places a burden on the public to demonstrate in court that the release of a video serves the public interest, does not create a risk of harm to anyone, and does not create a prejudicial effect on ongoing civil or criminal proceedings.
"There are some things the public and the press don't need to have," Mahan said. For example, what if an officer responds to a disturbance caused by a person in an emergency room who is intoxicated on drugs or alcohol, and the officer turns on his camera. And what if "your wife or daughter" happens to be a patient in ER at the same time and her hospital gown slips off. "The next thing you know your wife or daughter is on video," Mahan said. "I have a little problem with that."
Or what if police shoot video at a bloody, fatal traffic accident that winds up on the nightly news broadcast? "That's not the way people want to be remembered," Mahan said.
He also expressed concern about police departments being bombarded with video requests if the public is given carte blanche access. "If you've got an 18- or 19-year-old kid driving home who gets stopped by the police for speeding, what happens when the dad wants to come in and see the video recording of this traffic stop?" Mahan asked. "Without this bill, mayors tell me they'll just about have to hire a full-time person to handle public records requests for videos."
Muncie Police Chief Steve Stewart, whose department began using body-worn cameras last year, says he hasn't received any requests for videos yet. Delaware County Sheriff Ray Dudley, whose deputies are being equipped with body cams this year, says he would consult the prosecutor's office before releasing any videos.
Among other provisions, HB 1019 specifies that if a court grants a petition to inspect or copy a recording, the police must first obscure a dead body, visible acts of severe violence, nudity, minors, victims of crimes, people who reported a crime, witnesses to a crime, undercover officers and confidential informants.
Speaking as a former sheriff, Mahan says most police chiefs and sheriffs are very cooperative with the media. "I always enjoyed a good relationship with the media," he said. "This law gives a little discretion to law enforcement, but if there is a disagreement, a person can go to a court of law and file a case."
Mahan's committee is scheduled to hear the bill on Tuesday. "I'm real leery of any amendments because this passed out of a bipartisan summer study committee unanimously," he said. "Everybody seems to be pretty pleased with where the bill is now," including the police.
"Right now it appears everybody is on board except (HSPA representative) Steve Key," Mahan added. "He doesn't feel like the public should have to go file a court petition. He feels law enforcement should have to go to court. He and I are at a difference. If he wants an opportunity to testify, he can say the same things he said during the interim study committee, but I would like to keep the bill as is unless it's the will of the committee to amend it."
While the former sheriff says he "always enjoyed a good relationship with the media," that relationship will be put to a test at next week's hearing.
Contact Seth Slabaugh at (7650 213-5834.