Independent Lens: Toward Transparency, Accountability, And
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DE PEN NT L DE EN N S I Toward Transparency, Accountability, & Effectiveness in Police Tactics Independent Lens: Toward Transparency, Accountability, and Effectiveness in Police Tactics Model State Legislation for Body-Worn Cameras The Harvard Black Law Students Association Chike Croslin, Justin Dews, & Jaimie McFarlin Model Legislation Drafting Committee April 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 3 CONTENTS .......................................................................................................................................... 6 I. THE REPORT .................................................................................................................................. 7 A. BODY-WORN CAMERAS ARE AN IMPORTANT MEANS OF REINVIGORATING COMMUNITY POLICING AND MENDING FRACTURED RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LAW ENFORCEMENT AND COMMUNITIES NATIONWIDE. ................................................................................................................................................................ 7 1. In municipalities across the country, relationships between local law enforcement and communities of color are broken... 8 2. Police complaints, Litigation, and settlements impose significant costs on municipalities and communities. .................... 9 Survey of the costs of police misconduct for municipalities ................................................................................................................... 9 3. Current Law Enforcement Strategies for constitutional compliance are inefficient and waste valuable resources. .......... 10 B. POLICE DEPARTMENT USE OF BODY-WORN VIDEO CAMERAS FOR EFFECTIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Findings from Rialto, California .................................................................................................................................. 12 Findings from Mesa, Arizona ..................................................................................................................................... 12 Findings from Plymouth, England ............................................................................................................................... 12 Findings from Phoenix, Arizona ................................................................................................................................. 13 Findings from San Diego, California ........................................................................................................................... 13 Effects of Video Surveillance on Changing Behavior ..................................................................................................... 13 C. THE CURRENT STATE OF COPS AND CAMERAS ............................................................................................... 16 1. Survey of municipal police departments and body-worn cameras ................................................................................ 16 2. Legal Landscape ..................................................................................................................................................... 20 Constitutional Law on Privacy and Surveillance...................................................................................................................................... 20 Wiretapping Statues ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 21 Implications of the Freedom of Information Act and State Sunshine Laws on Video Surveillance ............................................ 23 3. Video Footage as Evidence ...................................................................................................................................... 24 Camera Perspective Bias & Implicit Bias .................................................................................................................................................. 26 II. INCORPORATING POLICY CONSIDERATIONS INTO STATE LEGISLATION ............... 28 POLICY CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................................................................................ 28 1. Funding .................................................................................................................................................................. 28 Scale .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 29 2. Public Access to Recordings ..................................................................................................................................... 30 3. Privacy Concerns ..................................................................................................................................................... 30 Affirmative warning? ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 31 Wiretapping laws ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 32 4. Camera function ...................................................................................................................................................... 32 5. Data storage ............................................................................................................................................................ 32 Retention time ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 33 Filing and Designation .................................................................................................................................................................................. 33 Releasing Recorded Data .............................................................................................................................................................................. 33 6. Compliance & Oversight ......................................................................................................................................... 34 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................................ 35 III. MODEL STATE LEGISLATION ............................................................................................... 36 Page 2 of 43 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Since the 1980s, many police departments have operated according to the notion of community policing — a philosophy that emphasizes close relationships characterized by mutual trust between police and communities as the foundation for proportionate, efficient, and effective police work. This emphasis on mutual trust notwithstanding, high-profile incidents of misconduct, high levels of complaints against police, and costly settlements and litigation have highlighted the divisions that exist between police and citizens and have spurred a national conversation on policing and police-community relations. This Report focuses on the viability and implementation of measures aimed at mending the evidently fractured relationships between police officers and communities across the nation. The Report argues that body-worn cameras, when appropriately integrated into existing police practices and supported by a detailed regulatory architecture, can be a key tool for reinvigorating community policing and reducing costs stemming from complaints, litigation, and settlements, as well as an important first step in mending relationships between law enforcement and communities nationwide. Police complaints, litigation, and settlements impose significant costs on municipalities and communities. It is unquestionable that police misconduct, police complaints, and police-involved litigation and settlements are costly for municipalities and taxpayers. • In 2013, Chicago paid $84.6 million in police misconduct settlements, judgments, and legal fees.1 • According to Oakland Police Department expenditure records, the total legal costs of ongoing police officer misconduct totaled $13,149,000 in fiscal year 2010–11, including approximately $12,271,000 that was set aside to pay settlements stemming from police brutality, illegal searches, injuries, false arrests, and related civil-rights violations.2 • In Denver, settling police and sheriff claims has cost over $16 million since 2004.3 • In 2011, New York spent $119 million for police misconduct and civil-rights violations. 4 Claim payouts alleging abusive police conduct were $136 million in 2010 according to the city comptroller’s office.5 To the extent that use of body-worn cameras can curb police misconduct, reduce the incidence of complaints, and reduce the amounts spent on litigation and settlements, such use likely merits serious consideration. At least