{"id":3343,"date":"2015-02-18T02:53:41","date_gmt":"2015-02-18T02:53:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ncjolt.org\/?p=3343"},"modified":"2020-06-04T20:53:38","modified_gmt":"2020-06-04T20:53:38","slug":"full-disclosure-you-should-have-access-to-body-camera-footage","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/blogs\/full-disclosure-you-should-have-access-to-body-camera-footage\/","title":{"rendered":"FULL DISCLOSURE: YOU SHOULD HAVE ACCESS TO BODY CAMERA FOOTAGE"},"content":{"rendered":"

In the wake of Michael Brown\u2019s death in Ferguson, Missouri, the conflicting accounts<\/a> that emerged as well as the grand jury\u2019s decision not to indict Officer Wilson rose to the level of nationwide protests<\/a>. In particular, the differing accounts of Michael Brown\u2019s death prompted demands for police accountability and transparency\u2014people wanted police body cameras<\/a>. President Obama answered and recommended $263 million<\/a> for law enforcement cameras. There has since been some evaluation of policies being used by legislatures and law enforcement to ensure that footage obtained from police cameras is collected as well as preserved<\/a>. However, there has been almost no conversation surrounding the classification of such footage, its relationship to the public, or the media\u2019s access following trial.
\nDuluth, Minnesota is home to the first police department in the state to receive body cameras. In August of 2014, body cameras captured a police officer shooting a 34-year-old man who had locked himself in his garage and threatened to kill himself with a knife. Although officers were cleared of any wrong doing, videos were never released at the close of the investigation. Duluth reporters claim that following crime lab investigations, departments typically comply with information requests by reporters. In this case, prosecutors reviewed the body camera footage but the videos were never released: \u201cDuluth requested the state clarify what body camera footage is public and what should be kept private, through an unusual request to Minnesota\u2019s information policy analysis division. The office denied Duluth\u2019s request, in what will be the final word<\/a> on the issue unless the legislature picks it up this spring.\u201d The city attorney has sought to make a distinction between paper reports that are typically released and the hours of footage obtained by body cameras<\/a>.
\nIn an admittedly digital age, it is clear that advances in technology are affecting law enforcement not only in terms of the equipment being used by the force, but also in terms of the expectations for public access to information. The footage obtained by body cameras should be disclosed to the public following police investigation or, when appropriate, trial. The live, uninterrupted documentation of police encounters enabled by body cameras constitutes a \u201crecor[d] or information compiled for law enforcement purposes\u201d and, without more, should be subject to the FOIA disclosure requirements<\/a>. Congressional intent commanding FOIA is clear in that its \u201ccore purpose\u201d is to \u201ccontribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities<\/a> of the government.\u201d<\/p>\n

Because uninterrupted video accounts of police activity would clearly give a clear picture of \u201cwhat the Government is up to<\/a>,\u201d there is no doubt of the high public interest in disclosing such footage.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In the wake of Michael Brown\u2019s death in Ferguson, Missouri, the conflicting accounts that emerged as well as the grand jury\u2019s decision not to indict Officer Wilson rose to the level of nationwide protests. In particular, the differing accounts of Michael Brown\u2019s death prompted demands for police accountability and transparency\u2014people wanted police body cameras. President …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[51],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3343"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3343"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3343\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7368,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3343\/revisions\/7368"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3343"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3343"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3343"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}