{"id":4696,"date":"2016-10-13T13:33:36","date_gmt":"2016-10-13T17:33:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ncjolt.org\/?p=4696"},"modified":"2020-06-04T20:52:59","modified_gmt":"2020-06-04T20:52:59","slug":"tough-police-worn-body-camera-laws","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/blogs\/tough-police-worn-body-camera-laws\/","title":{"rendered":"One of Nation\u2019s Toughest Police-Worn Body Camera Recording Laws Just Went into Effect"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>On Saturday, 1 October 2016, <span style=\"color: #0000ff\"><a style=\"color: #0000ff\" href=\"http:\/\/www.ncleg.net\/Sessions\/2015\/Bills\/House\/PDF\/H972v8.pdf\">House Bill 972<\/a><\/span> went into effect across North Carolina. \u00a0Just the night prior, the Charlotte Mecklenberg Police Department <span style=\"color: #0000ff\"><a style=\"color: #0000ff\" href=\"http:\/\/www.charlotteobserver.com\/news\/special-reports\/charlotte-shooting-protests\/article105269021.html\">announced<\/a><\/span> it would release the entire dash camera and body camera footage capturing the events of the 20 September police-shooting death of Keith Lamont Scott.\u00a0 That announcement looks to be the last of its kind by a North Carolina police department since, effective 1 October, no police department can release a police-worn body camera recording without an individual\u2019s petition and a North Carolina Superior Court order.\u00a0 Because the incident occurred prior to 1 October, the prohibition against police departments releasing the recordings does not affect the Scott footage.<br \/>\nFrom this point forward House Bill 972 dictates the procedures for both disclosure (viewing) and release (obtaining a copy) of a police-worn body camera recording.\u00a0 In order to request <em>disclosure<\/em>, you must qualify as someone whose image or voice is in the recording, or their authorized personal representative.\u00a0 The request must be in writing to the head of the police department and specifically describe the date, time, and activity contained in the recording.\u00a0 The police chief must, within three days, either approve or deny disclosure based upon very broad discretionary factors such as whether the recording contains otherwise confidential information, would reveal information about a person that is highly sensitive and personal, might harm the reputation or jeopardize the safety of a person, of if confidentiality is \u201cnecessary to protect either an active or inactive internal or criminal investigation or potential internal or criminal investigation.\u201d So, pretty much anything goes for the police chief in his determination regarding disclosure.\u00a0 This decision is only reviewed for an abuse of discretion, which as explained is vastly expansive.<br \/>\nThe release of a recording must be ordered by a Superior Court judge, who must first consider similar factors that a police chief does in disclosure decisions, except that the court may also consider whether the release is necessary to advance a compelling public interest.\u00a0 Still though, the factors that a court must apply encourage against release and weigh in favor of a police chief\u2019s discretion.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>North Carolina\u2019s law is arguably the most restrictive of all current state laws concerning police body camera recordings, because it requires court action in order for any release to occur.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>&nbsp;<br \/>\nAmong the <span style=\"color: #0000ff\"><a style=\"color: #0000ff\" href=\"https:\/\/www.rcfp.org\/bodycams\">other states<\/a><\/span>, 14 state laws concerning police body camera footage are widely permissive, oftentimes preventing disclosure only when the recording was made in a private place, and 5 are semi-restrictive but most still allow the subject of a recording to receive a copy without any court action.<br \/>\nNorth Carolina Governor Pat McCrory <span style=\"color: #0000ff\"><a style=\"color: #0000ff\" href=\"http:\/\/www.theroot.com\/articles\/news\/2016\/09\/nc-law-that-limits-releasing-police-video-goes-into-effect-next-week\/\">says<\/a><\/span> the new law is a balance between public trust and protecting the rights and safety of police officers. \u00a0Attorney General, and governor-candidate challenger, Roy Cooper has <span style=\"color: #0000ff\"><a style=\"color: #0000ff\" href=\"http:\/\/abc11.com\/politics\/nc-ag-roy-cooper-says-body-camera-law-needs-fixing\/1423600\/\">stated<\/a><\/span> that while he supports body camera use by law enforcement, H.B. 972 does not do enough to ensure transparency.\u00a0 Charlotte Mayor Jennifer Roberts has called for the <span style=\"color: #0000ff\"><a style=\"color: #0000ff\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/national\/the-latest-charlotte-mayor-wants-repeal-of-law-on-videos\/2016\/09\/28\/94b2efe0-85d9-11e6-b57d-dd49277af02f_story.html\">repeal<\/a><\/span> of the law, along with the ACLU.<br \/>\nWhat becomes of this legislation may hinge upon the result of the state election, however one thing is certain, this law as it stands places significant barriers between the public and body camera footage, and does nothing to provide any statewide guidance for the proper uniform use of this expensive technology.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>On Saturday, 1 October 2016, House Bill 972 went into effect across North Carolina. \u00a0Just the night prior, the Charlotte Mecklenberg Police Department announced it would release the entire dash camera and body camera footage capturing the events of the 20 September police-shooting death of Keith Lamont Scott.\u00a0 That announcement looks to be the last <a href=\"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/blogs\/tough-police-worn-body-camera-laws\/\" class=\"more-link\">&#8230;<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":4697,"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\/4696"}],"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=4696"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4696\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7162,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4696\/revisions\/7162"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4697"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4696"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4696"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4696"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}