In the past few months, the furor over police accountability has touched

In the past few months, the furor over police accountability has touched off a tricky debate over the use of body cameras. President Obama, along with many civil-rights activists, have called for their increased use by officers. Yet, as Seattle saw when a once anonymous programmer began requesting massive amounts of both body- and dash-camera videos and posting them online, there are privacy issues involved. And no less liberal an organization than the ACLU has suggested that limits be placed on public access to the footage.

That debate has now hit the legislature. On Thursday, the House judiciary committee will hear two bills that would dramatically reduce the number of police videos that could be released.

To the extent that anybody knows about them, they are thought of as body-cam bills. But that’s a misnomer. Both bills would equally affect dash-cam footage, even though such recordings are almost always taken in public places, unlike body cams, which may travel with officers into private homes. The bills would effectively reverse a state Supreme Court ruling last June that said dash-cam footage must be turned over upon request, just like any other public document.

If you want to know why dash- and body-cam videos are important, take a look at the footage of a Seattle officer’s bizarre arrest of a 70-year-old African-American man for walking with a golf club (below). Or peruse the online channels (on YouTube and LiveLeak) of the formerly anonymous programer, Timothy Clemans, who has posted an array of enlightening videos, showing the good, the bad, and the ugly.

One of the bills is backed by the ACLU, the other by the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs. There’s some argument about which would restrict access more. Jared Friend, director of the ACLU of Washington’s technology and liberty program, makes a convincing case that the WASPC bill, HB 1917, is the dubious winner on that front. If someone other than the subject of a video is requesting a copy, that person must obtain a court order ruling that the public interest in the video’s release outweighs the privacy concerns.

How many reporters, never mind ordinary members of the public, are going to have the time, resources, and energy to take the matter to court? Very few. “It’s incredibly onerous,” Friend says.

Yet the bill Friend is supporting, HB 1910 (with a companion bill in the Senate sponsored by newbie Seattle legislator Pramila Jayapal) places significant roadblocks in the way of access too.

Perhaps the biggest is that videos would be kept only up to 75 days unless they are “flagged” because of a misconduct complaint or use-of-force investigation, at the request of the person filmed, or because some other requester “presents specific, articulable facts to support a reasonable belief that law enforcement misconduct occurred.”

Michele Earl-Hubbard, board vice-president of the Coalition for Open Government, says that criterion is an “extremely high hurdle.” She argues that the public shouldn’t get to see just misconduct cases but “day-to-day” interactions as well.

It’s also true that some problematic encounters might not give rise to a misconduct complaint within just 75 days. Then the relevant videos might simply be destroyed. That’s a huge change. Right now, the Seattle Police Department, which has just started a body-cam pilot project, keeps its videos dealing with crimes indefinitely.

“You’re going to lose some things that are valuable,” Friend allows. But he says he and other backers of the bill are trying to make sure that videos are used for police accountability only, and not for other purposes like broad police surveillance or online sensationalism. With both body and dash cameras, he says, “we’re talking about deploying a massive network of cameras.”

Speaking to SW this afternoon, Jayapal also stresses that police cameras should be used “for a very specific purpose,” accountability, and worries that other uses by police will only result in more people of color behind bars.

Still, she says she’s not wedded to the specifics in her bill. She adds that she’s been mulling proposing a “study bill” instead that would look at how police cameras are being used in other jurisdictions.


Talk to us

Please share your story tips by emailing editor@seattleweekly.com.

More in News & Comment

Stock image
Campgrounds to reopen in 22 Washington counties

Campgrounds in counties actively in Phase 2 of the reopening plan will begin to welcome visitors June 1, state says.

Puget Sound renters will need housing assistance

Nonprofits, activists are expecting greater need as workers are laid off.

King County Sheriff Mitzi Johanknecht. FILE PHOTO
King County sheriff releases message about Minneapolis Police officer

Mitzi Johanknecht calls video of officer kneeling on neck of George Floyd ‘heartbreaking and disturbing’

File photo of construction near North Bend on Aug. 16. Sound Publishing file photo
                                File photo of construction near North Bend on Aug. 16. Sound Publishing file photo
Rural King County mayors want state to let them enter Phase 2

Mayors cite heavy economic damage from prolonged shutdown.

New dashboard shows how far along King County is to meeting Phase II metrics

The county has met more than half its goals, but the ones it hasn’t met are critical in determining how many people are still being infected, and how quickly people are being tested.

As sales tax plummets in King County, mental health and drug program funding dries up

County will need to make severe cuts to MIDD program this year.

Auburn Mountain View Cemetery Manager Craig Hudson, center, confers with maintenance workers David Partridge, left, and Zach Hopper in March 2020. Sound Publishing file photo
State allows weddings, funerals, religious services to restart with restrictions

Gov. Inslee issues new rules during May 27 news conference.

State loosens cougar hunting restrictions

The regulations will impact 19 areas around the state.

Most Read