Police body cameras raise questions for Niagara Falls, other police agencies

Published 11:15 am Monday, July 4, 2016

ALBANY — As more police agencies rig officers with body cameras, New York state is venturing into new territory on what footage to make available to the public, according to an expert on government records.

Without court rulings to guide them, police should think carefully about privacy and safety, in addition to the public’s right to know, as they consider using the technology, said Robert Freeman, director of the New York Committee on Open Government.

Turning over videos is but one concern as body cameras become more widely available, law enforcement and open-government experts said. Other questions include when to use the cameras and the practicalities of storing hours upon hours of digital videos.

In Niagara Falls, city police had 40 body cameras, along with the docking stations needed to use them on hand in September when a state grant was announced allowing the department to purchase 15 additional cameras. The cameras are spread out and assigned to patrol officers on all three shifts. The 55 cameras mean roughly 75 percent of the Falls Patrol Division officers have access to the new technology.

Peter Kehoe, director of the State Sheriffs’ Association, said about five sheriffs departments have acquired the cameras so far, though others are considering them.

The Niagara County Sheriff’s Department was one of the first in the state to get the cameras. The Lockport and North Tonawanda police department have or have experimented with them, as well.

Fielding public requests for footage captured by officers could consume hours of labor, said Kehoe, as will weighing the need to ensure that privacy laws are not violated when videos are released.

Decisions on what goes out the door and what gets held back are likely to be second-guessed, no matter what, he said.

“Protecting public privacy involves a lot of judgment calls,” he said. “You’re trying to protect privacy, but some citizens may say you’re trying to cover something up.”

Freeman said privacy is but one concern for police thinking of using the cameras.

“What is captured on the video may have implications in relation to effective law enforcement, and certainly with privacy-related issues and issues involving the possibility that somebody’s safety — such as a witness to a crime — could be jeopardized if the video is disclosed,” he said.

Even as those limitations pile up, he said, allowing the public to see such recordings is important.

“Without some sort of disclosure, the purpose of the body cam becomes less than meaningful,” he said. “The public should have the right to know that police officers are doing the right thing and are carrying out their jobs the way they are supposed to.”

New York State Police have not acquired body cams but have not ruled out doing so, either, said Beau Duffy, a department spokesman.

Advocates for the cameras say they benefit the public and police, discouraging groundless claims of police misconduct while motivating officers to treat the public with civility. But, across the country, introducing the technology has proven bumpy.

In New York, as more agencies mull over the technology in response to heightened scrutiny of encounters between police and the public, the state Municipal Police Training Council in Albany crafted a model policy last fall.

Its document states that officers are required to activate cameras “upon engaging in an enforcement-related activity.” Recording wouldn’t be required if turning on a camera placed an officer at a disadvantage, compromised safety or delayed a response to a citizen in need.

The policy recommends disclosure of video consistent with a department’s existing policies on public records and in line with the state Freedom of Information Law.

Kehoe said the key decision for any department is whether the advantages of cameras outweighed the costs of the technology, training and other variables.

Some police executives have been cool to the cameras, he noted, because of their limitations.

In some situations, an officer whose actions come under scrutiny may have been reacting to something not captured by the footage.

“The camera has a limited field of view,” he said. “It is not going to see all the other things that the officer’s eyes are seeing. The officer’s decisions could be based on things outside the range of the camera.”

Joe Mahoney covers the New York Statehouse for CNHI’s newspapers and websites. Reach him at jmahoney@cnhi.com.