Source: https://www.dos.ny.gov/coog/news/may15.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 01:57:38+00:00

Document:
A. Across the country and here in New York, many are calling for police to wear body cameras.
B. Filming interactions between the police and the public seems to have a “civilizing” effect.
C. Already, many police departments have implemented the use of police body cameras.
B. Generation of real-time body camera footage will require additional resources to ensure adequate review prior to public disclosure.
Although many state legislatures are considering new policies regarding access to recordings generated by police body cameras, 25 in New York police agencies may attempt to block access based on Civil Rights Law §50-a which makes confidential “[a]ll [police] personnel records used to evaluate performance toward continued employment or promotion….”26 Over the years, courts have construed this prohibition in a broad manner, to allow police to withhold everything from records of an officer’s involvement in a hit and run accident while off-duty 27 to information about police accrual and leave practices, in direct contravention of a ruling from the highest court. 28 Such provision would likely serve as the basis to deny access to police body camera video in its entirety. Accordingly, the Committee on Open Government has repeatedly advised that the statute be rescinded or at the very least, amended.
Were CRL §50-a not to apply, the Freedom of Information Law would provide sufficient protections for privacy and safety, and permit agencies to withhold those portions of the records that would interfere with an investigation or judicial proceedings. FOIL is based upon a presumption of access that requires agencies to make all records available, except to the extent that records or portions thereof fall within one or more grounds for denial appearing in §87(2)(a) through (j). Redactions are permitted based on subdivision (b) when disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, subdivision (f) when disclosure could endanger the life or safety of any person and/or subdivision (e) which permits an agency to withhold when disclosure would interfere with a law enforcement investigation or judicial proceedings, deprive a person of a fair trial, identify a confidential witness or reveal criminal investigative techniques or procedures that are not routine.
“To ensure maximum access to government documents, the ‘exemptions are to be narrowly construed, with the burden resting on the agency to demonstrate that the requested material indeed qualifies for exemption’ (Matter of Hanig v State of New York Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 79 NY2d 106, 109; see, Public Officers Law § 89  [b]). As this Court has stated, ‘[o]nly where the material requested falls squarely within the ambit of one of these statutory exemptions may disclosure be withheld’ (Matter of Fink v Lefkowitz, 47 NY2d 567, 571).” (89 NY2d 267, 275 ).
“…to invoke one of the exemptions of section 87 (2), the agency must articulate ‘particularized and specific justification’ for not disclosing requested documents (Matter of Fink v Lefkowitz, supra, 47 NY2d, at 571). If the court is unable to determine whether withheld documents fall entirely within the scope of the asserted exemption, it should conduct an in camera inspection of representative documents and order disclosure of all nonexempt, appropriately redacted material (see, Matter of Xerox Corp. v Town of Webster, 65 NY2d 131, 133; Matter of Farbman & Sons v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., supra, 62 NY2d, at 83).” (Id.).
Based on the direction given by the Court of Appeals, and again, should it be determined that CRL §50-a does not apply, under FOIL agencies would be required to review recordings for the purpose of identifying those portions that might fall within the scope of one or more of the grounds for denial of access. As the Court stated later in the decision: “[i]ndeed, the Police Department is entitled to withhold complaint follow-up reports, or specific portions thereof, under any other applicable exemption, such as the law-enforcement exemption or the public-safety exemption, as long as the requisite particularized showing is made.” (Id., 277; emphasis added).
Depending on content of the video, any of the various exceptions to disclosure may apply. While some would argue that disclosure would never interfere with an ongoing investigation, 29 if disclosure would interfere with an investigation or deprive a person of a right to an impartial adjudication, the agency could withhold in whole or in part, again, depending on whether it could meet the burden of proving the harmful effects of disclosure.
FOIL further requires that agencies respond to requests for access within a reasonable time. If it is known that circumstances will prevent the agency from granting access within twenty business days, or if the agency cannot grant access by the approximate date given and needs more than twenty business days to grant access, it must provide a written explanation of its inability to do so and a specific date by which it will grant access. That date must be reasonable in consideration of the circumstances of the request.
Typically, audio and visual recordings, like most records in New York, would be subject to public access depending on content. If they are accessible under FOIL, what is not immediately apparent is how police agencies would manage the time and effort necessary to review and possibly redact prior to disclosure. Some jurisdictions have already learned how challenging it is to keep up with the demand and associated costs, in some cases making the difficult decision to forego body cameras until adequate polices and resources are developed to meet access requirements under law.
Due to the discretionary nature of exceptions to access laws in many states, there are those that argue that, especially in highly charged situations, proactive disclosure may be preferable. 30 According to the Chief Operating Officer of the Seattle Police Department, Michael Wagers, the Department “is now pursuing technology that would allow the automatic online posting of most police video collected.” 31 While we may be a long way off from a system that automatically makes such determinations, what is important is to have a system in place that makes video available to the public in order to gain insight into government activities, while reassuring crime victims that calling for help won’t result in an invasion of privacy or somehow jeopardize an investigation.
It is our hope that police agencies in New York will avail themselves of technological advances, such as the use of body cameras in order to enhance police and community relations, to deter bad acts, and to check policy brutality; however, it is not known yet how the courts will construe the provisions of Civil Rights Law §50-a with respect to the footage generated. We strongly recommend that before implementing cameras and generating video, police agencies clarify whether such records will be accessible pursuant to FOIL. In our opinion it is time for strenuous consideration of this issue, the policies and procedures governing when and where to record, and how best to realistically address access to such valuable records.
1 Sink, Justin, “Obama to Provide Funding for 50,000 Police Body Cameras”, thehill.com, December 1, 2014 (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/225583-obama-to-provide-funding-for-50000-police-body-cameras).
2 Moore, Martha T., USA Today, April 29, 2015 (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/04/29/hillary-clinton-body-cameras-baltimore/26569575).
3 The Associated Press, North Country Public Radio, December 5, 2014 (http://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/story/26831/20141205/cuomo-ny-will-mull-police-training-body-cameras).
4 Bredderman, Will, “Fairness for All: Cuomo Seeks Criminal Justice and Prison Reform”, Observer News, January 21, 2015 (http://observer.com/2015/01/fairness-for-all-cuomo-seeks-criminal-justice-and-prison-reform/).
5 Maciag, Mike, “What We Can Learn From the Police That Pioneered Body Cameras”, Governing, April 13, 2015, page 3 (http://www.governing.com/topics/public-justice-safety/gov-body-cameras-chesapeake-virginia.html); Wood, Colin, “Anonymous ‘Requester’ Turns Police body Camera Programs Upside Down”, Government Technology, November 25, 2014, pages 3, 4 (http://www.govtech.com/public-safety/Anonymous-Requester-Turns-Police-Body-Camera-Programs-Upside-Down.html).
6 Police Executive Research Forum and the US Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, “Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned,” 2014, pages 5, 6.
7 McIntosh, Toby and Harper, Lauren, “Backlash Develops Over Release of Body Cam Footage”, FreedomInfo.org, February 26, 2015, page 1 (http://www.freedominfo.org/2015/02/backlash-develops-over-release-of-body-cam-footage/).
8 Police Executive Research Forum and the US Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, “Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned,” 2014, page 6.
9 Maciag, Mike, “What We Can Learn From the Police That Pioneered Body Cameras”, Governing, April 13, 2015, page 1, 2 (http://www.governing.com/topics/public-justice-safety/gov-body-cameras-chesapeake-virginia.html).
10 Stanley, Jay, ACLU Senior Policy Analyst, “Police Body-Mounted Cameras: With Right Policies in Place, a Win For All”, March 2015, page 1 (https://www.aclu.org/police-body-mounted-cameras-right-policies-place-win-all).
11 Goodman, J. David, “New York Police Officers to Start Using Body Cameras in a Pilot Program”, New York Times, September 4, 2014 (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/nyregion/new-york-police-officers-to-begin-wearing-body-cameras-in-pilot-program.html?_r=0).
12 Maciag, Mike, “What We Can Learn From the Police That Pioneered Body Cameras”, Governing, April 13, 2015, page 1 (http://www.governing.com/topics/public-justice-safety/gov-body-cameras-chesapeake-virginia.html).
13 Maciag, Mike, “What We Can Learn From the Police That Pioneered Body Cameras”, Governing, April 13, 2015, page 2 (http://www.governing.com/topics/public-justice-safety/gov-body-cameras-chesapeake-virginia.html).
14 Police Executive Research Forum and the US Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, “Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned,” 2014, page 1.
15 Police Executive Research Forum and the US Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, “Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned,” 2014, page 2.
16 Stanley, Jay, ACLU Senior Policy Analyst, “Police Body-Mounted Cameras: With Right Policies in Place, a Win For All”, March, 2015, page 8 (https://www.aclu.org/police-body-mounted-cameras-right-policies-place-win-all); McIntosh, Toby and Harper, Lauren, “Backlash Develops Over Release of Body Cam Footage”, FreedomInfo.org, February 26, 2015, page 2 (http://www.freedominfo.org/2015/02/backlash-develops-over-release-of-body-cam-footage/).
17 Stanley, Jay, ACLU Senior Policy Analyst, “Police Body-Mounted Cameras: With Right Policies in Place, a Win For All”, March, 2015, page 2 (https://www.aclu.org/police-body-mounted-cameras-right-policies-place-win-all).
18 The President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, 1.3.1 Action Item, March, 2015 (http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/taskforce/Interim_TF_Report.pdf).
19Police Executive Research Forum and the US Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, “Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned,” 2014, page 33.
21 Wood, Colin, “Anonymous ‘Requester’ Turns Police body Camera Programs Upside Down”, Governing, November 25, 2014, page 4 (http://www.govtech.com/public-safety/Anonymous-Requester-Turns-Police-Body-Camera-Programs-Upside-Down.html).
22 Maciag, Mike, “What We Can Learn From the Police That Pioneered Body Cameras”, Governing, April 13, 2015 (http://www.governing.com/topics/public-justice-safety/gov-body-cameras-chesapeake-virginia.html).
23 Police Executive Research Forum and the US Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, “Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned,” 2014, page 31.
24 Police Executive Research Forum and the US Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, “Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned,” 2014, page 32.
25 McIntosh, “Pace on Body Camera Bills Slow; Restrictions Advance”, FreedomInfo.org, May 14, 2015 (http://www.freedominfo.org/2015/05/pace-on-body-camera-bills-slow-restrictions-advance/).
26 In its entirety, CRL §50-a makes confidential all such records with respect to police officers, correction officers, paid fire-fighters, paid fire-fighter/paramedics, and peace officers.
27 Hearst v New York State Police, 109 AD3d 32, 966 NYS2d 557 (3rd Dept. 2013).
28 Stuart v Department of Community and Correctional Services, Supreme Court, Chemung County, August 30, 2001 (permitted deletion of names of officers from accrual and leave statements); Capital Newspapers v Burns, 67 NY2d 562, 505 NYS2d 576 (1986)(required disclosure of lost time reports that include days and dates of sick leave used).
29 David Marburger, a Cleveland, Ohio, First Amendment attorney, privacy expert and author of the FOIA guide “Access to Attitude” says that the law enforcement exception “should not normally apply because body cams are not being used to investigate a specific crime and the officer is not directing the camera in any conscious way. Rather, their use is more or less automatic. ‘If the footage existed prior to the investigation or is automatically running regardless of whether the cop is investigating crime, the fact that the footage might be grabbed by investigators later when investigating doesn’t make it exempt; it is not exempt,’ according to Marbuger.” McIntosh, Toby and Harper, Lauren, “Backlash Develops Over Release of Body Cam Footage”, FreedomInfo.org, February 26, 2015, page 8 (http://www.freedominfo.org/2015/02/backlash-develops-over-release-of-body-cam-footage/).
30“Under many state FOI laws, voluntary release is permitted, a point also being added to many body cam policies because in highly charge situations, disclosure may be the preferred course.” McIntosh, Toby and Harper, Lauren, “Backlash Develops Over Release of Body Cam Footage”, FreedomInfo.org, February 26, 2015, page 8 (http://www.freedominfo.org/2015/02/backlash-develops-over-release-of-body-cam-footage/).
31 Wood, Colin, “Anonymous ‘Requester’ Turns Police Body Camera Programs Upside Down”, Governing, November 25, 2014, page 4 (http://www.govtech.com/public-safety/Anonymous-Requester-Turns-Police-Body-Camera-Programs-Upside-Down.html); Police Executive Research Forum and the US Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, “Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned,” 2014, page 47.

References: §50
 §50
 §87
 § 89
 §50
 §50
 §50