August 10,2016 ?Harry Black, City? Manager, City. of Cincinnati 1 I I -. I I ?Cincinnati City Hall' I It . 801 Plum Street I I-.Cincinnati; Ohio 45202 - . . - II I I Eliot Isaac, Police Chief, City of Cincinnati I I Cincinnati Police Department I LIBERTIESUNIDN . orom? . . - 310 Ezzard Charles Drive - . I I . I I I 1.4506CHESTERAVENUE . Cmcm?algl? 0111045214 - . I 1' . I- . I T121s.472.2229 - . . - Ef216.472.2210 - contactlaacluohionrg - .- - I RE: Body Worn Camera PohcyIPro'cedure 12.540 . A Dear City Manager Black and Chief Isaac: I The ACLU ef Ohio is avvare of the recent release of Procedure 12.540-to gdvern body- I wornIIcamerIa systems. for the Cincinnati Police Department. This letter is in'response to I I I the request-for public comment on the policy and provides Ithe IACLU of Ohio?s opinions I .. and recommendations regarding Procedure 12.540. i - I The ACLU of. OhioIhas clos?ely follovyed the. emergence of body vyorn camera?s as'a new I . I t?ool fer law enforcement. Their use affects a wide range ofcivil liberties interests ?ineludin?g- I I - - police accountability,I personal privacy?(for both residents and mass surveillanee, Open-recordaand government transparency. The ACLU of Ohio believes body cameras can be an important tool with many positive bene?tsIIbut? only if proper procedures and policies are place to regulate their'use and ensure positive bene?ts for all stakeholders. Below are the ACLU of Ohio?s speci?c'cdncerns regarding Procedure Noti?cation. of recording;r On Page 2, in the 37d paragraph under. ?Information,? the policy states ?officers, are not, required to inform citizens?they are being recOrded wit-h theBWC? and "goes on to explain ?the perSOHal contact between an individual and an of?cer dees not constitute an I, environment where there a reasonable expectation of privacyWhether or not such an event should .fall under l?a;?reasonable Expectation of priVacy? I should not?be the de?ning factor in these situations. of Ohio urges a different - . approach to this matter for two reasons First, there are where people may. wish: to make a police report after witnessing of a crime or . 'being crime victim. However, many will refuseito do so if they lgnow they are being recorded. You are - certainly aware of current challenges in getting witnesses and victims to step forward 'with valuable- information for law enforcement when ihey 'arelnct being recorded. If peeple-?wmingly disclose valuable information to police, only to later discover their revelations were . unknowingly recorded and possibly available to the general public, the fallout couldre'asonably lead to far fewer people cooperating with law enforcement and increased suspicion of body worn cameras. ?Second, it is well-established many pe0ple will behave'different-ly if they know they are bemg recorded. This bene?ts law enf0rcement because false accusations, unruly behavior, and related actions can be d? expected to decrease as a result of full disclosure someone is being recorded. I Informing everyone that they are subject to reCording by body worn cameras would also reqnire two other changes in the policy"Amending the restriction found on Page 3 under ?Procedure? at ?Officers will. not ?use the BWC to record the following: Confidential informants or undercover officers? -- by adding language Such as or similar to .?all people reporting a crime, their witness of a crime, or their being a victim of a crime? to the list of?prohibited BWC recordings. ?As well as language foundlon Page 4? ?Procurel?at ?of?cers are not. required to initiate or cease recording an event'solely at the request of a citizeni? Such changes Will bene?t both the community andjpolice and increase public acceptance of body worn _cameras. 'lr' i Retention ofRecordingscurrently; Procedure 12.540 mentions only two speci?c time periods for recordings to be kept.- On Page 1, there is reference to .a 90-day retentiOn'period' for ?recordings not categorized for retention.? On Page 2, it is explained (?recorded events necessary for the inveStigation ?of administratiVe incidents Use of Force, Citinen Complaints)? will be kept for two years or until theadniinistrative investigation is'- I complete, whichever} is great_er._ Otherwise, the policy makes no mention of how long other- recordings will be retained] . . ., _It is?the ACLU 5r Ohio?s recommendatirm that a full retention schedule be included in Procedure 12.540 in, order to provide greater transparency regarding body worn cameras in Cincinnati. In addition, we urge you to adopt a retention schedule that allows for longer retention periods dependent upon the seriousness?of the matter. i i For example, retention should be measured if not unlimited, for recordings of incidents that lead . to death-eligible convictions and sentences, Other matters, such as allegations of police misconduct or civil rights 'abuses should be retained for at least three years, as the time?'ame to file a lawsuit in federal Court fer such cases is two years. I For matters of no interest to the. public or law enforcement, the ACLU of Ohio is appreciative. of the policy?s current"90;day retention period for the privacy protections it provides. I i u. (I i Of?cer Viewing of Recordings?. I On Page the policy anticipates ?of?cers will'view footage. The ACLU of Ohio adVises against permitting of?cers to review recOrdings prior to completing incident reports'. Unfortunately, sometimes controversial situations arise that're?ect poorly on an of?cer or department and are only partially captured, or. sometimes not at all, by body ivorn cameras. "When that happens, there is sometimes temptatibn to not disclose allthe facts of the incident on a report. Regrettably, ?we know of occurrences of this type. with regard to both dash cameras and body worn cameras. - 7 I I 1 Such an addition would help reassure the public body worn cameras Work to provide police accountability I instead of hampering it. . . . Prohibited Uses - i The ACLU of Ohio recommends two additional situations under (A) (4) When thqus? wom?cameras . shouldbe forbiddenFirst, we recommend a prohibition against the use of body worn? cameras to provide ongoing surveillance of constitutionally-protected activities such as? political and religious rallies, protests, and gatherings. I second, not allowing body werm cameras in public or private schools. Naturally, language fromthe current ?policy can be copied to clarify ?except during an active incident? with regard to both suggestions. Again, these prohibitions will give the public cen?dence body worn cameras are used to?improve policing . I and not Spy on peace?il activitiesor record students0V1 Offenses Under sectibn the pelicy states recorded events will only be released with the appioval of the pros ecutor?" Simply put, giving pr?secutors unfettered discretion to release or not releasethese records is,in;direct contradictibn to Ohio?s?public records laws and has no place in Procedure 12.540 or any other I . . policy governing police body cameras. I In_closing, the ACLU of Ohio hopes these concerns andrecommendations prove helpful as you'continue? ?to evaluate Policy 12.5;40. 1am available at your convenience for further conversation and input, if desired.- . - Sincerely, - -GaryDanielS' Chief Lobbyist 614586-1959 I ?r I. .7