Senators push police camera regulations
Hawaii lawmakers are looking to take control over how police cameras are used and who manages footage as increasing numbers of officers throughout the state are expected to wear video recording devices.
Leaders of the Senate Public Safety, Intergovernmental and Military Affairs Committee on Tuesday said they plan to push forward Senate Bill 2411, which regulates the use of body cameras and appropriates a total of $1.35 million to the counties to purchase the video devices. The committee has scheduled a second hearing on the bill for Tuesday to allow the chairmen time to amend the measure.
The Kauai Police Department already requires officers to wear body cameras, while the Honolulu, Maui and Hawaii county police departments are looking at implementing similar policies.
The cameras can help protect the public by capturing incidents of police misconduct, while also defending law enforcement officers in cases of false accusation. About one-third of local police departments throughout the country now require at least some of their officers to wear cameras, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
But the recording devices have elicited a host of privacy concerns related to what types of activities officers should record and under what circumstances the footage should be released to the public. Advocates for public protections also say that a government agency other than the county police departments should manage and control the release of the footage, citing the fatal Chicago police shooting of Laquan McDonald, a black teenager, by a white police officer.
In that case city officials refused to release video taken from a police dash cam of the incident until ordered to do so by a judge more than a year after the incident. The footage appears to show McDonald walking away from police when he is shot, contradicting initial police reports of the incident.
Lawmakers on Tuesday indicated that they intend to amend the current version of SB 2411, introduced by Sen. Gil Keith Agaran (D, Waihee-Wailuku-Kahului), to provide lawmakers with more power over how the cameras are used. The current version of the bill instructs the county police departments to come up with their own policies regulating body cameras, such as how the footage is to be stored and when it’s released to the public.
Daniel Gluck, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Hawaii, told lawmakers during the hearing that the bill provides too much discretion to the county police departments. Asked by lawmakers who should regulate the cameras, he said, “The state Legislature should do it and do it across the counties.”
Aaron Hunger, a former police officer and doctoral student studying political science at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, agreed and told committee members that they should also look at transferring control of the footage away from the police departments.
“Perhaps the police department is not the best custodian of the evidence once it is produced,” Hunger said. “It would be like the fox having its own evidence of the crime in the henhouse.”
Sen. Will Espero (D, Ewa Beach-Iroquois Point), vice chairman of the Senate Public Safety, Intergovernmental and Military Affairs Committee, said after the hearing that he and Chairman Clarence Nishihara (D, Waipahu-Pearl City) intend to amend the Senate bill to incorporate some of the language from House Bill 1738.
The House bill, introduced by Rep. Matt LoPresti (D, Ewa Beach-West Loch Estates) and backed by Hawaii’s ACLU, provides the state with greater oversight. It also seeks to provide the public with certain privacy protections, while prohibiting law enforcement supervisors from using the footage to scrutinize the activities of a police officer when there hasn’t been a complaint of misconduct lodged against the officer.
The House bill specifies that police officers turn on cameras when they are responding to a call and when they are conducting investigations or enforcement activities involving the public. Recordings must also be retained for three years if they involve the use of force, a felony or a complaint. All other recordings could be destroyed after six months.
The bill also restricts when the footage can be released to the public.
“My concern was who has access, why and when,” LoPresti told the Honolulu Star-Advertiser. When it comes to public access of police footage, he said, it makes sense to start with certain restrictions and loosen them over time “rather than start with the floodgates right open.”
The House bill has a single referral to the House Judiciary Committee before it can cross over to the Senate. It hasn’t yet been scheduled for a hearing.
The Senate bill has already sparked opposition from the State of Hawaii Organization of Police Officers, which has fought to retain control over body cam policies. Last month the police union filed a complaint with the Hawaii Labor Relations Board saying the union should have signed off on the Kauai Police Department’s body camera program before the department moved forward.
In written testimony on the Senate bill, SHOPO said it should have input on police policies.
“The four county police chiefs understand the demands of police work and the standards required,” SHOPO President Tenari Maafala wrote. “Therefore they are best qualified to draft their body camera policies in conjunction with SHOPO.”
15 responses to “Senators push police camera regulations”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Information recorded should he open to public view, not only for police misconduct. What an officer observes and records may he critical in a criminal investigation which serves the best interest in justice. it could help convict or set free an individual. If there is audio, what people say to responding officers could become critical, especially “utterence” which they later deny in court. The camera should be as part of the officers equipment, like his car, gun, badge, radio….putting rules prohibiting use could jeopardize criminal cases.
I agree. What’s up with shopo anyway? Suspicious causes they support
I know SHOPO isn’t against it. This is based on what mainland unions are saying which supports. It is a national trend and cameras are the present and future. I also think funding has been secured by the 4 counties through federal grants, that is how we got computers in police vehicles. The issue is developing policy, procedures, and training. If a federal grant is involved there probably are specifics that also have to be worked out between the city and the federal government. I know the city had problems after 5 years with the CCTV cameras in Chinatown. It was given to the PD and maintained for 5 years through a federal grant. At the end of 5 years cameras fell apart or weren’t working City eventually found money to fix them.
With all due respects to the many fine police officers, they are granted extraordinary powers, and with that comes extraordinary responsibilities. Body cameras are an essential technological tool that should be readily embraced by the police departments AND the labor union(s) representing the officers. Any video and audio record of the activities that have transpired during a police operation would provide much evidence regarding how any given event unfolded. Like airliners have black boxes to record flight events, body cameras are the new ‘black boxes’ of police activities. When black boxes from airliners have to be examined after an incident/accident, a third party (NTSB) takes charge of the devices. So too should body camera footage be passed to the control of a third party to ensure the safe-guarding and integrity of the evidence. Seems sensible to me.
“The four county police chiefs understand the demands of police work and the standards required,” SHOPO President Tenari Maafala wrote. “Therefore they are best qualified to draft their body camera policies in conjunction with SHOPO.”
I don’t think so.
SHOPO is NOBODY in this issue. Just inserting themselves as if it has anything to do with them.
I think they are, part of contract. When it comes to equipment, Union and Police Administration come together. I think the issue is safety, Uniform and Safety Committee. I could be wrong.
Good example, when PDs approved tasers, they specified cameras mounted, agreement between Union,Police Administration, and City.
Why should SHOPO decide? If anything, the body cameras record footage of OTHER people, not the officer wearing the camera. So it’s really the OTHER PEOPLE (i.e., the PUBLIC) that should decide, because we’re the ones being filmed. But the Legislature won’t even change the public records laws to allow the public to get copies of police misconduct records, so why should we expect anything different in this backwards state.
I would like to see cameras used for running red lights—ever see a HPD at an intersection? Used in a lots of States and effective.
If police have to wear body camera, then the sheriff should wear body camera too….maybe correctional officers and state hospital personnel should wear them too….plenty incidents involving them nowadays too….
I think they will be included. DLNR, Harbor Police, as well depending on the language of the bill. It makes sense to hold them accountable as well, more so since this is a state initiative. Even the armed airport police/security guards. They have arrest powers.
maybe all politicians should wear them too…..since they do so much shady deal behind closed doors..
Why don’t they wear body cameras? What are they afraid of? Seems they must be doing a lot of arrests illegally and not following the law. Would be something if they had to wear it even when they’re off duty.
Like the idea of body cams as it will show how idiotic most criminals are. It would be great to show how drunk a driver was, how disrespectful many are towards the cops, how stupid many behave when high or drunk, see the lies of partners involved in a domestic, and maybe open our eyes to see how hard it is to be a cop. Aren’t they due for another raise? Give them the cameras so we can all see how professional a great majority of the officers really are.