Rocky Mountain High-Five: Colorado PD Unveils Best-In-Nation Body Camera Policy
One of the most common misperceptions about the ACLU’s position on police body cameras is that we support them. We don’t. Rather, we support them if, and only if, their use is governed by good policies. Whether police body cameras are, on balance, a helpful or harmful tool is largely determined by the rules that govern their use. For that reason, we publicly opposed funding for body cameras in Los Angeles, where the “does not promote—and in fact undermines—the goals of transparency, accountability and creation of public trust.”
In May 2015, the ACLU released a model police body camera bill to aid state legislatures seeking to mandate proper body camera policies, as well as individual police departments seeking guidance in developing their own policies. Earlier this month, to further help local police departments, the ACLU of Massachusetts released a . Still, the question we get repeatedly asked is “are there any active police department policies the ACLU can point to and say ‘that is what a great body camera policy looks like?’”
The answer, unfortunately, has always been no. While there were departmental policies that were strong in many areas, we were not aware of any that was complete enough to warrant the ACLU’s seal-of-approval.
That is, until today.
This morning, Police Chief David King of unveiled the new body camera policy that will govern his department, which serves Parker’s nearly 50,000 residents. Chief King told Parker’s citizens that the policy reflects his department’s “dedication to transparency and commitment to quality service.” And he is right. The Parker Police Department could also have bragged that its body camera policy is very likely the best in the nation, and that it should serve as model for other departments seeking to adopt policies that promote the public interest and protect civil liberties. They didn’t go that far—perhaps they were feeling modest—so we’ll just say it for them.
Congratulations to the citizens of Parker, Colorado. Your police department has done real good.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
ACLU Applauds Arizona Supreme Court Historic Decision That Police Need a Warrant to Access DNAACLU Applauds Arizona Supreme Court Historic Decision That Police Need a Warrant to Access DNA
PHOENIX — In a 7-0 decision, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that a warrant is required to extract and analyze people’s DNA, saying that a person’s limited consent to a search of biological material for a specific purpose—in this case, a blood alcohol test for a DUI arrest—does not overcome that requirement. The ACLU and the ACLU of Arizona filed a friend-of-the-court brief in State v. Mitcham, arguing the government cannot genetically test biological material it already has in its possession—whether that’s blood taken from newborns to test for diseases or swabs collected from sexual assault survivors—to investigate the donors for a crime without first obtaining a warrant. In the decision, the court wrote that “in reaching this conclusion, we emphatically reject the State’s position that it was free to analyze Mitcham’s blood in any way it pleased simply because the State lawfully possessed the blood vials.” “Government analysis of our DNA can expose detailed information about our identity, appearance, family relationships, medical conditions, and more. We don’t consent to sharing all of that information each time we involuntarily shed our DNA or consent to a blood draw. The government’s argument in this case was a privacy nightmare,” said Vera Eidelman, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “We are greatly heartened by the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision to preserve the privacy of our sensitive genetic information.” In 2015, during a DUI arrest, the defendant in this case consented to the government collecting a sample of his blood solely to test it for blood-alcohol content, and was advised that the sample would be destroyed after 90 days. Instead, law enforcement held on to this sample for three years, at which point it used it for a completely different purpose—to extract and analyze his DNA, without a warrant or consent—while investigating another crime. Had the court accepted the government’s rationale here, all of us who consent to a biological sample collection, at any point in time, for any purpose, to any government entity, could have been subject to a warrantless DNA search after the fact. “Our DNA can reveal so much about us that our genetic privacy must be protected,” said Jared Keenan, legal director of ACLU of Arizona. “The Court’s decision is vital to protecting the strong constitutional rights that keep all Arizonans’ information safe from warrantless searches and unconstitutional intrusion.” -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
Face Recognition Threatens to Replace Tickets, ID at Sports Events – and BeyondFace Recognition Threatens to Replace Tickets, ID at Sports Events – and Beyond
You shouldn't participate in face recognition ticketing schemes. -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
AI Generated Police Reports Raise Concerns Around Transparency, BiasAI Generated Police Reports Raise Concerns Around Transparency, Bias
AI-generated police reports threaten to exacerbate existing problems in law enforcement, and to create new ones.