ACLU Releases Detailed Best Practices for Police Body Cameras
Recommended Policies Can Be Adopted by State Legislatures, Local Governments, and Police Departments
NEW YORK — The American Civil Liberties Union today released a detailed set of recommended policies for the use of police body cameras.
The proposed rules are in the form of a model bill that can be adopted by state legislatures, local governments, and police departments. At a yesterday, several senators requested this type of model legislation, which is the first of its kind.
“Policymakers nationwide have been asking for a plug-and-play model policy that shows them how to best balance the promotion of police accountability with the protection of privacy,” said Chad Marlow, ACLU advocacy and policy counsel. “This is precisely what the ACLU is offering them today.”
Under the model, videos would have a short default retention period of six months, followed by automatic deletion. Certain videos — including ones showing the use of force, commission of a felony, events leading up to an arrest for a felony, or an encounter that resulted in a civilian complaint — would be retained for three years. Whether or not videos are available for public release is based on the same criteria.
Strict rules would control when officers must turn their cameras on and off. Officers would not be allowed to watch footage before filing initial reports about an incident, because viewing videos may influence officers’ recollections or enable officers to conform reports to what was or was not recorded.
The proposal also includes privacy exceptions for filming. Crime victims, anonymous crime tipsters, and people who are inside a home when there is no warrant or emergency have the right to request that cameras be turned off.
Several police departments have instituted policies, but the ACLU says they are all lacking in some area.
“Seattle’s pilot program has strong rules governing when body cameras should be used, but it falls short in allowing police officers to review video footage before filing reports and lacks penalties for breaking the rules,” said Marlow. “The Los Angeles Police Department’s policy is good on officer discretion, but undercuts transparency by withholding most of the footage from the public.”
The model bill is at:
/model-act-regulating-use-wearable-body-cameras-law-enforcement
A blog post by Chad Marlow on the topic is at:
/blog/speak-freely/plug-and-play-model-policy-police-body-cameras
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
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.