Rep. Mahan has introduced HB 1019 which restricts public access to law enforcement recordings. It defines “law enforcement activity” as “any instance . . . in which a law enforcement officer is enforcing the law” (specifically excluding administrative activities such as completing paperwork). “Law enforcement recording” is defined as audio or visual recordings of such activities recorded by a device provided to the officer for use in the officer’s official duties.
It specifies that, in order to meet the “reasonable particularity” requirement of the Access to Public Records Act (APRA), the request has to include the date and approximate time of the recording, the location, and the name of at least one person other than the officer who was directly involved in the law enforcement activity. It states that the recording is not an investigatory record — (investigatory records being among the class of records that may be withheld at the discretion of the responding agency).
Instead of being discretionarily withheld under the investigatory record section of the APRA, it creates a new exception whereby law enforcement recordings in general may be withheld. It creates an exception for people in the recording (and people like their attorneys or personal representatives) who have a right to inspect (but not copy) the recording twice. The public agency is required to obscure information related to confidential informants, undercover law enforcement officers, and any other information APRA mandates as exclusions from the public disclosure.
Additionally, it creates a court process by which a person requesting a record can overcome the agency’s discretion to withhold the recordings by petitioning a court for their release. Such a petition must show the court that release is in the public interest, does not create a risk of substantial harm to an individual or the general public, and will not have a prejudicial effect on ongoing court proceedings. The petitioner is not entitled to attorney’s fees for bringing such a request. If disclosure is required, the public agency would be required to obscure depictions of death or serious injury, nudity, individuals under 18 years old, victims of crimes, undercover officers, confidential informants, and personal medical information.
In general, recordings would be retained for not less than 180 days, but if certain events took place (such as a request by a person depicted in the video), the retention period would increase to two years or longer. If I’m reading the language correctly, it also — in the case of law enforcement recordings — dispenses with the need for a requestor who is depicted in the recording to go through the public access counselor before being entitled to attorney’s fees if they prevail in a challenge to nondisclosure. It also exempts law enforcement recordings from the criminal statute which prohibits placement of surveillance equipment on private property without the consent of the owner.
I’m not sure if this is the answer, but I respect what the author is trying to do. I think, in general, having cameras present in law enforcement encounters is beneficial. More often than not (but certainly not always) the recordings back up an officer’s account of an encounter. Having a recording going — even if it’s never requested or seen — probably serves a reminder to the officer to maintain his or her professionalism. But, having a vast database to maintain and sift through in service of the public records laws creates a significant disincentive to acquiring and implementing such cameras for law enforcement. It also raises significant questions about the rights of citizens who never consented to be recorded.
Does anyone approached by an officer with a camera even have to consent? Is Indiana still a one-party state when it comes to recordings? If so, if the officer has “consented,” that’s legally enough? Correct?
Not only is Indiana a one party consent state, but there is no expectation of privacy when in public. So you respect what the author is trying to do here? Really? What does this bill to further government transparency and accountability? The police would have all of the power here short of a court order. We should be allowed to review and critique what public officials do, on public property, while performing their duties in public. This bill gives law enforcement agencies the power to unilaterally and arbitrarily suppress information from public dissemination. Tell me, when has giving law enforcement the power to police themselves ever worked in a comprehensive manner?
Why not edit the recordings so that when an officer leaves a publicly accessible area (public right of way) the recording ends? This would cover all private property as well as more secure locations like crime scenes where a member of the general public does not have access. I would probably also be in favor of obscuring some identities in these videos strictly for the ability to build some form of consensus on the issue.
Cameras are everywhere, and your last sentence is most concerning of all. “It also raises significant questions about the rights of citizens who never consented to be recorded.” What significant questions are these? Again, people in public have no expectation of privacy. I can film whatever I can see from public. Why should I not be allowed to review body camera footage of public servants doing the same? Media outlets request (and are granted access to) police cruiser dashcam footage all the time. With my proposed restrictions in place, what makes this any different? Remember that consent is only required in public places when the video is going to be used commercially.
This bill is an outrage and I am ashamed that it unanimously passed committee.
We can certain resign ourselves to the notion that cameras are everywhere and just go full Panopticon, I guess.
What I don’t want is a situation where we’re kind of half-in, half-out, and the public wants the police to create this huge video database from video cameras, wants unfettered access to that video, but then wants a couple of things private and expects the government to expend the resources to ensure those things remain private — but then underestimate the resources necessary to keep some things private in that vast amount of data; then bitch about the cost necessary to do what was requested.
It’s unrealistic to expect to be able to know everything about what the police are doing but expect that can be done without, consequently, also learning a great deal about private citizens at the same time.
Let’s say my 14 year-old daughter ran naked out of my burning house directly from the shower into the arms of a police officer that was outside. Do you really think you have any right to access his body cam footage?
I can come up with 100’s of scenarios like this, and if I cared enough, I’m sure I could find at least 10 examples of situations like this from the newspaper. However, I’m sure you could also do the same if you put your mind to it.
I’m glad that if someone feels they have a right to private/illegal/embarrassing footage that a judge can decide if someone’s privacy is being violated.