Hoosier State Press Association - The Indiana Publisher
Issue link: https://www.ifoldsflip.com/i/583002
cam footage in Evansville. The HSPA recommendation would put video into two categories, flagged and nonflagged. The pre- sumption for flagged video would be disclosure to the public, while unflagged would fall into the dis- cretion of the law enforcement agency. Flagged video would include interactions that lead to a complaint filed against an officer, where a firearm was discharged, where there has been use of force by police, where someone has been arrest- ed or detained, where death or bodily harm has occurred, or where a request has been made under the Access to Public Records Act. The category of the video would determine how long police would be required to retain the video. The American Civil Liberties Union recommends 180 days for nonflagged video and three years for flagged. HSPA's recommendation recognizes the need for some exceptions that could be applied to flagged video: when release could harm an investigation or identify an undercover officer or informant, when a juvenile is detained, or when nudity or interactions inside a residence are involved. HSPA recommends that when police want to invoke the investigatory records provision to flagged video, the law enforcement agency file a motion for review by the county circuit judge to determine the legitimacy of the claim. Key noted a new argument for the use of body cameras raised by West Lafayette Police Chief Jason Dombkowski. He testified that the number of use of force inci- dents decreased dramatically in the year that offi- cers have been equipped with the body cameras. He said the presence of the cameras has impact- ed the behavior of people interacting with police because they know they are being filmed, so situ- ations didn't escalate to where an officer felt force was needed to control of the situation. Page 8 October 8, 2015 Cams Continued from Page 1 W hile Indianapolis public safety offi- cers were testifying before a legislative com- mittee on polices for public access to police body camera footage, the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Depart- ment was stonewalling requests for a headshot of an officer involved in a fatal traffic accident. Indianapolis Star reporter Jill Disis was denied when she asked IMPD for a head- shot of the officer, who struck a man minutes after a 911 caller reported a person walking in the middle of a busy road late at night. IMPD said the headshot fell under the category of "intra-agency or interagency advisory or deliberative material," which an agency can keep confidential at its discretion under the Access to Public Records Act. When Disis called me, I was flabbergasted by the police agency's contention and blurted out, "That's bull----." Not the most professional response, but I couldn't believe the police agency had the gall to say a photograph falls under an area reserved for records that "are expres- sions of opinion or are of a speculative nature." Really? That's the position they want to take? The Star repeated its request, pointing out the fal- lacy of the original denial. IMPS then evoked the per- sonnel file language in the Access to Public Records Act. That section allows some exceptions for public agencies to keep records in a person- nel file confidential at their discretion. An email from the city of Indianapolis that Star editor Ryan Martin shared with me states: "Photographs of officers are discretionary under Ind. Code 5-14-3-4(b)(8). "The only things person- nel-related that must be disclosed are: name, com- pensation, job title, business address, business telephone number, job description, education and training back- ground, previous work expe- rience, and dates of first and last employment." The city is correct about the list of items required to be disclosed – although it didn't include others, such as records on disciplinary actions involving an officer who was terminated, demot- ed or suspended. They prob- ably didn't want to remind The Star staff about that. But to say all photographs of officers fall under the per- sonnel file provision is going too far. Even if a headshot is legiti- mately part of the officer's personnel file, what reason is there for the department to withhold it from disclosure? We're not talking about giving away the identity of an undercover police officer. If the request had been made because the officer had been honored as a hero for saving a life, you can bet that headshot would have been produced immediately. But in this situation, wit- nesses reported the officer's breath indicated he had been drinking. (As of this writing, it's not been reported whether the officer was over the legal limit to drive or whether any charges will be filed concern- ing the accident. The behav- ior of the victim of the acci- dent is also in question.) The officer could lose his job under alcohol-related polices imposed by IMPD following a 2010 case where an IMPD officer crashed into motorcycles stopped at a traf- fic light, killing one motorcy- clist and seriously injuring at least two others. IMPD refusing a simple request for a headshot of a public employee – apparently because the incident paints the department in a negative light – helps make the case for legislative action to make sure the public has the right to view police body camera video. Citizens should be able to take advantage of that tool's ability to bring accountability in police actions. If the legislature doesn't act, body cam video will be shown to the public only when it exonerates an offi- cer, not when it puts a police department in a bad light. Steve Key is executive director and general counsel for the Hoosier State Press Association. Key Points Steve Key Taking police headshots by the horns