There’s little question that video cameras — such as dash cams and body cams — can be useful in determining the sequence of events when the interaction of police and public results in a tragic circumstance. This was demonstrated Sunday with the fatal shooting of an African American man, Che Andre Taylor, by two Seattle Police Department officers.
The next day Seattle Police officials released dash cam footage of the shooting, which appears to show Taylor ignoring police commands to show his hands and get on the ground as he stood at the passenger door of a car. Instead, Taylor appears to reach inside the car, where police later found a handgun, and was shot.
Seattle Mayor Ed Murray said the shooting appeared to be justified. But not everyone is convinced. The Seattle chapter of the NAACP disputes the police account and has hired a law firm to investigate.
As Sunday’s shooting demonstrates, video footage won’t always offer a guarantee of clarity, but it’s not difficult to point to instances where such footage has either substantiated the official version of events or raised questions about them.
The video footage is a new kind of public record but one with few existing standards on what can be recorded, what can be requested and how the privacy of victims and bystanders are protected.
That they in most cases are public records and subject to release to the public and media is clear. And timely release is paramount. Law enforcement agencies can be relatively quick to release footage when it’s deemed to be in their interest to back up official accounts. Agencies can be less inclined when the opposite is true, as appears to be the case in the shooting in 2014 of 17-year-old Laquan McDonald by a Chicago Police Department officer. It took Chicago officials 14 months to release video of the shooting. The officer involved was charged with murder hours after the video’s release.
Legislation now being considered in Olympia seeks to offer some clarity and perhaps encourage greater use of body cams by law enforcement and corrections agencies. It would require agencies to develop policies regarding the use of the cameras, convene a task force to examine the use of body cameras and also outline rules for release of the footage as a public record.
The nature of such videos can easily raise questions of privacy, especially for victims and bystanders. The legislation, House Bill 2362, which has passed a House floor vote, 61-36, and is now being considered by the Senate, would require videos to be edited, blurred or redacted to remove information that could be used to identify or locate victims, but would also exempt the release of videos that are either deemed to be “highly offensive,” or show a dead body, the interior of a private residence or a minor.
Some open government advocates aren’t fighting such provisions, as long as decisions to withhold video can be challenged when a legitimate public interest can be shown. And some have withdrawn concerns that the legislation makes those requesting video liable for reasonable costs for editing and redacting the footage. (Victims and other members of the public who are shown in such videos could request copies without being responsible for fees and costs.)
One alternative lawmakers might consider is a provision suggested by Snohomish Superior Court Judge George Appel in a case regarding the release of surveillance video from an Everett Police and FBI investigation at a bikini barista stand. Appel, in a ruling that found for release of the video related to the investigation, said select still images could have satisfied the requirements of the Public Records Act.
The legislation, if adopted, is temporary, expiring in 2019. But that gives the task force it creates enough time to sort through the range of issues involved and come back with solutions that make law enforcement body cams a more useful tool in promoting accountability while protecting privacy.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
