Body-Worn Video Program Community Engagement

Proviso Response Final Report

In the 2017 Adopted Budget, the City Council imposed a budget proviso (Green Sheet 207-1-B-1-2017) around funding for the Body-Worn Video (BWV) program. The proviso specifically required continued community engagement for the BWV program and tasked the Department with completing several items before releasing funds for full BWV roll-out to SPD front-line officers.

This report responds to the proviso section that states: "(3) SPD submits to the Council a final report that summarizes the results of the Department's community outreach, describes how the draft BWV policy is responsive to community input and the operational needs of the department, and identifies unresolved questions or issues related to the BWV policy and implementation protocols; and (4) SPD documents how the Department will continue to engage and seek the advice of the stakeholder workgroup on the use of BWV equipment."

Proviso Progress to Date

Prior to this final report, SPD accomplished several tasks that were directed in Green Sheet 207-1-B-1-2017. Progress to date on items in the Green Sheet include:

1. SPD reconvenes the stakeholder workgroup formed under Green Sheet 81-1-A-2-2016 and seeks their advice regarding any outstanding issues or community concerns related to BWV protocols and policies

Members of the BWV Stakeholder Group were contacted on November 23rd and invited to comment on a draft community engagement plan, as well as invited to attend a teleconference on November 30th to discuss that plan. A full meeting of the Group was held on December 14th.

2. SPD, in consultation with the stakeholder workgroup and Council, develops a detailed action plan for community engagement on body-worn video by December 2, 2016, that includes a plan for regularly sharing with the Gender Equity, Safe Communities, and New Americans Committee a status update on community engagement efforts

SPD submitted the detailed action plan for community engagement on December 2nd (Attachment A). The BWV Community Engagement Plan was accepted by Councilmember Gonzlez. The Plan started in December of 2016, and concludes with this report. However, as set forth below, the BWV program requires regular community engagement and input to be successful.

Community Outreach

With the BWV Community Engagement Plan in place, the BWV Stakeholder Group met on December 14th to discuss the BWV program and help develop the participation, content, and structure of the focus groups outlined in the plan. As a result of that meeting, a focus group subcommittee was formed and met on December 19th to work out the specifics for the community focus groups. The subcommittee developed a structure for the groups, outlined in Attachment B.

The subcommittee changed the name of the small community groups from "focus groups" to "roundtables" to account for the more informal, but inclusive nature of the groups. Additionally, the term "focus group" invoked a process of product testing; the Roundtables were designed to gather community input without putting a specific product before them. With the Roundtable structure developed, over 80 individuals representing a variety of communities in Seattle were invited, including members of domestic violence survivor support organizations, community organizers, mental health advocates, health care professionals, student leaders, and veterans support professionals. Most of the invitees were identified by the Community Police Commission (CPC), with other members of the BWV Stakeholder Group adding individuals they felt should be included. The full invitee list was approved by the subcommittee.

The Community Roundtables were held on January 10th, 12th, and 17th of 2017. The Roundtables were facilitated by F Lopez, Executive Director of the CPC. The Roundtables included a briefing on state law and SPD policy regarding public disclosure of body-worn video. Participants were also shown a brief video that simulated a domestic violence investigation in which officers equipped with body cameras responded. The video was redacted in a manner consistent with state law and SPD practice. This portion of the meeting took approximately 30 minutes. The remaining 60 minutes were dedicated to collecting input from participants using the following four questions developed by the subcommittee of the BWV Stakeholder Group.

What are the pros and cons of BWV?

How will officers wearing body-cameras impact you and/or those who you work with?

How will officers wearing body-cameras affect the relationship between SPD and the communities they serve?

Other issues/concerns?

The purpose of the roundtables was to gather information that could inform the Stakeholder Group of the benefits, issues, and concerns related to the BWV program. Participants' questions were treated as issues/concerns, in that they demonstrated gaps in community members' understanding of the BWV program, technology, policy, and state law. Because of significant time constraints and need to collect information consistently on the predetermined questions, SPD employees were asked by the facilitator not respond to questions. Rather, although present, SPD employees served as passive observers and listeners, except for the end of the meetings where they responded to some concerns, time permitting. SPD intends to follow up with the participants by providing this final report and an FAQ document to address some of the questions and concerns raised.

In total, 33 of the 80 invited participants attended the meetings, which the CPC stated was roughly the same RSVP rate as other forums they have conducted.

Meeting summaries were prepared by an outside vendor who was taking notes at the meetings (Attachment C). These notes were distributed to the BWV Stakeholder Group prior to the January 25th meeting.

BWV Stakeholder Group Recommendations

With the BWV Stakeholder Group informed of the input from the Community Roundtables, the January 25th meeting solicited Stakeholder Group input to inform SPD of recommended changes to SPD policy and procedures. The CPC also presented the Group and SPD with a copy of their proposed changes to SPD BWV policy. The general sentiment of the Group was that additional time was needed to review the CPC changes and SPD policy and then formulate specific policy recommendations to present to SPD. To that end, SPD requested an extension for the final report deadline, which was granted by Councilmember Gonzlez. (Attachments D and E).

SPD has taken the community input, as well as the CPC suggestions, and outlined how the current draft of the BWV policy and BWV procedures are responsive to community concerns. The report also notes if resolution on the items has been reached. SPD feels strongly that community engagement on the BWV program should continue after the proviso has been lifted and that changes to the SPD BWV policy can be made as part of that ongoing effort.

Plan for Continued Community Engagement

There was not a consensus among the community representatives on the stakeholder group as to desired next steps. Some felt that the BWV program should at least be paused until there is more opportunity to get community perspective on the pros and cons of body cameras, particularly in light of shifts in federal policy on immigration enforcement. All participants expressed that their perspectives on the value of cameras versus offsetting concerns about unintended and undesirable impacts had shifted the more they learned about the scope of likely use and about public disclosure.

It is SPD's view that there are legitimate and weighty community concerns, but thatthese concerns cannot all be simultaneously addressed in any BWV program policy without compromising other principles and community values and goals. The Department has made every effort to see that the current draft policy is well-designed and nuanced, even if it cannot ultimately resolve all competing interests and community perspectives.

SPD is committed to continue the engagement process with the community around BWV.

SPD's plan for continued engagement includes three elements: 1) continued engagement with the community on concerns and feedback related to BWV policies and procedures, 2) educational outreach focused on goals, rights, and BWV operations and 3) frequent updates to the Gender Equity, Safe Communities, and New Americans (GESCNA) Committee. Each of these elements are discussed in more detail below.

1. Continued Engagement on Concerns and Feedback. SPD's expectation on policy development for this new program is that concerns and feedback will continue to surface as cameras are deployed throughout the City and public encounters with officers wearing cameras increases. To that end, SPD is committed to a process that brings these concerns and feedback to light and considers them in making future changes to the BWV policy and procedures. The current plan for continued engagement includes:

The BWV Stakeholder Group will continue to meet and act as the main consultative body relating to all engagement around BWV. SPD is open to changing the composition of the BWV Stakeholder Group and will solicit ideas for possible new members of the Group.

Quarterly meetings with the Stakeholder Group starting in April of 2017 will help guide the engagement process and inform recommendations to SPD on policy and procedure changes that would benefit both the community and SPD.

The partnership between SPD and the Community Police Commission will continue with a focus on identifying additional community members to take part in engagement and assisting with the overall effort. The department understands that the CPC is willing and able to assist with this effort.

Alternative mechanisms for feedback will be developed in addition to in-person dialogue in the 3rd Quarter of 2017. For the BWV Proof of Concept in 2015, a survey was developed by a researcher that focused on individuals who made calls for service and were present at incidents where body-worn cameras were involved. While it may not be possible to exactly duplicate the 2015 survey, SPD will engage an independent researcher to develop a rigorous methodology for evaluation in the future, with input from the BWV Stakeholder Group.

A comprehensive engagement plan will be discussed and developed with the BWV Stakeholder Group. The plan will be developed in April of 2017 when the Stakeholder group is re-convened and will be finalized for the Council in May of 2017.

2. Educational Community Outreach. Several items identified in the Community Roundtables were related to educating the community on their rights under the BWV program, how the planned policy will attempt to address certain goals and concerns, and the need for the community to better understand the framework in which the cameras will be used. SPD is committed to conducting educational outreach so the community can better understand the program and their rights with regard to being recorded by body-worn cameras. Efforts will include, but not be limited to:

Developing a BWV FAQ, program description, and other materials by mid-April of 2017. The materials will address concerns such as BWC operations, policies about when recording will happen, victim rights, how to request videos and/or non-disclosure (and the limits of what that means), and other identified issues. These materials will be a central piece to community discussions on body-worn video. Questions to be addressed will include the main points that arose during the recent focus groups.

Distribute program materials and FAQ through the SPD website, via printed documents and department social media.

Directly engage the community through SPD Advisory and Demographic Councils, Roundtable members, the Stakeholder Group, and CPC. The materials developed in conjunction with the BWV Stakeholder Group will help guide and inform this outreach.

The BWV Stakeholder Group will remain apprised of these outreach efforts and asked for feedback on content and distribution.

3. GESCNA Committee Briefings. SPD is proposing that the GESCNA Committee receive quarterly reports on all engagement activities. Key staff will be available for briefings at the Committee Chair's request. Reports will include, but not be limited to:

Updates on the results of the BWV Stakeholder Group, including summaries of key themes discussed at each meeting and any outcomes or action items that may result;

Updates on educational efforts including progress towards the BWV website, FAQ, and discussions with Demographic Councils, CPC, or other groups;

Updates on State laws surrounding BWV and work in other jurisdictions that may assist the City fine-tune the program;

Status on BWV use at SPD including number of cameras deployed, surfacing issues, and other statistics that the Council may find useful.

BWV Outreach Timeline

The table below provides an overview of engagement activities to date, as well as proposed dates for future engagement.

Initial BWV engagement

Roundtable discussions with the CPC, ACLU, and City Council in 2014.

In 2015, SPD conducted body-worn video outreach with the CPC, inviting groups such as Asian Counseling and Referral Service, Chief Seattle Club, Disability Rights Washington, Downtown Emergency Service Center, El Centro de la Raza, El Rey 1360; Entre Hermanos, Helping Link/M?t D?u N?i, Ingersoll, LGBTQ Allyship, Loren Miller Bar Association, Mothers for Police Accountability, OneAmerica, Outside Agitators 206, Payment Management Technology Solutions, Public Defender Association/Racial Disparity Project, Seattle Chinatown International District Preservation and Development Authority, Seattle Commission for People with Disabilities, Seattle Counseling Services, Seattle Department of Neighborhoods, Seattle Human Rights Commission, Seattle LGBT Commission, Seattle Office for Civil Rights, and the Seattle Women's Commission. 2014-2015

Proof of Concept deployment Summer 2015

Community Perceptions Survey

Administered to 80 community members who interacted with police officers wearing body cameras during the Proof of Concept to assess experiences and opinions of body-worn cameras. Completed late 2015

BWV Stakeholder Group Meetings

Issues discussed include: complexity and cost of complying with Public Disclosure Act requests for BWV; Privacy issues related to video being taken and when made available to the public; issues related to the operation of the cameras; and technology costs.

Feedback from the Stakeholder Group was incorporated into the 10/6/2016 draft of the policy including: allowing the cameras to be turned off if an officer is going into a private residence and they are asked to stop recording; if an officer stops recording they must verbally state the reason prior to ending the recording; officers will not record people who are lawfully exercising their freedom of speech, press, association, assembly, religion or right to petition the government for redress of grievances unless there is a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity; representations from the immigrant and refugee community were included in the State Taskforce on BWV and the state legislation includes provisions requirement privacy for juveniles, domestic violence, and sexual assault victims. November December 2015

Large group meetings: November 6, 2015

December 16, 2015

Subcommittee meetings: December 2, December 10 and December 15, 2015

Participation in Washington State's 2016 Task force on the Use of Body-Worn Video. 2016

2016 Policy and Engagement Report submitted to City Council. October 6, 2016

Convened body-worn video stakeholder engagement group.

November 23, 2016

Members of the BWV stakeholder group were contacted on November 23rd and invited to comment on the draft engagement plan.

November 23, 2016

Teleconference held for Stakeholder Group. November 30, 2016

Body-worn video engagement plan submitted to City Council. December 2, 2016

Full meeting of the BWV Stakeholder Group held with a primary focus on developing participation, content and structure of focus groups. December 14, 2016

Subcommittee formed to work on specifics of community focus groups. December 19, 2016

Initial deployment of BWV to bicycle officers. December 29, 2016

Conducted community Roundtables, 33 individuals representing a variety of communities in Seattle were attended. January 10, 2017

January 12, 2017

January 17, 2017

Presentation to African American Advisory Council January 19, 2017

Stakeholder Group meeting to summarize community Roundtables and receive input on changes to SPD policy and procedures. January 25, 2017

BWV project update provided to Court. January 30, 2017

Request granted for extension of timeline for final report from February 1 to February 17, 2017. February 1, 2017

Transmit Final Report to Gender Equity, Safe Communities and New Americans. February 17, 2017

Draft BWV Policy Submitted to the Monitoring Team. February 17, 2017

Distribute FAQ in print and online. April, 2017

Update SPD website content with FAQs, contact information. April, 2017

Begin outreach via SPD website and social media. Beginning, April 2017 (continuous updates)

Continue partnership with the CPC with a focus on identifying additional community members to take part in engagement. Beginning in March, 2017 (continuous)

Conduct quarterly meetings with BWV Stakeholder Group. Beginning in April, 2017 (continuous)

Meet with SPD Demographic Advisory Councils with a focus on education. Beginning in April, 2017 (continuous, as there is time available in DAC agendas)

Submit quarterly reports to GESCNA Committee; SPD will be available for briefings as requested. Beginning in May, 2017

Evaluate community experiences with BWV. Late 2017

Community Input and the BWV Policy/Procedures

The amount of feedback received was quite varied and prolific. SPD has grouped the feedback into eight main themes, detail on each theme can be found on Pages 9-58:

Accountability

Behavior Change

Community Trust

Evidentiary Uses

Information Needed/Questions to be Answered

Other

Privacy

Unintended Consequences

SPD weighed the feedback and made changes to the body-worn video policy in response to community concerns both from the community engagement and prior CPC recommendations. Some of examples include, but are not limited to:

Recording in hospitals and other medical facilities/sensitive areas. SPD added language that included therapeutic facilities and restrooms as places that the officers should turn off their cameras: Unless for a direct law enforcement purpose, such as a crime in progress, or when recording the location is material to a criminal investigation, employees will not record in restrooms, jails and the interiors of medical, mental health, counseling, or therapeutic facilities.

Goals of the body-worn video program. SPD added a section to the policy, drawn from the project charter, that clearly states the goals for the program: The goal of these systems is to enhance public trust in the Seattle Police Department by providing greater transparency into officer actions. Recording law enforcement interactions between officers and members of the public provides valuable information for officer accountability and effective criminal investigations.

Clear policies on when to turn the camera on and off. While there was disagreement between the BWV Stakeholder Group and SPD on policies surrounding the interviewing of witnesses, victims, and suspects, SPD has clarified when officers must turn the cameras on and off please see the matrix below for more specifics on these policies.

Providing officers discretion about recording incidents that may affect privacy or dignity. SPD added language that gives officers discretion in certain incidents: There may be limited circumstances when the respect for an individual's privacy or dignity outweighs the need to record an event. Such circumstances may include natural death scenes, death notifications, child or sexual assault victim interviews, cultural or religious objections to being recorded, and when the use of BWV would impede or limit the cooperation of a victim or witness. When an employee believes such circumstances exist, the employee may deactivate the BWV.

Notifying persons that they are being recorded. The following language was added to the BWV policy: Employees shall notify persons that they are being recorded as soon as practical, and the notification must be on the recording. Employees will make reasonable efforts to communicate to non-English speakers, those with limited English proficiency, deaf persons, or persons hard of hearing that they are being recorded.

In order to show a more complete picture of feedback and SPD responses, the matrices below are broken out into general areas that were identified by the community. Each matrix contains the issue raised by the community roundtables, the CPC / BWV Stakeholder Group recommendation, the SPD policy and/or procedure related to that item, notes on the items, and a note if the issue has been sufficiently resolved. A copy of the draft policy is contained in Attachment F.

Accountability

Community Input CPC Redlines/Stakeholder Group Input SPD Policy/Procedure Governed By Notes Alignment between Input and Policy

Concerns that an officer may be turning off their cameras when they are doing something they should not be doing. CPC BWV policy suggestion:

Employees will record the entire event unless specifically instructed otherwise by this manual section.

An event has concluded when all of the following apply:

- The employee has completed his or her part of the active investigation;

- There is little possibility that the employee will have further contact with any person involved in the event; and

- The employee is leaving the area of the event

For transports to a King County jail facility, the event concludes just before the employee enters the sally port of the facility.

For transports to medical facilities, the event concludes when the employee reaches the transport destination, and the employee is exiting the vehicle.

For transports to other locations, the event concludes when the employee reaches the transport destination, and the subject has been taken into the destination. SPD BWV policy states:

An event has concluded when both of the following apply:

- The employee has completed his or her part of the active investigation; and

- There is little possibility that the employee will have further contact with any person involved in the event

For transports to a King County jail facility, the event concludes just before the employee enters the sally port of the facility.

For transports to medical facilities, the event concludes when the employee reaches the transport destination, and the employee is exiting the vehicle.

For transports to other locations, the event concludes when the employee reaches the transport destination, and the subject has been taken into the destination.

SPD The BWV Stakeholder Group had no issues with the omission of the language "The employee is leaving the area of the event" regarding when an event has concluded that appeared in the CPC redlines. SPD feels that this issue has been addressed by language in the SPD BWV policy.

Comments that body-worn cameras may hold the officers more accountable for misconduct. SPD Manual 5.001(4) states:

Employees are responsible for adhering to the following:

Federal laws

State laws

Laws of the City of Seattle

City of Seattle policies

The Seattle Police Manual

Published Directives and Special Orders

Department Training

Applicable collective bargaining agreements and relevant labor laws SPD SPD feels that this issues has been addressed by language in the SPD policies.

Comments that the goal of accountability gets lost with all of the work that needs to be done to support the program. SPD continues to stress accountability through its internal systems of critical self-analysis on force, bias, stops and detentions, and a wide variety of other checks and balances. Additionally, SPD employees are subject to discipline for failure to adhere to the department manual. The disciplinary process is conducted primarily by the Office of Professional Accountability. SPD Employees must follow the SPD Manual.

Concerns that the body-cameras face out, which does not help the goal of officer accountability, since it does not record them directly. While the cameras do face outward, they do provide another perspective of officer/public interaction that is not currently accessible on ICV. Additionally, as training guides officers to wait for backup prior to engaging unless the situation is emergent, it will be typical to have multiple officers on scene with BWV, providing views of other officers. SPD There are no specific SPD policies that deal with this issue.

Behavior Change

Community Input CPC Redlines/Stakeholder Group Input SPD Policy/Procedure Governed By Notes Alignment between Input and Policy

Comments that the presence of cameras that are recording may escalate situations for those undergoing a mental health crisis. The BWV Project Team is engaging with the SPD Crisis Intervention Team to determine how best to train officers equipped with cameras when they are dealing with members of the public who are experiencing behavioral health issues. However, neither the BWV proof of concept or pilot has demonstrated that this is a pervasive issue. SPD SPD is consulting with the Crisis Intervention Team to discuss how best to handle these situations. There are no specific SPD policies that deal with this issue.

Comments that officers and the public are more likely to behave well while being recorded on camera. SPD

Community While research is mixed, there have been studies that show decreased use of force and complaints in departments using body-worn cameras There are no specific SPD policies that deal with this issue.

Concerns that cameras may result in nervousness or discomfort at being filmed, for victims and other members of the community. The stakeholder group felt that the language in the BWV policy "employees acting in good faith to exercise discretion in these cases will not be subject to discipline for failure to record those portions of an event" is appropriate and should be included in all areas related to officer discretion in recording to encourage a more flexible and thoughtful approach. SPD BWV policy states:

There may be limited circumstances when the respect for an individual's privacy or dignity outweighs the need to record an event.

Such circumstances may include natural death scenes, death notifications, child or sexual assault victim interviews, cultural or religious objections to being recorded, and when the use of BWV would impede or limit the cooperation of a victim or witness.

When an employee believes such circumstances exist, the employee may deactivate the BWV.

Nondisclosure is in SPD Manual 12.080:

When gathering information at the time of reporting, officers and detectives must ask victims, witnesses and complainants if they want their identifying information disclosed or not disclosed. This decision supersedes any disclosure requests made by another person.

When a victim, witness or complainant is unable to discuss disclosure due to incapacity, the reporting officer shall:

Document the incapacity in the entity portion of the General Offense Report, and

Document any specific evidence that disclosure of the identity of the victim, witness or complainant would threaten life, safety or property. SPD SPD feels that this issues has been addressed by language in the SPD BWV policy.

Community Trust

Community Input CPC Redlines/Stakeholder Group Input SPD Policy/Procedure Governed By Notes Alignment between Input and Policy

Concerns that some cultures in the community may experience discomfort with being filmed/photographed. The stakeholder group felt that the language in the BWV policy "employees acting in good faith to exercise discretion in these cases will not be subject to discipline for failure to record those portions of an event" is appropriate and should be included in all areas related to officer discretion in recording to encourage a more flexible and thoughtful approach. SPD BWV policy states:

There may be limited circumstances when the respect for an individual's privacy or dignity outweighs the need to record an event.

Such circumstances may include natural death scenes, death notifications, child or sexual assault victim interviews, cultural or religious objections to being recorded, and when the use of BWV would impede or limit the cooperation of a victim or witness.

When an employee believes such circumstances exist, the employee may deactivate the BWV. Educational outreach on the goals of the program may alleviate some of these concerns in addition to officer discretion around this issue. SPD feels that this issues has been addressed by language in the SPD BWV policy.

Feelings that body-worn cameras will increase community trust in the Department. SPD BWV policy states:

The goal of these systems is to enhance public trust in the Seattle Police Department by providing greater transparency into officer actions. Recording law enforcement interactions between officers and members of the public provides valuable information for officer accountability and effective criminal investigations. SPD SPD feels that this issues has been addressed by language in the SPD BWV policy.

Concerns that SPD will edit videos to show themselves in a favorable light. CPC BWV policy suggestion:

5. Employees Shall Not Tamper With, Alter, or Delete Video

Exception: This does not apply to personnel tasked with system maintenance who purge videos in accordance with established retention guidelines.

Department policy governs all access, review, and release of in-car and body-worn video:

SPD BWV policy states:

Any employee viewing a video after it has been uploaded will manually make an entry in the viewer application at the beginning of the viewing session stating the purpose for viewing the video.

Employees will refer members of the public who wish to view video to file a public disclosure request.

Employees Shall Not Tamper With, Alter, or Delete Video

Exception: This does not apply to personnel tasked with system maintenance who purge videos under established retention guidelines. SPD SPD feels that this issues has been addressed by language in the SPD BWV policy.

Comments that the truth will come out when officers wear body-worn cameras. SPD

Community While BWV is open to interpretation and may not capture incidents due to technical limitations, there will be footage of officer-public interaction that was not available before. SPD feels that this issues has been addressed by language in the SPD BWV policy.

Concerns that the cameras will lead to continued distrust of SPD, since surveillance does not equal trust. SPD plans to conduct public outreach, which will include goals of the program, explanation of the use of cameras, and policies which bound the use of video footage. SPD There are no specific SPD policies that deal with this issue.

Concerns that the cameras will be a barrier to communities interacting with SPD informally due to fear of being recorded. CPC BWV policy suggestion:

Employees will record the following police activity, even if the event is out of view of the camera:

- Response to dispatched calls, starting before the employee arrives on the call and ending consistent with paragraphs 6 and 7 below

- Terry stops

- Traffic stops

- On-View Infractions and Criminal Activity

- Arrests and seizures

- Searches and inventories of vehicles, persons or premises

-Transports (excluding ride-alongs and passengers for meetings)

- Vehicle Eluding/Pursuits

- Supervisor or Command response to a scene for purposes of direction or review

If circumstances prevent recording at the beginning of an event, the employee shall begin recording as soon as practical.

SPD BWV Policy:

When safe and practical, employees will record the following police activity, even if the event is out of view of the camera:

- Dispatched calls, starting before the employee arrives on the call

- Traffic and Terry stops

- On-view infractions and criminal activity

- Arrests and seizures

- Searches and inventories of vehicles, persons, or premises

- Transports (excluding ride-alongs and passengers for meetings)

- Vehicle eluding/pursuits

- Questioning victims, suspects, or witnesses (This does not include conversations with persons merely wishing to pass on information about general criminal activity not tied to a specific event.)

If circumstances prevent recording at the start of an event, the employee will record as soon as practical.

Employees will record the entire event to its conclusion unless specifically instructed otherwise by this manual section.

If the employee is on a perimeter post at an extended major incident investigation, the on-scene supervisor, or FIT commander where FIT has been notified, may authorize ICV and BWV recording to be stopped when he or she reasonably believes further recording will not capture audio/visual evidence regarding the incident or enforcement efforts. SPD Policy states when they will record (see below). This type of interaction is excluded by implication rather than explicitly stated

SPD feels that this issues has been addressed by language in the SPD BWV policy.

Comments that there may be overly high expectations that officers cannot meet, leading to community distrust. SPD community outreach focused on the goals of the programs and limitations of the technology may help temper unrealistic expectations. SPD There are no specific SPD policies that deal with this issue.

Concerns that there are lots of things you will not be able to see with BWV this may lead to increased community distrust if cameras do not clarify an incident. SPD community outreach focused on limitations of the technology may help shape community expectations. SPD There are no specific SPD policies that deal with this issue.

Comments that technology will just exacerbate the negativity and mistrust between the community and the police. SPD is continuing its efforts to increase community trust in other areas, as well as conduct continuing outreach on BWV to help temper expectations. SPD There are no specific SPD policies that deal with this issue.

There are concerns that the community did not have input on whether to have the program at all. CPC has expressed similar concerns. The BWC program has long been favored by some members of council and is a priority for Mayor Murray. Additionally, the Federal Monitor and the Court have endorsed the idea of BWV. SPD believes that BWV will increase public trust and provide transparency into the actions of officers. Throughout the development of the program, SPD has engaged in a variety of community outreach activities to include as many perspectives as possible. SPD

There are no specific SPD policies that deal with this issue.

Evidentiary Uses

Community Input CPC Redlines/Stakeholder Group Input SPD Policy/Procedure Governed By Notes Alignment between Input and Policy

Concerns that using videos as evidence will have disproportionate effect on vulnerable and communities of color and increase criminal prosecution and incarceration. CPC has expressed concerns over this issue.

Some Stakeholder Group members have suggested that SPD policy contain a limitation on the use of video footage for police accountability purposes only. The goal of the program is to promote public trust. Accountability and transparency are the driving ideals, but practical and Constitutional issues do not allow the video to be used solely for accountability purposes. SPD

City and County Prosecutors

State RCW Generating evidence is a result of most all police work. The goal of the BWV program is not to gather evidence, but SPD will send that evidence to prosecutors/defense attorneys like any other available evidence. There are no specific SPD policies that deal with this issue.

Comments that BWV will capture nuance and detail from witnesses not previously available, especially for domestic violence cases. CPC BWV policy suggestion:

As safety allows, employees shall stop recording for portions of events so not to capture:

- Images of the body of a deceased person (unless the death resulted from or occurred during police contact)

-The questioning of victims, suspects, or witnesses

- Death notifications

- An image or information that if disclosed would be highly offensive to a reasonable individual

- The identifiable location of a community-based domestic violence program, or emergency shelter, both as defined in RCW 70.123.020

If the employee is on a perimeter post at an extended major incident investigation, the on-scene supervisor, or FIT commander where FIT has been notified, may authorize recording to be stopped when he or she determines:

- There is no reasonable basis for believing the recording will capture pertinent audio/visual evidence regarding the incident or enforcement efforts, and

- Continued recording presents a strain on Department resources.

The Stakeholder Group had concerns about the BWV policy section that deals with the "flagging" of sensitive videos in that it may give an inaccurate sense that concerns in this area have been "solved." They also stated their desire to add language as to why the video was flagged, in addition to adding it should be added after the report has been written. While the CPC recommends that officer stop recording victims, witnesses, and suspects while giving statements, SPD policy states that officers will continue to record for these actions.

SPD removed the section of the policy pertaining to the "flagging" of videos for sensitive content, since the Public Disclosure Unit will be reviewing all videos for this type of content before disclosure. SPD and the CPC / Stakeholder Group disagree with the approach to this issue.

Comments that videos may show incriminating evidence after the fact, leading to more prosecutions and incarcerations. SPD

City and County Prosecutors

There are no specific SPD policies that deal with this issue.

Information Needed / Questions to be Answered

Community Input CPC Redlines/Stakeholder Group Input SPD Policy/Procedure Governed By Notes Alignment between Input and Policy

Comments that education needed for the community on their rights while/before being recorded. SPD BWV policy states:

Employees shall notify persons that they are being recorded as soon as practical, and the notification must be on the recording. Employees will make reasonable efforts to communicate to non-English speakers, those with limited English proficiency, deaf persons, or persons hard of hearing that they are being recorded.

Employees will make reasonable efforts to repeat the notification, if practical, for additional people that become involved in the recording.

Consistent with RCW 9.73.090(1)(b), employees will again notify persons placed under arrest they are being recorded and verbally give Miranda warnings on the recording.

SPD Education on rights while being recorded will also be included on outreach materials. SPD feels that this issue has been addressed by language in the SPD BWV policy.

Comments that the public needs to know rights during police encounters:

Right to ask not to be recorded

Right to record police

Right to deny entry to residence

Right to request nondisclosure of identity SPD Policy 5.160, Citizen Observation of Officers (currently under revision) sets forth guidance on recording officers, specifically noting that bystanders have a right to record. It states:

Bystanders have the right to record police officer enforcement activities, except when:

1 The safety of the officer or the suspect is jeopardized.

2. Persons interfere or violate the law.

3. Persons threaten others by words or action, or they attempt to incite others to violate the law.

SPD BWV policy states:

Employees will ask for consent to record with BWV in residences or other private areas not open to the public unless there is a crime in progress, or other circumstances exist that would allow the employee to be lawfully present without a warrant. The request and any response will be recorded.

If any person with legal standing denies permission to record, employees will stop recording with BWV while they are in the private area. However, employees will continue to record ICV audio, if equipped, and notify the persons involved of the continued audio recording.

Nondisclosure is in SPD Manual 12.080:

When gathering information at the time of reporting, officers and detectives must ask victims, witnesses and complainants if they want their identifying information disclosed or not disclosed. This decision supersedes any disclosure requests made by another person.

When a victim, witness or complainant is unable to discuss disclosure due to incapacity, the reporting officer shall:

Document the incapacity in the entity portion of the General Offense Report, and

Document any specific evidence that disclosure of the identity of the victim, witness or complainant would threaten life, safety or property SPD

State RCW

Federal Regulations

Case Law SPD feels that most of these issues has been addressed by language in the SPD BWV policy.

Comments that there needs to be increased trust with police without videos. BWV is only one of many projects directed at increasing trust and transparency: policies and training around force, bias, stops and detentions, analysis and public release of force data, increased crisis intervention. SPD engages in a wide variety of public engagement efforts, including the development of micro-community policing plans, SeaPAL, advisory councils, etc. SPD There are no specific SPD policies that deal with this issue.

Comments that SPD needs to acknowledge police bias. SPD's implicit bias training incorporates and trains officers that every person has bias it is the recognition that bias exists and how it is managed that makes for effective policing. Bias is not unique to police. SPD There are no specific SPD policies that deal with this issue.

Comments that there needs to be a clear policy on turning cameras on and off. CPC BWV policy suggestion:

5. Employees Will Record Police Activity

Employees will record the following police activity, even if the event is out of view of the camera:

- Response to dispatched calls, starting before the employee arrives on the call and ending consistent with paragraphs 6 and 7 below

- Terry stops

- Traffic stops

- On-View Infractions and Criminal Activity

- Arrest s and seizures

- Searches and inventories of vehicles, persons or premises

Transports (excluding ride-alongs and passengers for meetings)

- Vehicle Eluding/Pursuits

- Supervisor or Command response to a scene for purposes of direction or review

If circumstances prevent recording at the beginning of an event, the employee shall begin recording as soon as practical.

6. Once Recording Has Begun, Employees Will Not Stop Recording Until the Event Has Concluded

Employees will record the entire event unless specifically instructed otherwise by this manual section.

An event has concluded when all of the following apply:

- The employee has completed his or her part of the active investigation;

- There is little possibility that the employee will have further contact with any person involved in the event; and

- The employee is leaving the area of the event

For transports to a King County jail facility, the event concludes just before the employee enters the sally port of the facility.

For transports to medical facilities, the event concludes when the employee reaches the transport destination, and the employee is exiting the vehicle.

For transports to other locations, the event concludes when the employee reaches the transport destination, and the subject has been taken into the destination.

7. Employees Will Not Record or May Stop Recording in Certain Situations During an Event

Unless there is reasonable suspicion to believe that criminal activity is occurring or will occur, employees will not intentionally record people who are lawfully exercising their freedom of speech, press, association, assembly, religion, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. However, protected activity which is unintentionally captured while recording an event as otherwise required by this policy is not a violation.

Unless for a direct law enforcement purpose, such as a crime in progress, or when the recording of the location is material to a criminal investigation, employees will not record in places where a heightened expectation of privacy exists. These places include restrooms, jails, and medical facilities, including counseling or therapeutic program offices.

As safety allows, employees shall stop recording for portions of events so as to not capture:

- Images of the body of a deceased person (unless the death resulted from or occurred during police contact )

-The questioning of victims, suspects, or witnesses

- Death notifications

- An image or information that if disclosed would be highly offensive to a reasonable individual

- The identifiable location of a community-based domestic violence program, or emergency shelter, both as defined in RCW 70.123.020

If the employee is on a perimeter post at an extended major incident investigation, the on-scene supervisor, or FIT commander where FIT has been notified, may authorize recording to be stopped when he or she determines:

- There is no reasonable basis for believing the recording will capture pertinent audio/visual evidence regarding the incident or enforcement efforts, and

- Continued recording presents a strain on Department resources.

The main concern of the Stakeholder Group in this area was that the SPD policy should contain clear direction to turn off the cameras when questioning victims, suspects, or witnesses, due to potential concerns that the video could create issues with Washington's current public disclosure laws.

The stakeholder group felt that the language in the BWV policy "employees acting in good faith to exercise discretion in these cases will not be subject to discipline for failure to record those portions of an event" were appropriate and should be included in all areas related to officer discretion in recording. SPD BWV policy states:

b. When Employees Record Activity

When safe and practical, employees will record the following police activity, even if the event is out of view of the camera:

- Dispatched calls, starting before the employee arrives on the call

- Traffic and Terry stops

- On-view infractions and criminal activity

- Arrests and seizures

- Searches and inventories of vehicles, persons, or premises

- Transports (excluding ride-alongs and passengers for meetings)

- Vehicle eluding/pursuits

- Questioning victims, suspects, or witnesses (This does not include conversations with persons merely wishing to pass on information about general criminal activity not tied to a specific event.)

If circumstances prevent recording at the start of an event, the employee will record as soon as practical.

Employees will record the entire event to its conclusion unless specifically instructed otherwise by this manual section.

If the employee is on a perimeter post at an extended major incident investigation, the on-scene supervisor, or FIT commander where FIT has been notified, may authorize ICV and BWV recording to be stopped when he or she reasonably believes further recording will not capture audio/visual evidence regarding the incident or enforcement efforts.

c. Discretion in Recording

Employees acting in good faith to exercise discretion under policy subsections 5c 5g will not be subject to discipline for the decision to record or not record those portions of an event.

Unless otherwise prohibited by this policy, employees may initiate recording any time they determine it would be beneficial to capture an event or activity.

d. Recording in Sensitive Areas

Employees will not record in restrooms, jails and the interiors of medical, mental health, counseling, or therapeutic facilities unless for a direct law enforcement purpose, such as a crime in progress.

e. Recording in Residences and Private Areas

Employees will ask for consent to record with BWV in residences or other private areas not open to the public unless there is a crime in progress, or other circumstances exist that would allow the employee to be lawfully present without a warrant. The request and any response will be recorded.

If any person with legal standing denies permission to record, employees will stop recording with BWV while they are in the private area. However, employees will continue to record ICV audio, if equipped, and notify the persons involved of the continued audio recording.

f. Protecting Privacy and Dignity

There may be limited circumstances when the respect for an individual's privacy or dignity outweighs the need to record an event.

Such circumstances may include natural death scenes, death notifications, child or sexual assault victim interviews, cultural or religious objections to being recorded, and when the use of BWV would impede or limit the cooperation of a victim or witness.

When an employee believes such circumstances exist, the employee may deactivate the BWV.

g. Recording Protected Activity / Demonstrations

Employees will not record people lawfully exercising their freedom of speech, press, association, assembly, or religion unless they have probable cause to believe that criminal activity is occurring or when ordered to record by a supervisor, as provided below.

When an imminent risk to public safety or large-scale property destruction appears likely, supervisors at the squad level and/or the incident commander of an event may order employees to record with BWV. Under such direction, employees will record until ordered to cease recording.

Protected activity unintentionally captured is not a violation.

h. Employees Stating the Reasons for Stopping BWV

Employees who stop recording during an event will state on the recording their intention to stop recording and explain the basis for that decision. Employees will also document the reason(s) in the GO report and/or CAD update.

Supervisors who direct that recordings cease will direct employees to document the order in the GO report and/or CAD update.

i. Determining the Conclusion of an Event

An event has concluded when both of the following apply:

- The employee has completed his or her part of the active investigation; and

- There is little possibility that the employee will have further contact with any person involved in the event

For transports to a King County jail facility, the event concludes just before the employee enters the sally port of the facility.

For transports to medical facilities, the event concludes when the employee reaches the transport destination, and the employee is exiting the vehicle.

For transports to other locations, the event concludes when the employee reaches the transport destination, and the subject has been taken into the destination. SPD SPD and the CPC / Stakeholder Group agree with a large portion of this issues, except for disagreement over recording statements made by victims, witnesses, and suspects.

Comments that there needs to be information and officer training on how officers will inform people that they do not need to be recorded. CPC BWV policy suggestion:

4. Employees Shall Notify Persons of Recording

Employees shall notify persons that they are being recorded as soon as practical, and the notification must be on the recording.

Employees shall repeat the notification, if practical, for additional people that become involved in the recording.

SPD BWV policy states:

Notification of Recording

Employees shall notify persons that they are being recorded as soon as practical, and the notification must be on the recording. Employees will make reasonable efforts to communicate to non-English speakers, those with limited English proficiency, deaf persons, or persons hard of hearing that they are being recorded.

Employees will make reasonable efforts to repeat the notification, if practical, for additional people that become involved in the recording.

Consistent with RCW 9.73.090(1)(b), employees will again notify persons placed under arrest they are being recorded and verbally give Miranda warnings on the recording.

If any person with legal standing denies permission to record, employees will stop recording with BWV while they are in the private area. However, employees will continue to record ICV audio, if equipped. SPD SPD feels that this issue has been addressed by language in the SPD BWV policy.

Comments that there needs to be information on how videos with public disclosure concerns are "flagged." CPC BWV policy suggestion:

10. Employees Will Enter Data for Recorded Events

Employees will assign the appropriate event type for all recordings and enter any related GO or event number(s) in the proper format. (YYYY-######)

Per Department training in the use of the video management system employees will "flag" videos after writing their initial report if any portion of the videos may contain images or audio of any of the following:

- Complainant/victim/witness who requests non-disclosure

- Complainant/victim/witness who has not requested nondisclosure but disclosure would endanger life, physical safety, or property

- Interior of a private residence

- Interior of a medical, mental health, counseling, or therapeutic facility

- Medical information or treatment

- Mental Health information or treatment

- Any identifiable juveniles

- Confidential informants

- Identifiable location of a domestic violence program facility, emergency shelter, or transitional housing program

- Sexual activity, nudity, or images of intimate body parts

- Body of a deceased person or other death-related images

- Other information that if disclosed would be highly offensive to a reasonable individual

The Stakeholder Group had concerns about the BWV policy section that deals with the "flagging" of sensitive videos in that it may give an inaccurate sense that concerns in this area have been "solved." They also stated their desire to add language as to why the video was flagged, in addition to adding it should be added after the report has been written. SPD removed the section of the policy pertaining to the "flagging" of videos for sensitive content, since the Public Disclosure Unit will be reviewing all videos for this type of content before disclosure. SPD This issue has been addressed in the SPD BWV policy.

Comments that there needs to be effective training on how to interact with the public while wearing cameras. CPC BWV policy suggestion:

1. All Employees Operating ICV-Equipped Vehicles and BWV Cameras Must Have Completed Training

Before employees deploy with BWV or a vehicle equipped with ICV, they will complete Department training on the proper use of the equipment and procedures for uploading recorded video. This training will include:

- Camera operation

- Placement of the BWV camera or pointing of the ICV camera

- Department policy on camera usage

- Recording advisements

Officers shall comply with training regarding camera placement or pointing, operation and advisements.

There were comments from the Stakeholder Group that the policy needs to talk about effective training in dealing with the public re: body cameras. SPD BWV policy states:

All Employees Operating ICV-Equipped Vehicles and BWV Cameras Must Have Completed Training

Before employees deploy with an ICV-equipped vehicle or BWV camera, they will complete Department training on the proper use of the equipment and procedures for uploading recorded video. This training will include:

- System preparation and operation

- Department policy on camera usage

- Pointing of the ICV camera and placement of the BWV camera

As public and officer safety considerations permit, employees will make reasonable efforts to position the vehicle and camera to obtain useful recordings and capture critical evidence. Employees will not position vehicles to avoid recording an event.

Employees will wear the BWV camera on the upper torso.

SPD Most of these issues have been addressed by language in the SPD BWV policy.

Comments that there needs to be accountability regarding the violation of BWV policies SPD Manual 5.001(4) states:

Employees are responsible for adhering to the following:

Federal laws

State laws

Laws of the City of Seattle

City of Seattle policies

The Seattle Police Manual

Published Directives and Special Orders

Department Training

Applicable collective bargaining agreements and relevant labor laws SPD SPD feels that this issue has been addressed by language in the SPD BWV policy.

Comments that information is needed on the retention policy for videos. Some Stakeholder Group members have suggested that SPD delay deployment until the State legislature addresses retention policies around BWV in 2018 to mitigate impact on privacy concerns SPD has a detailed retention policy that has been approved by the federal court and will be implemented shortly. SPD

Washington Sec. of State

Law Enforcement Records Retention Schedule v.7.2 (January 2017) There are no specific SPD policies that deal with this issue.

Comments that information is needed on how videos are being stored. The storage of videos is located on the vendor's cloud storage account. The BWV vendor, Taser, uses Microsoft Azure, which has received FBI certification for CJIS (Criminal Justice Information Systems) compliance. All data is encrypted in transit and at rest on the cloud. SPD

Vendor There are no specific SPD policies that deal with this issue.

Comments that information is needed on what causes a body-worn camera to malfunction. The Stakeholder Group felt that there needed to be a time frame included in the section for addressing malfunctions they suggested "as soon as practicable" or something similar. SPD's body-worn cameras notify the user if there is an internal error. The Ingress Protection rating (IP) is 67, meaning the camera has been tested to survive submersion in up to one meter of water for 30 minutes, as well as high protection against dust entering the camera.

The SPD BWV policy states:

If an employee discovers an operational issue with ICV or BWV at any time during the shift, the employee will contact ITS for troubleshooting (if applicable), note the issue in a CAD update, and notify a supervisor as soon as practicable.

SPD

Vendor SPD feels that this issue has been addressed by language in the SPD BWV policy.

Comments that an education plan for the public. Please see the "Continuing Community Engagement" section in this report SPD There are no specific SPD policies that deal with this issue, but there is a plan in this report for community engagement moving forward.

Comments that information is needed on program statistics and BWV use in other cities. SPD has consulted with numerous other cities on BWV programs including Los Angeles, San Diego, Miami, Cincinnati, San Jose and Milwaukee.

SPD will provide available statistics as part of its ongoing community outreach. SPD There are no specific SPD policies that deal with this issue., but SPD has and will continue to communicate with other jurisdictions and provide statistics as appropriate.

Comments that SPD needs to develop and articulate goals to the public. As set forth in the project charter, the two primary goals for the program are: 1) improve community trust in SPD and 2) increase transparency of officer public interaction.

These goals will be incorporated in outreach materials in the continued engagement effort.

SPD BWV policy states:

The goal of these systems is to enhance public trust in the Seattle Police Department by providing greater transparency into officer actions. Recording law enforcement interactions between officers and members of the public provides valuable information for officer accountability and effective criminal investigations. SPD This issue has been addressed by language in the SPD BWV policy and will be addressed in community engagement moving forward.

Comments that communities need to surveil themselves rather than have the police do the surveilling. SPD fully recognizes that the best "surveillance" is community self-reporting of crimes and other issues. To increase such collaboration, SPD is engaged in a wide variety of activities to promote public trust. BWV is one of those activities. Community There are no specific SPD policies that deal with this issue.

Comments that the City needs to create a civilian review board to review videos. There are currently no plans for a civilian review board. The Office of Professional Accountability may review video for disciplinary investigations. SPD

City There are no specific SPD policies that deal with this issue.

Comments that the public needs to be able to tell officers when to turn the cameras off. CPC suggests that SPD add language that clarifies how an employee should proceed if consent for recording is not given by all persons present in a private residence. SPD BWV policy states:

Employees will ask for consent to record with BWV in residences or other private areas not open to the public unless there is a crime in progress, or other circumstances exist that would allow the employee to be lawfully present without a warrant. The request and any response will be recorded.

If any person with legal standing denies permission to record, employees will stop recording with BWV while they are in the private area. However, employees will continue to record ICV audio, if equipped, and notify the persons involved of the continued audio recording. SPD Most of these issues have been addressed by language in the SPD BWV policy.

Concerns that the officers should not be able to view any video until after they write their report. Employees shall not review their own recorded video prior to writing a report

Employees may review recorded video only after submitting their initial report(s). If, after watching the video, employees update or amend their initial report (s), they must do so by submitting an amended report, not altering the original report (s). Both the initial and amended reports shall be retained.

The Department, including supervisors, OPA, Training, Audit, and investigatory personnel) may view in-car and body-worn video for the following purposes:

- Complaint

- Criminal investigation

- Officer-involved collision, including Collision Review Board investigations

- Vehicle pursuit investigation or review

- Use of force review or investigation (See also FIT Manual)

- Public disclosure request

- Performance appraisal

- As part of the Early Intervention System (EIS)

As part of department training, with the permission of the involved employees to those conducting the training.

- For supervisory mentoring and coaching

- Audit and Quality Control/Troubleshooting

The Stakeholder Group felt that the SPD policy on this issue was contrary to using the video for accountability concerns. SPD BWV policy states:

Employees May Review Recorded Video

Employees may review their own recorded video except in instances of FIT investigations. The FIT manual outlines when employees may view video in those cases.

The Department, including supervisors, OPA, Training, Audit, and investigatory personnel may view ICV and BWV recordings for these purposes:

- Complaint

- Criminal investigation

- Officer-involved collision

- Vehicle pursuit investigation or review

- Public disclosure request

- Use of force review or investigation (See FIT Manual if applicable)

- Performance appraisal

- As part of the Early Intervention System (EIS)

- Training purposes, with the permission of the involved employees

- Audit and Quality Control/Troubleshooting

SPD and the CPC / Stakeholder Group disagree with the approach to this issue.

Other

Community Input CPC Redlines/Stakeholder Group Input SPD Policy/Procedure Governed By Notes Alignment between Input and Policy

Concerns that additional time and resources may be needed for SPD, prosecutors, and other City staff to deal with large amount of video. No specific policy/procedures at this time. SPD

City Additional resources have been identified and budgeted for accordingly. Resources will be phased in as the program advances. There are no specific SPD policies that deal with this issue.

Comments that BWV will provide a different perspective than in-car video. One of the main objectives of the BWV is to provide a record of officer-public interaction where none currently exists.

SPD BWV policy states:

The goal of these systems is to enhance public trust in the Seattle Police Department by providing greater transparency into officer actions. Recording law enforcement interactions between officers and members of the public provides valuable information for officer accountability and effective criminal investigations. SPD SPD feels that this issues has been addressed by language in the SPD BWV policy.

There are concerns that non-native English speakers may not fully comprehend officer instructions/statements on being recorded. SPD BWV policy states: Employees shall notify persons that they are being recorded as soon as practical, and the notification must be on the recording. Employees will make reasonable efforts to communicate to non-English speakers, those with limited English proficiency, deaf persons, or persons hard of hearing that they are being recorded.

Employees will make reasonable efforts to repeat the notification, if practical, for additional people that become involved in the recording.

SPD SPD feels that this issues has been addressed by language in the SPD BWV policy.

Comments that videos could be used for training purposes, especially for incidents that contain interaction with those that have behavioral health issues. BWV may be used for training purposes with the consent of the officers appearing in the video. Currently, ICV is used regularly for such trainings. SPD There are no specific SPD policies that deal with this issue.

Comments that some studies show increased use of force in departments that use body cameras. Some Stakeholder Group members have stressed the importance of removing broad discretion for officer around BWV policies to potentially reduce increased use of force resulting from body-worn cameras While some studies do show increased use of force, other studies show the opposite. There are no specific SPD policies that deal with this issue.

Comments that it is difficult to get good statements with the way SPD currently interviews witnesses/ victims. SPD There are no specific SPD policies that deal with this issue.

Concerns that video is open to interpretation. The department shares this concern and is attempting to ensure that its review of video is mature.

The approved SPD FIT Manual (which is still being negotiated with the unions) states:

Differences between perception and "objective" sources such as video may be explicable due to the limits of human perception and memory (e.g., selective focus, influence of adrenaline, fight or flight response, tunnel vision) and expanded capacity of video sources (e.g., wider field of vision and consistent focal range). An officer may only be disciplined for a discrepancy between his or her perceptual statement and objective evidence if the department finds that the officer made intentional misrepresentations or where the officer fails to fully cooperate with a perceptual interview. SPD

Community Video is open to personal interpretation by all who view There are no specific SPD policies that deal with this issue.

Concerns that, in many instances, it is difficult to know who the victim and who the perpetrator is at the scene of an incident. This is a determination regularly made by trained police officers. SPD There are no specific SPD policies that deal with this issue.

There were concerns about the security of videos in regards to being able to hack into the system. The storage of videos is located on the vendor's cloud storage account. The BWV vendor, Taser, uses Microsoft Azure, which has received FBI certification for CJIS (Criminal Justice Information Systems) compliance and has gone through the City's security review. All data is encrypted in transit and at rest on the cloud. SPD

Vendor There are no specific SPD policies that deal with this issue, but the BWV vendor is CJIS compliant.

Concerns that SPD is not using different camera options, such as head / eyeglass mounted cameras. The BWV vendor, Taser, has a head/eyeglass mounted camera. After consulting with jurisdictions that use head-mounted systems, SPD declined to use this to provide a consistent viewpoint, as well as to provide a durable camera for the officers. SPD There are no specific SPD policies that deal with this issue, but SPD has researched the concern.

Privacy

Community Input CPC Redlines/Stakeholder Group Input SPD Policy/Procedure Governed By Notes Alignment between Input and Policy

Concerns about surveillance focusing on undocumented individuals. SPD Manual 6.020

It is the policy of the Department that officers will not request specific documents for the sole purpose of determining someone's immigration or alien status. If offered by a person and not specifically requested by the officer, it is permissible to rely on immigration documents to establish someone's identity in response to a general request for identification.

Officers will not initiate police action based solely on an individual's immigration or alien status, nor shall they ask for identification or documents to establish the person's immigration or alien status. SPD Policy

Federal Guidelines While body-worn cameras may record video of undocumented individuals as part of normal police work, officers will not be asking for status of citizenship per SPD policy. SPD feels that the issue is addressed via parts of the SPD policy that address immigration issues.

There will be less reliance on surveillance from private property owners when officers wear body-worn cameras. While BWV will provide additional video footage of officer-public interaction, SPD will continue to request private video from property owners, where applicable. SPD There will likely be similar amounts of private property surveillance after BWV deployment.

Questions and concerns about federal and other agency access to videos will video be shared and how? CPC has expressed concerns over this issue. Non-SPD agencies do not have direct access to stored videos. The King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office and Seattle City Attorney's Office have access to videos related to specific cases that have been released by SPD to those agencies in Evidence.Com. KCPAO and SCAO access is permissions-based and limited to those videos relevant to cases as provided by SPD. State RCW

Federal regulations BWV will be shared with federal and other agencies as part of active investigations. Videos that are not part of an active investigation may be requested by other agencies as part of the public disclosure process There are no specific SPD policies that deal with this issue.

Concerns that video will be used against public by SPD for reasons other than outlined in SPD policy. CPC BWV policy suggestion:

This policy applies to all sworn employees who operate In-Car Video (ICV) or Body-Worn Video (BWV) systems (including Patrol, Traffic, Gang Unit, Canine, SWAT, and others required pursuant to this policy.), whether on-duty or in a secondary employment capacity. SPD officers and staff are governed by SPD policy. The BWV policy states: This policy section applies to all sworn employees who operate In-Car Video (ICV) or Body-Worn Video (BWV) systems.

Violations of the BWV policy will face disciplinary action.

SPD Policy SPD feels this input has been adequately addressed.

Worries that videos will be used with facial recognition tools for identification. CPC has expressed concerns over this issue Booking Photo Comparison Software Policy applies:

SPD 12.045:

This policy applies to the usage of Booking Photo Comparison Software (BPCS) for biometrics processing. The intent is to regulate the use of this technology to allow for legitimate law enforcement purposes while protecting privacy.

1. Usage of BPCS is Limited to the Comparison of Unidentified Images to Booking Photos

BPCS may only be used in an attempt to identify a person whom an officer reasonably suspects may be involved in criminal activity.

2. Only Department-Trained Photo Unit Personnel Will Use BPCS

3. Any Agency Requesting SPD Assistance with an Investigation Must Satisfy all Criteria in this Manual Section

4. BPCS may Not be Used to Connect with 'Live' Camera Systems

5. The Photo Unit Maintains BPCS Statistics and Data

All data governing the usage of this system is retained for a period of 42 months. See 12.045-PRO-2

6. No Personnel may use BPCS to Identify Individuals for Identification Purposes who do not Meet the Listed Criteria

12.045-PRO-1 Procedures for Using BPCS to Identify a Possible Suspect

The Officer/Detective

1. Establishes a reasonable suspicion that there is a suspect involved in criminal activity

2. Contacts the SPD Photo Unit with the GO Number, if applicable

3. Presents the captured image of a possible suspect to Photo Unit personnel

Photo Unit Personnel

4. Download the image into BPCS

5. Using the software, compare this captured image to those stored in a booking photo database

6. Present the images of any possible suspect(s) to the investigating officer/detective

7. Retain certain BPCS data

See 12.045-PRO-2

The Officer/Detective:

8. Uses the possible suspect image(s) to further an investigation

12.045-PRO-2 Procedures for Retention and Auditing of BPCS Data

Photo Unit Personnel

1. Retain all data associated with BPCS for a period of 42 months

2. Maintain a log at the BPCS workstation which records the following information:

Date of inquiry

Name of operator making inquiry

Name of officer requesting inquiry

Description of incident that satisfies all the criteria in this manual section

GO Number, if applicable

Compliance Section Personnel

3. Audit all usage of BPCS on an annual basis SPD policy Once videos have been released to the public or other agencies, SPD has no control over how the videos are used. SPD's position in that the Booking Photo Comparison Software Policy covers facial recognition tools and that this issue has been addressed.

Concerns that there will be more video footage created in some communities than in others. No specific policy/procedures at this time. SPD All front-line officers will be wearing body-worn cameras once full deployment has been reached. There are no specific SPD policies that deal with this issue.

Immigrant communities may feel SPD is spying on them with body-worn cameras. SPD plans to conduct public outreach, which will include goals of the program, explanation of the use of cameras, and policies which bound the use of video footage. SPD There are no specific SPD policies that deal with this issue.

Concerns about the difficult process in which a victim/witness gets an injunction against public release of a video - what about the cost of the process? What if there is no physical address to send notification to? What if a minor wishing non-disclosure has a parent that does not agree that video should not be released? Developing policy/procedures at this time. State RCW Often the images presumed to be highly offensive mirror the State exemptions that allow redaction. There will videos that contain images presumed to be highly offensive that are not explicitly exempt from disclosure under the PRA. If so, the agency may provide third-party notice to the subject of the image. The subject could seek an injunction to prevent disclosure. The court would grant the injunction unless the requestor can show that the video content is of legitimate interest to the public. There are no specific SPD policies that deal with this issue.

Worries that the level of redaction will not be sufficient to properly cover identities of individuals. Not in policy. SPD is working on checklists and other protocols for redaction. SPD There are no specific SPD policies that deal with this issue.

Concerns that body-worn cameras will be used to capture images of individuals at protests, which will result in potentially first-amendment chilling effects. The Stakeholder group wanted to make sure that the sections of the BWV policy aligned with the intelligence gathering ordinance. SPD BWV Policy:

Employees will not record people lawfully exercising their freedom of speech, press, association, assembly, or religion unless they have probable cause to believe that criminal activity is occurring or when ordered to record by a supervisor, as provided below.

When an imminent risk to public safety or large-scale property destruction appears likely, supervisors at the squad level and/or the incident commander of an event may order employees to record with BWV. Under such direction, employees will record until ordered to cease recording.

Protected activity unintentionally captured is not a violation. SPD policy SPD feels that this issues has been addressed by language in the SPD BWV policy.

Concerns that cameras in health care and treatment facilities may result in release of federally protected health information, as well as compromise privacy of individuals receiving treatment. CPC BWV policy suggestion:

Unless for a direct law enforcement purpose, such as a crime in progress, or when the recording of the location is material to a criminal investigation, employees will not record in places where a heightened expectation of privacy exists. These places include restrooms, jails, and medical facilities, including counseling or therapeutic program offices.

AND

Per Department training in the use of the video management system employees will "flag" videos after writing their initial report if any portion of the videos may contain images or audio of any of the following:

- Complainant / victim / witness who requests non-disclosure

-Complainant / victim / witness who has not requested nondisclosure but disclosure would endanger life, physical safety, or property

Interior of a private residence

- Interior of a medical, mental health, counseling, or therapeutic facility

- Medical information or treatment

- Mental Health information or treatment

- Any identifiable juveniles

- Confidential informants

- Identifiable location of a domestic violence program facility, emergency shelter, or transitional housing program

- Sexual activity, nudity, or images of intimate body parts

- Body of a deceased person or other death-related images

- Other information that if disclosed would be highly offensive to a reasonable individual

The Stakeholder Group had concerns about the BWV policy section that deals with the "flagging" of sensitive videos in that it may give an inaccurate sense that concerns in this area have been "solved." They also stated their desire to add language as to why the video was flagged, in addition to adding it should be added after the report has been written.

SPD policy states:

Employees will not record in restrooms, jails and the interiors of medical, mental health, counseling, or therapeutic facilities unless for a direct law enforcement purpose, such as a crime in progress.

SPD removed the section of the policy pertaining to the "flagging" of videos for sensitive content, since the Public Disclosure Unit will be reviewing all videos for this type of content before disclosure.

SPD Policy If a video exists were non-disclosure is requested or required by state law, the SPD Public Disclosure Unit will redact (blur/box-out) all identifying information if the video is requested by someone other than the victim/witness. SPD feels that this issues has been addressed by language in the SPD BWV policy.

Concern that perpetrators may have access to footage of victims. The Stakeholder Group had concerns about the BWV policy section that deals with the "flagging" of sensitive videos in that it may give an inaccurate sense that concerns in this area have been "solved." They also stated their desire to add language as to why the video was flagged, in addition to adding it should be added after the report has been written. SPD removed the section of the policy pertaining to the "flagging" of videos for sensitive content, since the Public Disclosure Unit will be reviewing all videos for this type of content before disclosure.

SPD Manual Section 12.080 Retention and Disclosure of Department Records addresses video retention periods and release of video to the public, including persons wishing to file misconduct complaints. SPD policy

State Law If a video exists were non-disclosure is requested or required by state law, the SPD Public Disclosure Unit will redact (blur/box-out) all identifying information if the video is requested by someone other than the victim/witness. SPD feels that this issues has been addressed by language in the SPD BWV policy.

Videos will be readily available to public The Stakeholder Group had concerns about the BWV policy section that deals with the "flagging" of sensitive videos in that it may give an inaccurate sense that concerns in this area have been "solved." They also stated their desire to add language as to why the video was flagged, in addition to adding it should be added after the report has been written.

SPD removed the section of the policy pertaining to the "flagging" of videos for sensitive content, since the Public Disclosure Unit will be reviewing all videos for this type of content before disclosure.

SPD Manual Section 12.080 Retention and Disclosure of Department Records addresses video retention periods and release of video to the public, including persons wishing to file misconduct complaints. State RCW If a video exists were non-disclosure is requested or required by state law, the SPD Public Disclosure Unit will redact (blur/box-out) all identifying information if the video is requested by someone other than the victim/witness. SPD feels that this issues has been addressed by language in the SPD BWV policy.

Concerns that media may have access to videos and publish them, leading to people becoming unwitting public figures. SPD Manual Section 12.080 Retention and Disclosure of Department Records addresses video retention periods and release of video to the public, including persons wishing to file misconduct complaints. SPD

State RCW There are no specific SPD policies that deal with this issue.

Unintended Consequences

Community Input CPC Redlines/Stakeholder Group Input SPD Policy/Procedure Governed By Notes Alignment between Input and Policy

Concerns that BWV could have a chilling effect on reporting of crimes due to public unease with cameras, particularly in vulnerable communities. RCW 42.56.240(2) exempts from disclosure:

Information revealing the identity of persons who are witnesses to or victims of crime or who file complaints with investigative, law enforcement, or penology agencies, other than the commission, if disclosure would endanger any person's life, physical safety, or property. If at the time a complaint is filed the complainant, victim, or witness indicates a desire for disclosure or nondisclosure, such desire shall govern

SPD Manual Section 12.080 (4) states

When gathering information at the time of reporting, officers and detectives must ask victims, witnesses and complainants if they want their identifying information disclosed or not disclosed. This decision supersedes any disclosure requests made by another person.

When a victim, witness or complainant is unable to discuss disclosure due to incapacity, the reporting officer shall:

Document the incapacity in the entity portion of the General Offense Report, and

Document any specific evidence that disclosure of the identity of the victim, witness or complainant would threaten life, safety or property. SPD policy

State RCW SPD feels that this issues has been addressed by language in the SPD BWV policy.

Concerns that BWV will have a chilling effect on witness or victim statements due to possible retaliation from perpetrator. CPC BWV policy suggestion:

As safety allows, employees shall stop recording for portions of events so as to not capture:

- Images of the body of a deceased person (unless the death resulted from or occurred during police contact)

-The questioning of victims, suspects, or witnesses

- Death notifications

- An image or information that if disclosed would be highly offensive to a reasonable individual

- The identifiable location of a community-based domestic violence program, or emergency shelter, both as defined in RCW 70.123.020

The stakeholder group felt that the language in the BWV policy "employees acting in good faith to exercise discretion in these cases will not be subject to discipline for failure to record those portions of an event" were appropriate and should be included in all areas related to officer discretion in recording. SPD BWV policy states:

There may be limited circumstances when the respect for an individual's privacy or dignity outweighs the need to record an event.

Such circumstances may include natural death scenes, death notifications, child or sexual assault victim interviews, cultural or religious objections to being recorded, and when the use of BWV would impede or limit the cooperation of a victim or witness.

When an employee believes such circumstances exist, the employee may deactivate the BWV.

Nondisclosure is in SPD Manual 12.080:

When gathering information at the time of reporting, officers and detectives must ask victims, witnesses and complainants if they want their identifying information disclosed or not disclosed. This decision supersedes any disclosure requests made by another person.

When a victim, witness or complainant is unable to discuss disclosure due to incapacity, the reporting officer shall:

Document the incapacity in the entity portion of the General Offense Report, and

Document any specific evidence that disclosure of the identity of the victim, witness or complainant would threaten life, safety or property

SPD Manual Section 12.080 Retention and Disclosure of Department Records addresses video retention periods and release of video to the public, including persons wishing to file misconduct complaints. SPD policy

State RCW If a video exists were non-disclosure is requested or required by state law, the SPD Public Disclosure Unit will redact (blur/box-out) all identifying information if the video is requested by someone other than the victim/witness. SPD and the CPC / Stakeholder Group disagree with the approach to this concern.

Concerns that videos will be used in Child Protective Services and custody cases. No specific policy/procedures at this time. State RCW Videos may be requested through the public disclosure process and will be released, barring any conflict with State law There are no specific SPD policies that deal with this issue.

LGBTQI community concerned about footage being released that may have negative personal impact. No specific policy/procedures at this time. There are no specific SPD policies that deal with this issue.

Concerns that the need for officers to turn on cameras in crucial incidents may impact officer and/or public safety. BWV policy requires officers to turn on cameras before arriving at a scene to eliminate interference with necessary actions on-scene. For rapidly evolving events, policy only requires use of a camera when feasible. Public/officer safety comes first. SPD There are no specific SPD policies that deal with this issue.

Concerns that the presence of cameras may affect participation in LEAD and other diversion programs. No specific policy/procedures at this time. SPD There are no specific SPD policies that deal with this issue.

Concerns that it is unclear how the presence of BWV will affect minority communities. Continued SPD community engagement will allow SPD to hear feedback about how cameras are impacting specific communities and make appropriate policy changes to mitigate negative impacts. SPD There are no specific SPD policies that deal with this issue.

Body-Worn Video Community Engagement Plan

In November of 2015, a Body-Worn Video (BWV) Stakeholder Group took part in discussions about the use of body-worn cameras by the Seattle Police Department (SPD). The information that was collected in those meetings were valuable for the City in developing draft policies and protocols for a body-worn video program. A large portion of the meetings a year ago was spent discussing possible approaches to State legislation regarding body-camera footage. We now know what passed the State Legislature (a modified version of the bill introduced by Rep. Drew Hansen), and are in a better position to assess what material will need to be released in response to public records requests, providing some additional clarity and context around the issue that was not present in previous stakeholder discussions.

As part of the 2017 City budget, the Seattle City Council has requested that the Seattle Police Department submit a plan for continued community engagement around the Body-Worn Video Program by December 2nd, 2016. This plan identifies who will be involved, the expected deliverables, and the process and timeline for the engagement.

Groups

BWV Stakeholder Group (Invited): Community Police Commission, Seattle Police Department, Mayor's Office, City Council, American Civil Liberties Union, Department of Justice Settlement Monitoring Team, King County Coalition Ending Gender-Based Violence, Somali Community Services of Seattle, King County Sheriff's Office, Seattle City Attorney, King County Department of Public Defense, King County Executive, United States Department of Justice, and Seattle Police Officers Guild, as well as experts in constitutional and municipal law

Focus Groups: In collaboration with SPD and the BWV Stakeholder Group, the Community Police Commission will take the lead to assemble 2-3 focus groups of representative community members to discuss implementation of BWV and related policy.

Deliverables

Stakeholder Issues/Proposals: After the focus group conversations, the BWV Stakeholder group will reconvene to consider insights derived from those meetings in addition to questions and concerns from their respective constituencies. The Group will produce a list of key policy and protocol issues and proposals for the Body-Worn Video Program for consideration by SPD that list will be included in the final report.

FAQs: A document outlining the frequently asked questions around the use and operation of body-worn camera equipment and policy will be produced. Developed by the BWV Stakeholder Group using information gathered from the Focus Groups, this document can be used by SPD for use in public communication about the program.

Final Report: The report summarizes the results of the Department's community outreach, describes how the draft BWV policy is responsive to community input and the operational needs of the department, identifies unresolved questions or issues related to the BWV policy and implementation protocols, and documents how the department will continue to engage and seek the advice of the BWV Stakeholder Group on the use of BWV equipment or implement an alternative structure for on-going community collaboration.

Process and Timeline

Timeline Action Details

November 2016 Convene BWV Stakeholder Group Solicit input for the development of BWV Community Engagement Plan

December 2016 1st Stakeholder Group Meeting Identify focus group membership

Develop focus group structure and timelines

Identify policy/issue areas to discuss with focus groups

Receive State legislative update

January 2017 Conduct 2 3 Focus Groups Solicit feedback on policy/issue areas

Receive legal update from ACLU and Mary Perry (SPD Director of Privacy and Transparency)

2nd Stakeholder Workgroup Meeting (and additional meetings, as needed) Discuss results of focus groups

Identify operational issues and concerns from focus groups for consideration by SPD

Identify policy and protocol concerns from focus groups and/or SPD for report to Council

Develop Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for SPD public communication

Draft Final Report

SPD drafts final report including issues and proposals from Stakeholder Group

Contains schedule for Council updates on program and outreach

February 2017 Transmit Final Report to Council Gender Equity, Safe Communities, and New Americans Committee Due February 1st

Body-Worn Video Community Roundtables

Proposed Structure and Logistics

Number of Roundtables: Three

Length of Roundtables: One and a half hours

Facilitators: Fe Lopez (CPC), Anne Bettesworth (CPC), and Nick Zajchowski (SPD)

Roundtable Support: Contracted support to provide note-taking, produce Roundtable summaries, and provide food.

Number of Participants: Target of 10 12 per session. Typically, 30% RSVP rate, so initial invite would go to about 90 people total.

Invitation Method: Email invitations will be sent this week, reminders will be sent next week, and individual follow up will occur the week prior to the sessions. All invitees will be asked to choose the session with their preferred date and time.

Dates, Times, Locations:

January 10th, 10:00 AM 11:30 AM, Boards and Commissions Room, City Hall

January 12th, 3:00 PM 4:30 PM, Room 1600, Seattle Municipal Tower

January 17th, 1:30 PM 3:00 PM, Room 4070, Seattle Municipal Tower

Attendees: See attached invitation list.

Agenda:

1. Welcome and Introductions (5 Minutes)

a. Thank you for your time

b. Facilitator introductions

c. Explanation of process: Collecting community feedback on BWV to take to City Council and SPD leadership

d. Attendee introductions

e. Meeting agenda review

f. The report will list the names of meeting attendees, but specific comments won't be attributed to names.

2. Ground Rules (2 minutes)

a. When you speak, please tell us if you are speaking on behalf of yourself or the communities you represent.

b. If you have personal experiences interacting with officers with body cameras and would like to share, we would appreciate it.

c. In the interest of time and inclusive participation, we may put some issues in a "parking lot" for future discussion.

3. Presentation (15 Minutes) with Video

a. Washington State BWV Public Disclosure Laws

b. SPD Policy

i. When to Turn Camera On/Off

ii. Disclosure of Video

iii. Public

iv. Other Agencies

c. Redaction

4. Discussion Questions (60 Minutes)

a. What do you see as the pros and cons of SPD officers wearing body-worn cameras?

b. How will officers wearing body-worn cameras impact you and/or those who you work with?

c. How will body-worn cameras affect the relationship between SPD and the communities they serve?

d. Do you have any other issues/concerns?

5. Parking Lot

6. Thank you and next steps

a. Thank you for your time and input

b. Feel free to submit additional feedback by January 24th in any way you'd like

c. We will be meeting with more community members to ask these same questions

d. We will submit a report in early February to City Council and SPD summarizing what we heard.

e. We will send you a copy of that report electronically shortly thereafter.

Invitation Language:

Greetings:

The Seattle Police Department (SPD) and the Seattle Community Police Commission (CPC) invite you to participate in an important discussion about our city's new police body-worn video program. You were selected because of your value in and connection to communities that may be affected by the introduction of this program. We would like to hear your thoughts on the pros and cons of body-worn cameras, the potential impact of this program on the community, and how the program's implementation will impact community trust in SPD.

We are hosting these meetings in direct response to the Seattle City Council's request that SPD engage in continued discussions with the community about the potential impacts of body-worn cameras. We will be taking community feedback and developing recommendations on this topic, guided by the voices of respected community leaders like you, to help shape policies and protocols around this topic.

Please go to this link to sign up for a one-and-a-half-hour session in January. Multiple dates and time slots are available to accommodate you, and refreshments and parking reimbursements will be provided.

If you are interested, you can find a summary of the Washington State Legislature's changes to state law for body-worn cameras here. If you would like a copy of the draft of SPD's policy for body-worn cameras, please let me know.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Community Roundtable Meeting Notes

SPD Body-Worn Video

The Seattle Police Department (SPD) and the Community Police Commission (CPC) conducted a series of three "roundtables" with the community on January 10, 12, and 17 of 2017. The roundtables were part of a community engagement effort directed by the City Council as part of the 2017 Budget. Prior to the roundtables, the Body-Worn Video Stakeholder Group convened to discuss themes, content, and structure for the listening sessions.

Participation: Over 80 individuals representing a variety of communities in Seattle were invited, including members of domestic violence survivor support organizations, community organizers, mental health advocates, health care professionals, student leaders, and veterans support professionals. Most of the invitees were identified by the CPC, with other members of the BWV Stakeholder Group adding individuals they felt should be included. The full invitee list was approved by an ad-hoc subcommittee of the BWV Stakeholder Group.

Structure: The roundtables were facilitated by F Lopez of the CPC and followed a format agreed upon by the stakeholder group. That format included a briefing on state law and SPD policy regarding public disclosure of body-worn video (see Attachment A for an outline of that briefing). Participants were also shown a brief video that simulated a domestic violence incident in which officers equipped with body cameras responded. The video was redacted in a manner consistent with state law and SPD practice. This portion of the meeting took approximately 30 minutes. The remaining 60 minutes were dedicated to collecting input from participants using the following four questions developed by the ad-hoc subcommittee of the BWV Stakeholder Group.

What are the pros and cons of BWV?

How will officers wearing body-cameras impact you and/or those who you work with?

How will officers wearing body-cameras affect the relationship between SPD and the communities they serve?

Other issues/concerns?

The purpose of the roundtables was to gather information that could inform the Stakeholder Group of the benefits, issues, and concerns related to the BWV program. Participants' questions were treated as issues/concerns, in that they demonstrated gaps in community members' understanding of the BWV program, technology, policy, and state law. The topics of these questions may help SPD draft a policy and community engagement plan that provide community members with clarity around these issues. Because of significant time constraints and need to collect information consistently on the predetermined questions, SPD employees were asked to not respond to questions; rather, they served as passive observers, except for the end of the meetings where they responded to some concerns, time permitting. SPD intends to follow up with the participants by providing the final report and an FAQ document to address some of the questions and concerns raised.

Meeting Summaries: The meeting summaries were prepared by an outside vendor who was taking notes at the meetings. The notes were then reviewed by SPD and the CPC.

Community Roundtable Meeting Notes

SPD Body-Worn Video

Roundtable #1, January 10, 2017

Logistics:

BWV roundtable #1

January 10, 2017

Community Member Attendees: 9

o Anthony Shoecraft, Mayor's Office

o Caedmon Cahill, Office of Civil Rights

o Connie Burk, NW Network

o Greg Garcia, United Way of King County

o Hodan Hassan, Got Green

o Kevin Devin, Veterans Affairs

o Mohamud Yussuf, Runta News

o Roxana Pardo Garcia, Community Member

o Shaun Knittel, Social Outreach Seattle

SPD: Caesar Hidalgo-Landeros, Johnny Fong, Brian Grenon, Brian Maxey, David Puente, Nick Zajchowski, Mary Perry

Other Staff: Amy Tsai, Christina Fogg, Anne Bettesworth, F Lopez, Brett Houghton (PRR)

Feedback:

Pros of BWV:

Holds the police accountable for possible misconduct.

People are more likely to behave well when they believe they are on camera. One participant noted a change in behavior for the positive when placing cameras at their business.

Video will provide clarity about how everyone involved behaved

Cons of BWV:

Increases surveillance of already over-policed communities, making every interaction with law enforcement an opportunity to have evidence collected against community members

The video will be in the hands of the police, not the public.

The ability for officers to turn off the cameras.

Cameras may have a chilling effect on talking to police, even if in non-enforcement situations.

How officers wearing body-worn cameras impact you and/or those who you work with:

People without documentation may be even less likely to interact with police, for fear that video of them will be shared with immigration enforcement.

LGBTQ violence survivors are already more likely to be arrested and there is more confusion about who is the victim and who is the perpetrator. Having officers wear BWV is likely to exacerbate this problem.

Members of the LGBTQ community have frequent encounters with law enforcement, though not usually leading to arrest. There will be more LGBTQ people surveilled with police wearing cameras. Community members may feel concerned about the police having those, waiting to be used against them, especially in the current political climate. (The current political discourse including internment camps, LGBTQ people being fundamentally disordered, etc.)

The presence of a camera may escalate someone having a mental health crisis or with significant mental health issues. Even with all the information laid out at the beginning of the interaction, there will be interactions that will be negatively impacted by the presence of the camera. This will certainly be an issue for veterans with PTSD (includes the beeping sounds every 2 minutes).

Women in the Somali community are afraid of cameras and don't want their bodies shown on video. Having BWV on officers might scare them. There is a lot of stigma about being photographed or videotaped.

This may just be another tool for vulnerable people to be held accountable for being victims.

Concerns about the impact of BWV on poor people, especially people who are homeless.

How body-worn cameras affect the relationship between SPD and the communities they serve:

BWV may increase trust as community members will know that police behavior is being monitored by the camera. Being videotaped may motivate the police to control their use of power.

BWV may increase distrust as community members feel more surveilled. There may be a chilling effect, where individuals are less likely to call 9-1-1 and less likely to engage with officers openly when they interact with them.

Surprise at how an innocuous police interaction made them feel nervous and felt a camera would have exacerbated that feeling.

Other issues/concerns:

Privacy

o How will the video be redacted? Will the audio be redacted as well?

o If someone files an injunction, will that preclude making the video public?

o Are these videos subject to sunshine laws?

Civil liberties

o How will police or other government actors use the video?

o Can the police take video at a protest or other public action and then target individuals, like organizers, who are community activists?

o If this is about evidence gathering, it seems like it might just be another tool against defendants who are poor, young, and/or of color. Who will be allowed to present this in court? The defense? Or just the prosecution?

Government accountability / abuse of power

o Will it be possible for the video to be used in custody or CPS cases?

o For community members who already distrust the police, there may be suspicion about the police having control of the video, including concern that the police will edit the video later to distort the truth.

Other

o There needs to be significant public education about redaction and the opportunity for injunctions. People need to understand what they can do if something they consider "personal" is on camera.

o It is important that officers are clear that individuals have a right not be recorded and that be conveyed at the beginning of the interaction, at initial contact.

o There needs to be trust built with the police before something bad happens. More positive interactions, along with the police admitting that racism exists and that we all have implicit biases, would help make the situation more real.

o Are the police willing to be video recorded? What kind of reactions do they have when the community's cameras are pointing at them?

Noteworthy Quotes:

"The concern is that you multiply surveillance of communities and make every interaction with law enforcement an opportunity to have evidence collected against you that you can't control or understand."

"In a recent interaction with an officer responding to my car break-in, the officer arrived wearing a camera. Instead of feeling like the officer was there to help me, I felt surveilled. They were kind and I was still taken aback."

"We are nave, if, in the current political climate we assume the captured video will be used only in benign or positive ways."

"With this new political climate where registering Muslims and internment camps are part of the conversation, the prospects of being recorded is really scary. We should consider how we use the video in that context."

"If the camera is on me, who has the power? Does it really hold the police accountable? The camera is outfacing and not facing them so we can't see their gestures or body language. Who has the power to create the storyline about what is in the videos?"

Community Roundtable Meeting Notes

SPD Body-Worn Video

Roundtable #2, January 12, 2017

Logistics:

BWV roundtable #2

January 12, 2017

Community Member Attendees: 12

o Anita Khandelwal, King County Department of Public Defense

o Arsalan Bukhari, Council on American-Islamic Relations

o Dana Lockhart, SPD Victim Support Team

o Felicia Cross, African American Advisory Committee

o Iris Friday, Native American Network

o Jim Vollendroff, King County Behavioral Health and Recovery Division

o Jorge L. Baron, Northwest Immigrant Rights Project

o Marc Taylor, Seattle Indian Health Board

o Mergitu Argo, OneAmerica

o Monisha Harrell, Equal Rights Washington

o Shankar Narayan, American Civil Liberties Union of Washington

o Zosia Stanley, Washington State Hospital Association

SPD: Brendan Kolding, Johnny Fong, Brian Maxey, Mary Perry, David Puente, Nick Zajchowski

Other Staff: Christina Fogg, Ron Ward, Anne Bettesworth, F Lopez, Brett Houghton (PRR)

Feedback:

Pros of BWV:

The truth may come out.

The public and police officers will likely behave better when they know they are being recorded.

Access to these videos may reduce reliance on video surveillance from private property owners.

Officers can collect video of activity that is outside the field of the in-car video.

BWV can capture nuance and detailed information shared during an interview, especially important for domestic violence victims.

BWV footage may be valuable for behavioral health training purposes, particularly motivational interviewing. It could help offices understand how to escalate/deescalate a situation.

Cons of BWV:

Even by redacting individuals in the videos with black circles, identities are not adequately obscured. People familiar with a neighborhood can recognize a home. People familiar with an individual may recognize personal aspects other than the face (e.g., nails, tattoos, etc.)

Someone who views the video be share information not central to the case (e.g., someone discloses their immigration status during an interview and that is then shared with others).

Staff at health care facilities will need to learn rules for BWV and monitor officers in their facilities. This will require time and resources that would be otherwise spent on health care.

Officer control over turning cameras on and off may deepen community mistrust and thus lead to more police violence.

Additional time and cost across the criminal justice system. Police officers will spend time reviewing and submitting video, attorneys will spend hours viewing video, city staff will spend time tracking, processing, and releasing video.

An officer turning on a camera in a dangerous situation may negatively affect their safety and/or the community's safety since they need to turn it on and may be distracted.

How officers wearing body-worn cameras impact you and/or those who you work with:

The BWV itself will not impact people with behavioral health conditions. Depending on the implementation, it may escalate or de-escalate the situation.

BWV might have a chilling effect on community members' willingness to share information.

The African American community has an unspoken "no snitch" code. If someone knows the police have body cameras on they may be less likely to call the police and be forthcoming with information.

Domestic violence victims may be less likely to report for fear of their abuser seeing the video.

Domestic violence victims may fare better if the video can be used to tell their story and capture accurate information instead of having to retell it over and over themselves.

The recordings themselves may further victimize domestic violence victims. They may be discredited if their stories change over time, which can happen in traumatic instances. They may be traumatized by seeing the video of their interviews.

People without documentation may stop calling the police or talking to the police for fear of their information being captured and possible deportation.

People may be less likely to engage in peaceful protest if they are concerned about their image being captured and the possibility of retaliation.

LGBTQ community members who are victims of hate crimes may not be willing to talk to police if they will be recorded in the aftermath of the crime, as they won't want to present an unflattering image of themselves that others might see.

Individuals may not want to report a crime when they are drunk or otherwise impaired for fear of seeming to have made bad decisions that led to their victimization.

BWV will make DUI charges much more expensive because attorneys will then have to watch multiple videos which will add hours to the fees.

How body-worn cameras affect the relationship between SPD and the communities they serve:

This may build distrust among community members. Community-captured video of police activity has fostered distrust of police by community members.

BWV may be a barrier to community members engaging informally with officers at community-building activities and events.

If community members, especially members of vulnerable groups, are effectively educated on the way cameras will be used, the policies regarding video, and their rights, this could be an opportunity to build trust.

Victims may not feel comfortable in front of a camera.

Other issues/concerns:

Privacy

o How will an officer communicate to a victim that he/she can choose not to be recorded?

o How does the officer flag the video to indicate the person asked to be redacted or to indicate "offensive" content? Do they mark it "do not disclose?"

o There is personal health information everywhere in hospitals, on white boards, in hallway conversations, people in actual health care situations. The cameras might collect information that is protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability (HIPAA). That information might later be released through a public records request. Examples:

? If an officer comes in to a hospital with a DV victim or a DUI suspect.

? If a crime happens inside a health care facility.

o How will BWV policies mesh with federal confidentially laws RE: substance use facilities?

o Will the press have access to the videos? Do press have more access, by statute or by virtue of additional resources? Will they be allowed to publish footage?

o Can perpetrators get access to the video of a victim?

o Someone may become an unwitting "public figure" by showing up in videos.

Policies and implementation

o Training officers to engage with the public with the cameras will be very important to the program's success.

o How will the department ensure the spirit of the policies are upheld? Training and ongoing correction and accountability in implementation are important.

o It is important that officers ask for consent and not simply report that they are recording. Police officers are in a position of power so they need to take care to let people know they can ask for the cameras to be turned off.

o How do police officers manage consent with interviewees who are limited-English proficient? Do they wait for an interpreter to arrive before they start videotaping?

o How long are the videos being retained?

o How is the information being saved?

o What causes cameras to malfunction?

o The primary use of BWV footage will likely be for prosecution. It'll be a criminal justice system tool.

o Is there a plan in place to educate the public about BWV?

Civil liberties

o Getting an injunction is difficult and expensive.

o How will these videos interface with emerging technologies, like facial recognition software? What kind of analytics are being run on the videos? How much can be mined for other purposes?

o Will other agencies have access to the footage or the information from the videos? Will the information from the videos be shared proactively, or will other agencies need to request specific video? Will it be shared redacted or whole?

Other

o Regular community members don't know their rights and the laws surrounding body worn video. There is fear in not knowing. Maybe there should be something similar to a "know your rights" campaign.

o How will BWV affect drug offenders, drug dealers, and prostitutes' willingness to participate in Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion and similar programs? Will conversations with potential participants be video recorded?

o There's a desire to see more statistics from the SPD pilot and more research on implementation of BWV in other places.

o Will BWV affect officer response time? Will officers need to stop what they are doing to turn on the camera instead of responding immediately to a crime in progress?

o Will innocuous situations like Det. Cookie playing chess with youth be recorded?

Noteworthy Quotes:

"In the African American community there is an unspoken no snitch code. If someone knows the police have body cameras on they may be less likely to call the police and be forthcoming with information."

" I would not take false comfort in the injunction process. Getting an injunction is hard and costs a lot of money. It will not be meaningfully accessible to the most vulnerable members of the community."

"We must be careful what rules we put into place with the deployment of body worn videos. Research has shown that the policies, procedures, and practices put into place regarding body worn videos affect what 'truth' comes out through their use."

"Will people want to go to the mosque if there is an officer there "for their own protection" who is wearing a video camera, especially in the current political climate?"

"Are we creating a world where you can't leave your worst moments behind because everything is being documented? How will this affect the long-term opportunities of today's youth?"

"It is hard to say how body worn videos will affect relationships. It depends on how they are used. I can see ways it might improve police accountability, but we already capture many things on video and that hasn't resulted in the kind of accountability I would like to see."

Community Roundtable Meeting Notes

SPD Body-Worn Video

Roundtable #3, January 17, 2017

Logistics:

BWV roundtable #3

January 17, 2017

Community Member Attendees: 12

o Andrew Taylor, UW Evans School of Public Policy

o Benita R. Horn, Benita R. Horn & Associates

o Edith Elion, Atlantic Street Center

o Emma Catague, Filipino Community Center

o Enoka Herat, OneAmerica Board Member and Washington Defender Association's Immigration Project

o Ross Braine, w???b?altx? Intellectual House

o Joanne Alcantara, API Chaya

o Kelsie Malyon, Dawn

o Laurel Snow, YouthCare

o Monserrat Jauregui, Latino Community Fund of Washington

o Shannon Perez-Darby, NW Network

o Susan Schoeld, King County Behavioral Health and Recovery

SPD: Brian Maxey, Nick Zajchowski, Mary Perry, SPD consultant Brian Avants (Gartner)

Other Staff: Brittany Cirinio, Anne Bettesworth, F Lopez, Kate Gunby (PRR)

Feedback:

The group mostly rejected the pro/con question structure and focused the first part of the discussion on SPD's goals and their own questions and concerns about BWVs.

Pros of BWV:

Accountability, as BWV could provide a better ability to see what officers are doing and allow the community to better police the officers.

Cons of BWV:

If police can turn off the BWV when they think that what they're doing isn't good.

How officers wearing body-worn cameras impact you and/or those who you work with:

It is unclear how BWV will help minority communities.

There are concerns about impacts to people who don't primarily speak English, since they are already over-surveilled. As a result, police should receive training for about how to help immigrants and communities of color.

Crime is already underreported in the immigrant community, and the idea of immigrants being filmed would have a chilling effect. A participant said they know an immigrant who witnessed a crime and was already unwilling to go to the police without the presence of cameras. The idea that their interaction with the police would be filmed would make the idea of going to the police even scarier.

Sharing of video footage with any federal agencies (e.g., ICE) raises concerns about deportations, especially if people disclose where they are from in the video.

The redaction process could disproportionately affect people who are homeless because they are a hard-to-reach population. The disproportionality will depend on the specific process for attempting to contact people who are in the video prior to its release.

It is harder for people who are experiencing homelessness to engage the court system.

For minors, there are concerns about the role of parents in the process of contacting people for the redaction process.

For many victims there is an increased fear of retaliation from the offender if the offender is able to see exactly what the victim told the officers.

Communities in South Seattle are already over-surveilled, so this could result in more video footage in those communities compared to others.

Queer bodies and sexualities are policed and understood in a way that creates a different standard of intimacy compared to what is generally considered intimate for people who are cis and/or straight. There is external bias about what is considered a "normal" thing to do.

How body-worn cameras affect the relationship between SPD and the communities they serve:

BWV will create a high expectation of what the videos will do that will likely not be met by the officers.

The relationship between officers and the community is important and we need to build trust, but surveillance is not likely to build trust.

In immigrant communities there are already negative connotations with the police, they may think that the police with cameras are spying on people.

There are a lot of things you can't see in the video, and what we can see in the video won't fix the community's relationships with law enforcement.

Goal of program and public input process:

Participants wanted to know what SPD's goals are for using BWV. They did not feel comfortable discussing pros and cons without having more information about the end goals. SPD needs to state a clear goal, and make policies and practices transparent to get community buy-in.

Technology will expand or exacerbate what's already there: if the goal is accountability, the videos will show a gap; if the goal is relationship building, the videos will show it's not working.

It seems fair for the goal to be both evidentiary or accountability. But there are concerns about how well BWVs will work to achieve both goals.

The group raised concerns that they were not asked about whether SPD should have BWV, but simply asked to inform the process. Some people in the room were not ok with the program moving forward.

There were concerns that there are already a lot of resources in play to push BWV forward when the SPD hasn't done due diligence up front.

Government accountability / abuse of power:

The goal of accountability gets lost in the massive amount of video, work, and money.

Accountability would be the primary goal of LGBTQ DV community, but they are very nervous about evidentiary goals.

There are so many other strategies to increase accountability among police officers, video is not the best way to do that.

If the goal is accountability, allowing the public to use cameras to surveil their own communities would put the power in the community rather than on the officers' bodies.

One of the current challenges to bodycams is that they face out, so you can't see what the officer is doing. The officers are collecting info "out there" which challenges the idea that the cameras will increase accountability.

There have been many cases where there was video and yet the police weren't held accountable, and that increases distrust of these cameras and the idea that they are truly meant to increase accountability. If the goal is accountability, police need to be held accountable by what they do on video.

Having a camera increases the use of police force: a participant provided this link to this: Study Links Police Bodycams to Increase in Shooting Deaths.

Just having a camera doesn't change what happened in that moment, doesn't speak to the negative relationships, distrust, or the officer's decision-making process. It cannot show the full picture.

Will there be a civilian review board with access to BWV tapes? Does SPD intend to create something like this to increase accountability?

Evidence

The way that police interview people does not guarantee good evidence. You will not get good information if the strategy is wearing a camera and interviewing a DV victim in their home with their partner in the other room.

The evidence generated may have potential negative effects on the victim's credibility. Specifically, trauma can impact people's ability to quickly and accurately recall the details of what happened, and people who just experienced a crime are likely to come across in a way that is different than their intent. When those moments are videotaped, it can work against the victim's credibility.

Minors and other vulnerable populations are more likely to say what they're thinking, which again can decrease credibility and increase the chance that Child Protective Services and other systems may intervene.

Video could show unrelated incriminating evidence in the background (e.g., guns, drugs) that police may not observe in the moment but could see when looking back in the video. That could lead to increased prosecution and incarceration based on evidence in the video that was not the original intent of the police involvement.

The interpretation of the video matters, and different people will have different interpretations of the same video, which will be different from the officer's interpretation of the situation.

Identification concerns

It is hard to know who the victim is in a situation, especially when working with LGBTQ survivors of DV. Police can't possibly know who is surviving and who is battering.

Human- and sex-trafficking is another concern. It's an organized crime and there are concerns about safety for victims; however, since their behavior is criminal they are not always treated in a way that promotes their safety.

Data

Who is doing the redacting is very important.

There are many questions about the data, such as: Who gets to know what happened? What's available for public consumption? Who owns the data? Who has access to that data? Where is it housed? Can police go in and change footage? What is SPD doing about security, since hacking is a major concern? If there is a third party, what are they doing? One participant recommends having an off-site cloud based system where the company shares the risk. What are security protocols? What's the statute of limitations? How long does the data stay around?

There are concerns about the redaction being thorough it only takes an instant to get a still shot and to get an image of the redacted information. What are the redaction protocols and training? How can SPD ensure proper redaction? Who owns the equipment, the responsibility, who does the redacting?

Privacy

Collateral data is concerning. When you're collecting metadata at random it's something you can sell and profit on.

Has SPD considered other camera options (such as glasses)? Seems like we need more research on the technology.

There are privacy concerns about collecting collateral data what if the teens in the background of a video are runaway teens who have been sexually abused by parents?

Especially for LGBTQ individuals, people have unique identifiers beyond faces. These can include tattoos, attire, and personalized nail art. Can other characteristics be redacted?

With the increase in use of Facial Recognition software by law enforcement agencies, and the fact that 50% of adults' faces are available in FR databases, there are concerns that the software will be used in conjunction with the body cameras resulting in over-surveillance in our communities. Crafting policies that limit the use of FR technology upfront is critical in maintaining privacy.

Language barriers, age, cognitive capacity, and psychological impairment can impact a person's ability to provide consent for how the film is used or if their images are redacted. How does capacity to consent play into the law?

Civil liberties

In the example video, the officer said that they have a camera, but didn't provide the person being filmed with an option to turn it off. The public should have a clear right to say no to being filmed.

Who has control over whether the camera is on? What is the decision-making process? Who gets to say no and who gets to say yes?

Would cops be allowed to videotape protesters? We have a right to protest and march, and cameras raise concerns about our First Amendment rights.

Other

The cost is a big issue.

SPD should talk to other places that already have these programs and learn from them. There is no perfect answer, but they should research and learn what's already out there to inform their decisions.

Noteworthy Quotes:

"It feels ass backwards to get input when there isn't a goal."

"Our whole lives shouldn't be played out on camera."

"If we're relying on video to do that [fix the relationship with police], it's going to fall short, there's so much that won't come across in a video."

"We're not all at our best in moments of crisis. We don't want that in court, on a screen--that can be damning."

BODY WORN VIDEO AND PUBLIC DISCLOSURE

Mary Perry

Seattle Police Department Director of Transparency and Privacy

January 2017

Public disclosure ground rules

The following rules apply to all public records including body worn video (BWV).

Records including videos generally will not be withheld in their entirety.

A record that is part of an ongoing criminal investigation that hasn't been referred for prosecution may be withheld in its entirety. Otherwise, an agency may redact only exempt content and must disclose the remaining substance of the record.

What may be redacted?

Most common exemptions are:

Identifying information of victims/witnesses who are endangered or request nondisclosure

Identifying information of juvenile victims/witnesses

Medical/mental health/drug treatment information

Images of an identifiable dead body

SSNs, driver's license numbers

Highly offensive information of no legitimate interest to public

What about privacy?

Information is private under the PRA if disclosure: (1) would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, AND (2) is not of legitimate concern to the public. An agency must meet both prongs-- it must disclose even highly offensive records if they are of legitimate public concern. When a privacy exemption applies, an agency may redact only the individual's identity and must disclose the rest of the record. Under this standard, an agency may redact identity in a video by blurring the individual's image and/or editing audio where the individual's identifying information is mentioned.

Recent legislative changes:

The Washington Legislature attempted to address concerns about public disclosure of BWV by adopting legislation that establishes request requirements, allows agencies to charge redaction costs, and creates a presumption that certain images are highly offensive. The changes also establish minimum policy provisions for agencies with BWV, limit PRA liability in certain instances for agencies, and create a Body-Worn Task Force to make recommendations regarding BWV. The legislative changes expire July 1, 2019.

Request Requirements

A request for BWV must specifically identifying a name of a person or persons involved in the incident, provide the incident or case number, provide the date, time, and location of the incident; or identify a law enforcement or corrections officer involved in the incident. Although intended to limit large requests, the provision does not limit them in practice. For example, a requestor could ask for all video made by Officer X, and SPD has already received a request for the list of body-worn videos recorded so far. This list can be used to identify which videos to request.

Redaction cost recovery

Agencies are allowed to charge redaction costs to requestors who do not fall into one of the following categories:

A person directly involved in the incident recorded

An attorney representing a person directly involved in the incident recoded

A person or his/her attorney who requests a body worn camera recording relevant to a criminal case involving that person;

An executive director from either the Washington state commission on African-American affairs, Asian Pacific American Affairs, Hispanic affairs;

An attorney who represents a person regarding a potential or existing civil cause of action involving the denial of civil rights under the federal or state constitution or a violation of a U.S. D.O.J. settlement (The attorney must explain the relevancy and request relief from redaction costs).

Recovering redaction costs from requestors not specified in the statute may reduce voluminous requests; however, not all videos contain exempt images.

Presumption that certain images are highly offensiveness

Images in a video that depict the following are presumed highly offensive to a reasonable person:

Any areas of a medical facility, counseling, or therapeutic program office where

? A patient is registered to receive treatment, receiving treatment, waiting for treatment, or being transported in the course of treatment;

? Health care information is shared with a patient;

Information that meets the definition of protected health information for purposes of HIPAA or 70.02 RCW;

The interior of a place of residence where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy;

An intimate image as defined in RCW 9A.86.010 :

A minor;

The body of a deceased person;

Often the images presumed to be highly offensive mirror the exemptions that allow redaction. There will videos that contain images presumed to be highly offensive that are not explicitly exempt from disclosure under the PRA. If so, the agency likely would provide third-party notice to the subject of the image. The subject could seek an injunction to prevent disclosure. The court would grant the injunction unless the requestor can show that the video content is of legitimate interest to the public.