RSVP for Political Activism Calls
A noble attempt by the Philadelphia Advisory Commission to augment the body-worn camera policy here was only mildly successful. The agency, led by Mr. Hans Menos, was recently denied broad, unfiltered and independent access to body-worn camera footage for the purpose of conducting random audits.
In a report completed in July but released to the news media on Wednesday, the PAC expressed concern regarding the state of internal and external oversight related to the Philadelphia Police Department’s body-worn camera program. In an August 29th letter addressed to Mr. Menos, a Philadelphia transplant from New York City who took on the job late last year, Mr. Richard Ross, the police commissioner, said the agency’s access to body-worn camera footage will be predicated on his sole discretion.
Mr. Ross, however, did note that the department is concerned with the issue of whether and how often personnel are activating their hardware. And as such, the police commissioner pledged to change the policy to authorize the Audits and Inspection Unit to conduct random checks related only to activation and usage.
Mr. Menos, in an email to Techbook Online, said he sees value in his agency having broad access and wished that the commissioner would’ve granted it. But, he also noted that the idea that access should be narrow and specific “is not unusual in American jurisprudence.”
The police commissioner’s letter enumerated disagreements with the majority of recommendations while offering a few concessions. For example, the PAC asked Mr. Ross to reconsider the pre-event recording time for the wearable technology. Currently, body-worn cameras have a buffering period of thirty seconds and the police oversight agency sought to move it to two minutes. Mr. Ross disagreed but declared a comprise: extending the buffering period to one minute.
Mr. Ross also agreed that language should be added to Section 7-K which – in the case of a body-worn camera video capturing a police discharge, a seriously injured officer, a motor vehicle accident involving serious bodily injury, any death captured on video, or any use of force resulting in serious bodily injury or death – specifically prohibits officers from viewing footage until they have provided an initial statement.
“These incidents are distinguishable from routine arrest… After a statement is provided, the officer will be given the opportunity to review any BWC footage and may supplement or clarify his or her statement,” Mr. Ross wrote.
In the instances where the arrest is routine, Mr. Ross said he believes that it is in the best interest of the public and the department to allow officers to view BWC footage prior to allowing an arrest to proceed and/or be processed; the PAC recommended the opposite.
“I obviously hoped that all of the recommendations would be accepted. However, as a practical matter, I knew that was not realistic. In the end, I was pleased with the open and honest communication between the PPD and the PAC on this issue,” Mr. Hans wrote to me.
In his letter, Mr. Ross ensured Mr. Menos that “all your recommendations were discussed and debated among the executive command.” The police commissioner further added that the changes being made, as a result of the recommendations, will “improve the overall quality of our policy.”
Thanks for reading! Until next time, I’m Flood the Drummer® and I’m Drumming for Justice!™
RSVP for Political Activism Calls
Join the Politics FACEBOOK GROUP here.
Photo courtesy of the author.