CLARKSVILLE — The Clarksville Police Department plans to suspend its use of body cameras in anticipation of a new law that dictates how departments store footage and when they have to release that footage to the public come July 1.
House Bill 1019 was presented to the Indiana House of Representatives in January and signed into law in March, with unanimous backing. It's the first legislation to directly address police body camera footage. State Rep. Kevin Mahan, R-Hartford City, the bill's author, said as more agencies adopt body cameras, departments and the media are looking for some direction.
"And then you have citizens who want to have their privacy protected, and so this is where it was a very delicate balance in trying to balance privacy rights with openness and transparency," Mahan said.
In the end, Mahan said, organizations like the Indiana Association of Chiefs of Police and the Hoosier State Press Association supported the bill, which requires obscuring images of victims, witnesses and juveniles. But Mahan admits that some people think the bill doesn't go far enough, and others think it goes too far. For Clarksville Police Chief Mark Palmer, the legislation's requirements may be too burdensome.
In 2012, CPD became the first police department in Clark and Floyd counties to implement body cameras. Palmer said the cameras allow him to review footage of any incident that comes into question, like if someone claims an officer was unprofessional. But that doesn't mean he opens footage up to anyone for viewing, Palmer said, adding that he has denied requests to review footage based on insufficient explanation.
Now he's worried that with HB 1019, he'll have less say in what the public can view. According to the bill, certain people are guaranteed the right to view footage. Those people include anyone depicted in the footage; family of a deceased or incapacitated person depicted in the footage; and owners, tenants or occupants of property shown in the footage. Those "requestors" are allowed to view the footage at least twice and in the presence of their attorney.
Palmer said he worries the bill's language could mean he's obligated to let even the "nosy neighbor" view footage.
"There's really little limitation on who's going to have access to this and it's just very concerning," Palmer said, adding that he would need staff dedicated to obscuring footage.
Hoosier State Press Association Executive Director Steve Key said unlike other police records, body camera footage would not be considered investigatory and would not be automatically exempted from public access laws. But the new bill does give police departments the right to deny the release of footage based on several factors, including whether its release creates a "significant risk of substantial harm" to the general public, affects an ongoing investigation, or "would not serve the public interest."
If a person is denied access to footage and takes the matter to court, Key said the burden is on the police agency to give a valid reason as to why the footage cannot be released. Whereas with records that are declared investigatory, the court would rule in the police department's favor, Key said
"It's not perfect, but I think it's an improvement," he added.
STORING BODY CAM FOOTAGE
Palmer said he has 48 full-time officers and around 20 reserve officers. There are six to eight officers wearing cameras at a given time and Palmer estimates officers have the cameras turned on for the majority of their 12-hour shifts. If six officers have their cameras turned on for seven hours, that's 42 hours of footage per a 12-hour shift.
Right now, CPD stores most of that footage on an internal server for 30 days. Under the new law, the department would have to store the footage for at least 190 days.
"It's going to exceed our capacity," Palmer said. "We've looked at different programs, including outsourcing it. We're getting into several hundreds of thousands worth of dollars here."
Palmer said the problem is few companies provide cameras, storage and redaction software in one package. He said one bid for that kind of package — which included a 40 terabyte server — exceeded $100,000.
"And still we're going to have to have somebody come in and perform maintenance on the server, and then again we don't know how much video we're going to accrue in this time period and how many times we're going to have to redact and so forth," Palmer said. "So really the cost is unknown at that point."
Palmer said the new law offers no assistance in how to fund the required changes. Mahan, who is a former law enforcement officer, said any new technology comes with costs and that there are various grants police departments can apply for to cover the expense. He said the 190-day storage requirement was inspired by the 180-day statute of limitations someone would have to file a lawsuit related to an incident. Ten days were added as a buffer to help smaller police departments comply, Mahan said.
"... Some people are talking about what it's going to cost and I'm going to say, what's it going to save you?" Mahan said, noting that body cam footage can help settle complaints and protect officers "walking the thin blue line."
Mahan said he hasn't heard of any police departments suspending the use of body cams based on the new law. In fact, he said, he's only heard that more agencies want to implement body cams now that there's legislation.
The Jeffersonville Police Department started using body cams in May 2014, but the department is back in the testing phase after technical difficulties with the initial vendor. Only about seven officers are testing body cams in the field, said JPD Maj. Robert McGhee. McGhee said the biggest challenge for the department will be obscuring footage and reproducing it for public viewing. There hasn't been any talk, he said, on whether the bill will prevent the department from using body cameras.
Sellersburg Police Department Chief Russ Whelan said he would like for his department to use body cameras, but the requirements "[put] a burden on the budget." He said he doesn't plan on presenting anything to the Sellersburg Town Council until he sees just how the new law will affect police departments. Whelan is also on the Indiana Association of Chiefs of Police board.
The New Albany Police Department and Floyd County Sheriff's Department do not use body cameras.
As for Clarksville, Palmer said he would like to keep using body cameras, but his department won't be able to keep up with the new law.
"Basically, once the bill goes into effect, we will no longer be able to meet the requirements of the House Bill 1019 and we will have to stop wearing body cameras," Palmer said. "It's great when you want to throw all these great bills together and tell everybody to do it this way, but when you're not going to give me financial assistance to make all these changes, you're telling people either do it or don't do it."