Estimated read time: 4-5 minutes
This archived news story is available only for your personal, non-commercial use. Information in the story may be outdated or superseded by additional information. Reading or replaying the story in its archived form does not constitute a republication of the story.
SALT LAKE CITY — A Utah lawmaker’s bill would establish minimum guidelines for police and their body camera policies, but he acknowledged Tuesday he didn’t know what the legislation would end up looking like after it cleared the legislature.
Rep. Dan McCay, R-Riverton, said he hoped the measure would begin a thorough and hearty debate among lawmakers.
“We don’t have anything in state policy that balances privacy issues and also balances what happens if the tool is used inappropriately,” McCay said. “That’s really the purpose of the legislation is to try and get those two questions in front of the legislature to have those questions answered.”
HB386 dictates that any police agency that uses body cameras must have a written policy that meets or exceeds several minimum guidelines related to issues like use, video retention and public access.
The legislation also includes provisions that consider privacy, including a mandate that officers “comply with all reasonable requests to turn off the camera” inside someone’s home “unless the officer reasonably believes that a recording of interest may result from continued recording or the reactivation of the camera.”
“Privacy is absolutely a fundamental principal and policy that needs to be addressed by the legislature,” McCay said.
Libertas Institute policy analyst Josh Daniels underscored the legislation does not require police agencies to purchase body cameras – it just seeks to make agency policies more uniform.
Policies vary
“Right now across the country and even in Utah with police agencies that use body cameras, the policies are very different,” Daniels explained. “Some policies are very simple. Some are very complex. Some do a really good job of ensuring that officers use the cameras in certain situations. Other policies don’t exactly require certain instances of using the camera. We feel that Utahns expect a certain predictable use of body cameras across the state.”
“We don’t have anything in state policy that balances privacy issues and also balances what happens if the tool is used inappropriately." - Rep. Dan McCay
Daniels said statewide minimum standards create transparency and accountability for the way the cameras are used.
Still, McCay said it remained to be seen whether or when the bill might get approval.
“We need to be discussing it,” McCay said. “What that means and what that will mean in the final adoption of the legislation, it’s still yet to be determined.”
Sen. Todd Weiler, R-Woods Cross, said he had studied the issue for months, and he noted a number of questions that need to be addressed – including logistical issues that could surface even with some minimum standards.
“Like if you’ve worked all day and get called back if you’re on-call, your body camera may not be available for usage for several hours,” Weiler said.
Weiler also observed that minimum standards could present challenges for police agencies depending on their size.
“I think we need to realize that the police department in Loa or Wayne, Utah, is different from the police department in Salt Lake City,” Weiler said. “I think we have to have some flexibility. Some departments have body cameras. Some don’t. Some can afford them. Some can’t, and so I think it’s important that people feel their rights are being protected and that they’re being treated fairly and equitably.”
Winder: Approving legislation may be premature
Salt Lake County Sheriff Jim Winder said Unified Police Department was in the process of “beta testing” different models of body cameras.
Winder said he believed lawmakers were being “reasonable” and he applauded them for taking on the topic.
“We want the public to know that there’s a uniformity of if we keep a particular type of offense for 30 days, we don’t want that to seem odd in relation to the other agencies,” Winder explained. “So I think that type of uniformity is good guidance.”
He suggested any legislation ratified this legislative session would be premature and the conversation should continue past the session’s end.
“What I hope we’ll see is the start of a conversation and probably legislation in the upcoming session – the next session,” Winder said.
Winder said one issue that would likely require a lot more debate is that over public access and open records requests.
“One of the big concerns is what are we going to do with all of this footage that is captured,” Winder said. “Before we get ahead of ourselves and legislating that we should all wear these, we should figure out what the privacy rights of our citizens are and what the retention requirements are going to be for members of the press and for the public to recover this video."
"If the ruling is that we have to keep them all for all time, it will essentially bankrupt law enforcement agencies. So, a lot of good discussion, but I do think it’s best moved off into the interim," he said.
