Estimated read time: 5-6 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 Information in the story may be outdated or superseded by additional information.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 House committee pulled back on the progress of two bills Monday that would place new requirements on law enforcement regarding body cameras and surveillance technology.
At the same time, a House panel advanced a bill that would prohibit law enforcement officers from using no-knock forcible entry for drug possession cases, as well as place body camera and uniform requirements for no-knock raids.
Body cameras
HB386, a bill to place body camera regulations that would mandate how and when officers would be required to use body cameras, was unanimously voted to be held and sent to a rules committee for further study.
Bill sponsor Rep. Dan McCay, R-Riverton, said Utah laws do little to regulate body cameras, so it would outline a “lowest common denominator” for law enforcement agencies and require police departments that use the cameras to craft written policies regarding their use. The bill would outline when officers should or should not record.
“We see that transparency is valuable for our law enforcement officers,” McCay said. “In fact … it is far more often that our law enforcement officers are exonerated by the use of a body camera and the existence of its footage” than it is for officers to be convicted due to suspicious or illegal behavior.
McCay said he has been working with law enforcement officials to smooth out some concerns with the bill, but it has been difficult to strike a balance between the privacy concerns of individuals being recording and the language used to specify when officers would be required to record, as well as the ramifications of not recording when they should.
The committee acknowledged the same concerns, which were raised by Salt Lake County Sheriff’s Scott Carver, who approved regulation of body cameras, but said he could not support the bill as it was currently drafted.
“I would ask that it not be passed actually using (McCay’s) own logic, which is there is a lot of work yet to be done,” Carver said. “Let’s not pass legislation that still needs considerable amount of work.”
McCay protested the committee’s decision to refer the bill for further study, saying it had already been held for feedback from law enforcement officials and the committee did not allow the time needed to explore the specific concerns that still need addressing.
Committee chairman Rep. Don Ipson, R-St. George, only allowed one person to speak in favor and one person to speak against the bill before the panel made a decision.
McCay said he was “frustrated” with the committee because it did not allow enough time to gather specific recommendations for improvements to the bill, which should have been it’s primary purpose.
“We could have done better,” McCay said. “…What I don’t know is how to go forward with this bill.
McCay quickly left the committee room after the unanimous vote.
High-tech surveillance
Rep. Mark Madsen, R-Saratoga Springs, also left the House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee with contempt Friday after the panel voted to amend his bill, SB226.
Madsen crafted the bill as an attempt to “preemptively” address a powerful and surveillance technology that allows users to “look through walls” with clear and distinct imagery that can be “very invasive and detailed."
He said while the technology is new and not all law enforcement agencies currently use the technology, it is available and has the potential to become widely used in the future.
Madsen said the new technology raises privacy concerns when law enforcement officers have the ability to “peer” inside Utahns’ homes, so the bill would require officers to obtain a warrant in order to use such technology.
“We have to sustain the 4th Amendment standard and protect our citizens’ rights,” Madsen said.
However, Rep. Paul Ray proposed an amendment to the bill that would remove certain provisions that specify requirements for the warrant application, including the need to indicate the intended use of the device, describe the capabilities of the device, and describe the measures that officers will take to avoid using the technology in a manner that goes beyond the scope of the warrant.
The committee voted to adopt the amendment despite objections from Madsen, who said the change “takes a step backwards” from what he was trying to accomplish. He said the amendment “gutted” his bill and it would make law enforcement surveillance laws “worse than passing nothing.”
However, he asked that the committee still approve the bill so he could continue working on it with law enforcement and other lawmakers.
The panel voted unanimously to send the bill out of committee with a favorable recommendation.
Forcible entry
Sen. Steve Urquhart, R-St. George, faced little opposition before the committee decided to pass SB82 to the full House, which is a bill that would require law enforcement officers to announce themselves before a forced entry in drug possession raids.
It would also require officers to wear clothing that clearly identifies them as law enforcement officers when executing forcible entries, as well as wear body cameras if they work for an agency that has the equipment.
Marina Lowe, ACLU of Utah legislative and policy counsel, spoke in support of the bill, saying the hope is the bill will increase safety for "both law enforcement and people in the state of Utah."
She said Urquhart worked closely with a large group of people to refine the bill to reach consensus among public advocacy groups and law enforcement.
Rep. Marc Roberts, R-Santaquin, approved of the bill, saying "it will go a long way tp help both sides of the gun" in potentially dangerous situations.
The committee voted 7-2 pass the bill to the full House. Reps. Brad Daw, R-Orem, and Paul Ray, R-Clearfield, voted against the bill with no comment or debate. Email: kmckellar@deseretnews.com
