What body cameras for ICE officers means for accountability
U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem speaks during a press conference to discuss ICE operations on January 8.
Timothy A. Clary | AFP via Getty Images
Go Deeper.
Create an account or log in to save stories.
Like this?
Thanks for liking this story! We have added it to a list of your favorite stories.
Audio transcript
[MUSIC PLAYING] KELLY GORDON: I'm Kelly Gordon in for Nina Moini. Our top story on Minnesota Now today, every Homeland security officer in Minneapolis is now being issued a body camera. That's according to Department of Homeland Security secretary Kristi Noem, who says the move is effective, quote, immediately. We asked DHS whether cameras are only for ICE agents in the city of Minneapolis or statewide. We also asked how long it would take for cameras to be up and running. DHS did not answer those questions.
To get a better understanding of what this means for accountability efforts, we're joined by Lauren Bonds. She's the executive director of the National Police Accountability Project. Welcome, Lauren.
LAUREN BONDS: Good afternoon, Kelly. Thank you for having me.
KELLY GORDON: Yeah. So tell us what your reaction is to these body cameras being deployed in Minneapolis for ICE agents.
LAUREN BONDS: I definitely think it's a positive step. I will say though that body-- issuing body worn cameras is only as effective as the policy backing it up so the policy making sure that they're required to be activated, the policy making sure that there is a retention policy after footage is recorded, and also how publicly available is the footage going to be. So it's just step one, but it's an important step one for accountability.
KELLY GORDON: So there haven't been policy recommendations yet that you're aware of to do all of those things that you just said?
LAUREN BONDS: Yeah, Kelly, not that I'm aware of.
KELLY GORDON: So federal law doesn't mandate the use of body cameras. Do you think the DHS-- why do you think-- I'm sorry-- that DHS is deploying them now to Minneapolis?
LAUREN BONDS: That's a really good question. You're right that there's no federal regulation or law requiring any federal law enforcement agency to wear body worn cameras. I would imagine that DHS motivation is to I guess regain some credibility with the public. We really saw an influx in the use of body worn cameras in local law enforcement and other policing throughout the country after there were major incidents of police violence.
So we saw a huge influx in 2014 and 2015 after the killings of Mike Brown and Ja'Marr Clark and a number of other people. And then another wave again in 2020 after the killing of George Floyd. And so I think that this is a pretty common step that law enforcement agencies will take after they've had a severe-- after they've severely undermined the public's confidence in their fairness and ability not to use excessive force.
KELLY GORDON: So if you were in charge of making the policy, what is good body camera policy to put in place for officers that will now theoretically have these cameras? Then what you said. What needs to be done to ensure that this is an accountability measure?
LAUREN BONDS: Yeah. So I think there's a couple of important components of an effective body worn camera policy. So one of them is requiring officers to activate their body worn cameras whenever they're interacting with members of the public. Obviously there can be exceptions if it's a privacy issue or they're investigating something that's a sensitive nature and it's not appropriate, but for the most part, there should be a mandatory requirement that body worn camera devices be activated with any interaction with the public.
That requirement should also be backed up with some kind of disciplinary measure, so it's not just guidance. It's actually a requirement that has teeth and consequences if it's not followed.
Another important thing is retention of the footage. So the agency should require officers to upload their footage at the end of their shifts or whenever they of log off for the day. And the agency should retain it for a period of at least 90 days. That's generally the best practices for local law enforcement. So if there is an incident and takes a little bit of time for it to become publicly known, it hasn't been automatically deleted or raced over.
And then another important piece of this is making sure that members of the public have access-- have a way of accessing body worn camera footage. And I think that process for DHS, for ICE agents would be FOIA, which isn't a very efficient process as I'm sure as a reporter as a journalist. But just making sure that there is some expectation that this is publicly available information if you go through the right steps.
KELLY GORDON: So given that ICE, especially here, is dealing often with vulnerable populations, are there any concerns about having body cameras?
LAUREN BONDS: Yeah, there's absolutely concerns. And I think that carries over to the local law enforcement context as well, that there's privacy concerns. It's what are you doing with that footage once you have it. You do these body worn cameras have facial recognition technology. So there's obviously a lot of concerns there, and it really is kind of a cost benefit analysis between are the accountability features and benefits of body worn cameras worth the potential privacy risk, and yeah, privacy risk and surveillance risks that come with equipping officers to use them.
KELLY GORDON: Yeah, I'm curious about that actually because we do that there are a lot of surveillance tracking technologies that DHS is using right now, and so I'm wondering if there are any other instances that you know of with police or law enforcement sending those videos through some sort of a surveillance where a lot of times we think, well, this is going to hold police accountable. We'll be able to see exactly what they're seeing, but are there privacy constraints on the other side?
LAUREN BONDS: Yeah. That's a really good question. And I think that it's definitely an issue that is-- I think the policy solution to the privacy concerns is still evolving. I think that there is-- there have been some recommendations around shortening the retention policy, making sure that if footage, making sure that footage isn't retained, making sure that there aren't special technologies that are included in the camera device. Also not uploading the data to a fusion center or something else where that would make surveillance easier. So there are some policy recommendations about the best way to ensure privacy is protected, but it's difficult to make sure that it's 100%.
KELLY GORDON: Sure. In written testimony last month, the field office director here in St. Paul, said it would take about 180 days to ship, install, test train body cameras. So can you explain that process, what's needed for body cameras to be fully operational for the field?
LAUREN BONDS: Yeah. So obviously there's the issue of getting them distributed that that's no small task, especially if we're talking about the number of officers involved in the number of cameras that are required. But there's also the issue of making sure that they're integrated to a system, so even if the body worn camera is activated and works, making sure that it's easy to upload to whatever system it's supposed to be stored on, the officers know the process, the officers how to activate their cameras, the officers know when not to activate their cameras, and just all the guidance around best practices that officers should receive.
KELLY GORDON: So effective immediately but also understandably it takes some time to get everything up and running in the field.
LAUREN BONDS: Sure. Yeah.
KELLY GORDON: We did see that ICE does have a body camera policy that it published in February of last year, but in December, a judge that had ordered ICE agents in Chicago to use body camera later found that ICE had no records of body camera footage. So do you think the government needs to do to ensure transparency in this new case here in Minneapolis?
LAUREN BONDS: Yeah, I think it really goes back to those components of the policy, and I don't have the February-- the policy issued last February in front of me but making sure that there is a requirement that the footage is retained and also that cameras are activated in the first instance. So, yeah, I think it's-- with those things it could be effective for sure.
KELLY GORDON: Thank you so much, Lauren. We really appreciate you taking time to talk with us today.
LAUREN BONDS: Yeah, thanks so much, Kelly.
KELLY GORDON: Yeah. Lauren Bonds is the executive director of the National Police Accountability Project. And just so you know, we are following news of a press conference happening at 12:45 today. It will include Governor Tim Walz, Attorney General Keith Ellison, Minnesota Department of Education Commissioner Willie Jett, and local school district representatives. We're going to bring you that press conference live on air here and online at nprnews.org.
To get a better understanding of what this means for accountability efforts, we're joined by Lauren Bonds. She's the executive director of the National Police Accountability Project. Welcome, Lauren.
LAUREN BONDS: Good afternoon, Kelly. Thank you for having me.
KELLY GORDON: Yeah. So tell us what your reaction is to these body cameras being deployed in Minneapolis for ICE agents.
LAUREN BONDS: I definitely think it's a positive step. I will say though that body-- issuing body worn cameras is only as effective as the policy backing it up so the policy making sure that they're required to be activated, the policy making sure that there is a retention policy after footage is recorded, and also how publicly available is the footage going to be. So it's just step one, but it's an important step one for accountability.
KELLY GORDON: So there haven't been policy recommendations yet that you're aware of to do all of those things that you just said?
LAUREN BONDS: Yeah, Kelly, not that I'm aware of.
KELLY GORDON: So federal law doesn't mandate the use of body cameras. Do you think the DHS-- why do you think-- I'm sorry-- that DHS is deploying them now to Minneapolis?
LAUREN BONDS: That's a really good question. You're right that there's no federal regulation or law requiring any federal law enforcement agency to wear body worn cameras. I would imagine that DHS motivation is to I guess regain some credibility with the public. We really saw an influx in the use of body worn cameras in local law enforcement and other policing throughout the country after there were major incidents of police violence.
So we saw a huge influx in 2014 and 2015 after the killings of Mike Brown and Ja'Marr Clark and a number of other people. And then another wave again in 2020 after the killing of George Floyd. And so I think that this is a pretty common step that law enforcement agencies will take after they've had a severe-- after they've severely undermined the public's confidence in their fairness and ability not to use excessive force.
KELLY GORDON: So if you were in charge of making the policy, what is good body camera policy to put in place for officers that will now theoretically have these cameras? Then what you said. What needs to be done to ensure that this is an accountability measure?
LAUREN BONDS: Yeah. So I think there's a couple of important components of an effective body worn camera policy. So one of them is requiring officers to activate their body worn cameras whenever they're interacting with members of the public. Obviously there can be exceptions if it's a privacy issue or they're investigating something that's a sensitive nature and it's not appropriate, but for the most part, there should be a mandatory requirement that body worn camera devices be activated with any interaction with the public.
That requirement should also be backed up with some kind of disciplinary measure, so it's not just guidance. It's actually a requirement that has teeth and consequences if it's not followed.
Another important thing is retention of the footage. So the agency should require officers to upload their footage at the end of their shifts or whenever they of log off for the day. And the agency should retain it for a period of at least 90 days. That's generally the best practices for local law enforcement. So if there is an incident and takes a little bit of time for it to become publicly known, it hasn't been automatically deleted or raced over.
And then another important piece of this is making sure that members of the public have access-- have a way of accessing body worn camera footage. And I think that process for DHS, for ICE agents would be FOIA, which isn't a very efficient process as I'm sure as a reporter as a journalist. But just making sure that there is some expectation that this is publicly available information if you go through the right steps.
KELLY GORDON: So given that ICE, especially here, is dealing often with vulnerable populations, are there any concerns about having body cameras?
LAUREN BONDS: Yeah, there's absolutely concerns. And I think that carries over to the local law enforcement context as well, that there's privacy concerns. It's what are you doing with that footage once you have it. You do these body worn cameras have facial recognition technology. So there's obviously a lot of concerns there, and it really is kind of a cost benefit analysis between are the accountability features and benefits of body worn cameras worth the potential privacy risk, and yeah, privacy risk and surveillance risks that come with equipping officers to use them.
KELLY GORDON: Yeah, I'm curious about that actually because we do that there are a lot of surveillance tracking technologies that DHS is using right now, and so I'm wondering if there are any other instances that you know of with police or law enforcement sending those videos through some sort of a surveillance where a lot of times we think, well, this is going to hold police accountable. We'll be able to see exactly what they're seeing, but are there privacy constraints on the other side?
LAUREN BONDS: Yeah. That's a really good question. And I think that it's definitely an issue that is-- I think the policy solution to the privacy concerns is still evolving. I think that there is-- there have been some recommendations around shortening the retention policy, making sure that if footage, making sure that footage isn't retained, making sure that there aren't special technologies that are included in the camera device. Also not uploading the data to a fusion center or something else where that would make surveillance easier. So there are some policy recommendations about the best way to ensure privacy is protected, but it's difficult to make sure that it's 100%.
KELLY GORDON: Sure. In written testimony last month, the field office director here in St. Paul, said it would take about 180 days to ship, install, test train body cameras. So can you explain that process, what's needed for body cameras to be fully operational for the field?
LAUREN BONDS: Yeah. So obviously there's the issue of getting them distributed that that's no small task, especially if we're talking about the number of officers involved in the number of cameras that are required. But there's also the issue of making sure that they're integrated to a system, so even if the body worn camera is activated and works, making sure that it's easy to upload to whatever system it's supposed to be stored on, the officers know the process, the officers how to activate their cameras, the officers know when not to activate their cameras, and just all the guidance around best practices that officers should receive.
KELLY GORDON: So effective immediately but also understandably it takes some time to get everything up and running in the field.
LAUREN BONDS: Sure. Yeah.
KELLY GORDON: We did see that ICE does have a body camera policy that it published in February of last year, but in December, a judge that had ordered ICE agents in Chicago to use body camera later found that ICE had no records of body camera footage. So do you think the government needs to do to ensure transparency in this new case here in Minneapolis?
LAUREN BONDS: Yeah, I think it really goes back to those components of the policy, and I don't have the February-- the policy issued last February in front of me but making sure that there is a requirement that the footage is retained and also that cameras are activated in the first instance. So, yeah, I think it's-- with those things it could be effective for sure.
KELLY GORDON: Thank you so much, Lauren. We really appreciate you taking time to talk with us today.
LAUREN BONDS: Yeah, thanks so much, Kelly.
KELLY GORDON: Yeah. Lauren Bonds is the executive director of the National Police Accountability Project. And just so you know, we are following news of a press conference happening at 12:45 today. It will include Governor Tim Walz, Attorney General Keith Ellison, Minnesota Department of Education Commissioner Willie Jett, and local school district representatives. We're going to bring you that press conference live on air here and online at nprnews.org.
Download transcript (PDF)
Transcription services provided by 3Play Media.
