Falling temperatures, blowing snow and dangerous travel conditions

MPR News helps you turn down the noise and build shared understanding. Turn up your support for this public resource and keep trusted journalism accessible to all. 

Turn Up Your Support

State lawmakers remain vexed over possible rules for use of police body cameras and access to the footage they capture. The issue got sidelined in the Legislature a year ago and there hasn't been much movement this year either.

The Minnesota Senate is expected to vote Monday on a body camera bill. But it's not clear what happens next.

Later this month, the Minneapolis Police Department will begin deploying the first of the 600 small cameras that all patrol officers on the beat will eventually wear. It'll add Minneapolis to a list of about 40 law enforcement agencies around Minnesota where the body-worn cameras have been introduced to increase transparency and accountability.

But according to a state police association dozens of cities are holding back because there's too much uncertainty about potential state regulations.

Sen. Ron Latz, DFL-St. Louis Park said it's about time lawmakers provide clarity about when the cameras must be on, about who gets to access the footage and about how to maintain the videos.

Another year without an answer will have consequences, he said.

"Many police departments will choose not to roll it out in their communities. Other communities will slow down their rollout because they won't know exactly what rules to follow," Latz said.

Irene Kao has been hearing concerns too as a lawyer at the League of Minnesota Cities. Local officials are looking for a law that balances privacy and one that will foster trust between police and the communities they serve.

"Connected to that is the cost," Kao said. "When we're talking about data practices, how to store the data, how long to do it for, they're really looking for that guidance even before they implement body cameras."

The Senate bill that Latz is sponsoring would declare much of the footage private unless the recordings were made in a public place. People who are subjects of the videos, including the officers wearing the camera, could get access. There's also an exception making more data public when substantial force or weapons are used by officers.

In Burnsville, the first Minnesota city to use body cameras, Police Chief Eric Gieseke said he'd like the ability to keep things out of the public domain. He cited domestic abuse calls as an example where data should be more closely held.

"It's one thing to read a police report about a contact in someone's home. It's quite another thing to actually see the inside of someone's home," said Gieseke.

Some have argued that putting too much of the video off limits would defeat the accountability purpose and turn the devices merely into surveillance tools.

Rep. Peggy Scott, R-Andover is pushing for a requirement for police to gain consent before recording in a home in non-emergency situations.

"Law enforcement has demands that they want. And the consent piece is really important to me and a lot of legislators and the general public that I come in contact with," Scott said. "Those are some pretty big issues to reach consensus on. But I'm hopeful that we can."

The bill the Senate is voting on is nearly identical to one it passed last year. Nothing happened in the House.

There was an attempt to tack a body camera provision into the House budget bill last week, but it was ruled out of order.

Rep. Nick Zerwas , R-Elk River, vented about the impasse on an important public safety matter.

"Because of the fact we haven't found the perfect bill that makes every stakeholder happy, we have done nothing," he said.

Politics and Government News

Capitol View®

Brian Bakst

Author

The Minnesota Senate is expected to vote Monday on a body camera bill. But it's not clear what happens next.


Lawmakers struggle to regulate police body cams

Go Deeper.

Like this?