Police often use broad exemption to keep videos from public – ACLU: ‘We didn’t know that would end up being the get-out-of-FOIA free card’

In this April 27, 2017 file photo, a police officer wears a newly-issued body camera outside in New York. In 2018, the New York City Police Department, the nation’s largest, stopped releasing body camera video after a police union successfully argued in court that they were confidential personnel records. But the department vowed in February 2019 to continue releasing video of officer-involved shootings after an appeals court ruled that the union’s argument “would defeat the purpose of the body-worn-camera program.” (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer)

By RYAN J. FOLEY, Associated Press  IOWA CITY, Iowa (AP) 03/13 — Police departments routinely withhold video of officer-involved shootings and other incidents from the public by using a broad exemption to state-open records laws, an investigation by The Associated Press has found.

The AP tested the public’s ability to access police video for Sunshine Week, an annual celebration of open government, by filing open records requests related to roughly 20 recent incidents in a dozen states.

The requests were met with a series of denials and failed to unearth video of a single incident that had not already been released publicly. A few remain pending and some videos might be released in coming months or years once criminal and disciplinary investigations are concluded. But by then, the public interest in knowing what happened may have waned significantly.

In rejecting or delaying the requests, most law enforcement agencies and prosecutors cited exemptions that allow them to keep records of pending investigations secret. One county claimed the exemption would allow it to keep the video of a motorist’s fatal shooting secret forever — even though the investigation has concluded and cleared the deputy involved.

In North Dakota last year, authorities withheld video for months of 26-year-old Daniel Fuller being hit by an officer’s pistol during a struggle. An autopsy showed that he died from a gunshot to the back of the head.

They released it only after a prosecutor announced in November that the officer did not intend to fire his gun and would not face criminal charges.

“It took forever for them to release the video because they kept saying it was an ongoing investigation,” said Fuller’s older sister, Allyson Bartlett. “I don’t think they wanted pressure from the community.”

This undated photo provided by Allyson Bartlett in March 2019 shows her brother, Daniel Fuller. The video of the 26-year-old’s death is brief but disturbing: an officer is seen hitting an unarmed suspect with his pistol as the man falls into the grass. An autopsy would later show that he died from a gunshot to the back of the head. “It took forever for them to release the video because they kept saying it was an ongoing investigation,” says Bartlett. “I don’t think they wanted pressure from the community.” (Allyson Bartlett via AP)

 

To be sure, some police departments voluntarily release videos of high-profile incidents, sometimes within days or weeks. They also are forced to share them during civil rights lawsuits or air them when suspects face trial.

But critics say the investigations exemption is often misapplied to keep from public view video that might shine an unfavorable light on the actions of officers. It’s intended to protect sensitive details that might tip off suspects that they are under scrutiny or alert them to what evidence police have obtained. But when officers shoot or otherwise use force on suspects, they know their actions are the focus of the investigation and often have access to the videos of the incidents.

“It is for that reason that the investigative records exemption literally makes no sense and should have no place when it comes to police body camera footage,” said Chad Marlow, an expert on laws governing body cameras at the American Civil Liberties Union. “We didn’t know that would end up being the get-out-of-FOIA free card for police departments, but it has certainly turned into that.”

Authorities say they have good reason for withholding video during investigations, such as preventing the memories of witnesses from being tainted or sparking protests with an out-of-context snippet of a deadly encounter. But the problem, said former federal prosecutor Val Van Brocklin, is that “there is no national standard of when and how this stuff gets released.”

In West Virginia, a prosecutor withheld a video that led to the firing of two state troopers for allegedly beating a 16-year-old suspect. In Georgia, a county sheriff’s office refused to release video of a 22-year-old man who allegedly shot himself to death while struggling with police, an explanation that has been questioned and sparked protests.

In Atlanta, where officers were recently criticized in an audit for failing to use their body cameras as intended, the department would not release video of an officer-involved shooting that happened last summer, saying the officer could potentially still face disciplinary action.

The department in Sugar Land, Texas, which recently released dramatic video of officers rescuing a woman from a lake, refused to divulge footage of a 2016 struggle in which a man alleges he was beaten and severely injured by officers.

In North Liberty, Iowa, a city lawyer responded to a request for video of a traffic stop by calling it a confidential investigative record — then demanded the AP not publish footage the news organization had already obtained of the incident.

The city had fired a patrol supervisor for mishandling the stop, claiming he violated the rights of suspects in a road rage incident, failed to draw his weapon and made other procedural errors. The supervisor has filed a lawsuit contesting his firing, and his attorney provided the AP with footage that he says shows his client acted appropriately. The city released a redacted version of the video only after AP declined the city’s request.

California is seen as a bright spot for transparency.

Its state capital, Sacramento, has been roiled by protests over police shootings of unarmed black men, most recently after the district attorney and state attorney general declined to bring charges against two officers in the fatal shooting of Stephon Clark.

Police video of that shooting helped fuel the protests, and yet the department is among the most transparent in releasing officer videos. A city policy that predates the Clark shooting requires the police department to release footage within 30 days of a major incident or justify why it won’t.

“That’s a big priority for us, to build that trust with our community, and we feel releasing body-worn camera footage is one way,” said a department spokesman, Marcus Basquez.

___

Associated Press writer Tom Verdin in Sacramento contributed to this report.

https://www.apnews.com/67f22d5857f14413a4a9b34642c49ae3

Copyright 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Posted in: Body Cameras, FOIA/Transparency, Investigations, Police, Policies & Practices, Public Policy, Use of Force, Video

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

four × 4 =

Terms of Use for Posting Comments

Terms of Use

This site (the “Site”) is operated and maintained by Law Enforcement Education Foundation, Corporation (“Company”). Throughout the Site, the terms “we”, “us” and “our” refer to Company.  The words “user,” “you” and “your” as used herein refer to you.

Please read these terms and conditions of use (“Terms of Use”) carefully before contributing content. If you do not agree to these Terms of Use, please do not contribute content. Your use of the Site is subject to the Terms and Conditions found here .

By contributing content to the Site, you represent and warrant that you are at least eighteen (18) years old and that you have read and understand these Terms of Use and any amendments thereto and agree to be bound by them. If you are not at least eighteen (18) years old or you do not agree and accept these Terms of Use, you are prohibited from contributing content.

From time to time, we may permit users to submit content to the Site.  You hereby acknowledge and agree that by submitting remarks, comments, suggestions, ideas, graphics, feedback, edits, concepts, comments, photographs, illustrations and other materials (other than personal information and/or registration information) through the Site (individually and collectively, “Submissions”), you (i) grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, transferable, irrevocable and fully sub-licensable right to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, translate, distribute, publish, create derivative works from and publicly display and perform such Submissions throughout the world in any media, now known or hereafter created, without attribution to you; (ii) grant us the right to pursue at law any person or entity that violates your and/or our rights in your Submissions; and (iii) forever waive any and all of your rights, including but not limited to moral rights, if any, in and to your Submissions, including, without limitation, any all rights or requirements of attribution or identification of you as the author of the Submission or any derivative thereof.  We reserve the right to remove any of your Submissions from the Site, in whole or in part, without notice to you, for any reason or no reason.

Submissions are made voluntarily. Any submissions which include personally identifiable information are subject to our Privacy Policy found here .  You may not upload or otherwise publish content on the Site that (i) is confidential to you or any third party; (ii) is untrue, inaccurate, false or other than an original work of your authorship; (iii) that relates to or impersonates any other person; (iv) violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property rights of any person or entity; (v) contains any content, personally identifiable information or other information, or materials of any kind that relate or refer to any other person or entity other than the provider of the products, goods or services to which the Submission relates; or (vi) violates any law, or in any manner infringes or interferes with the rights of others, including but not limited to the use of names, information, or materials that (A) libel, defame, or invade the privacy of any third party, (B) are obscene or pornographic, (C) are harmful, threatening, offensive, abusive, harassing, vulgar, false or inaccurate, racially, sexually, ethnically or are otherwise objectionable or otherwise contrary to the laws of any place where such Submissions may be accessed; (D) constitute personal attacks on other individuals; (E) promote criminal, immoral or illegal activity; (F) promote or advertise any person, product or service or solicit funds; or (G) are deemed confidential by any contract or policy.

You are solely responsible for any Submissions you make and their accuracy. We take no responsibility and assume no liability for any Submissions posted by you or any third party.

Unless approved by us in writing in advance, you agree not to: (i) provide or create a link to the Site; or (ii) create any frames at any other sites pertaining to any of the content located on the Site.

We reserve the right, in our discretion, to update, change or replace any part of these Terms of Use for Posting Comments by posting updates and/or changes to our Site.  It is your responsibility to check this page periodically for changes.  Your continued use of, and/or access to the Site, following the posting of any changes to these Terms of Use for Posting Comments, constitutes your acceptance of those changes.