Skip to main contentSkip to main content
You have permission to edit this article.

Public access necessary for police footage

  • 0
Portage Police body cameras (copy)

Portage Police Department Lt. Keith Klafke clips on one of the three models of body cameras the department is putting through trial runs to determine which device and program the department will purchase in this November 2016 file photo.

Police body cameras would restore public trust, proponents said. They would infuse transparency into the murky, complicated human interactions in which officers daily find themselves, they promised. They would be a hard defense against police abuse, they swore.

So many promises. So little transparency to see it through.

In the past two years, proponents of body cameras – often police departments themselves – made a lot of promises about the expensive, potentially invasive technology. But as last week’s denial of a Freedom of Information request by the city attorney in Bettendorf, Iowa proves, the promise of body cameras hinges on Iowa lawmakers’ commitment to presumed transparency.

So far, they’ve done nothing, opting instead to permit Iowa’s Freedom of Information Act to fall further out of date.

The body camera problem is mounting throughout the country. Only six state legislatures have shown the grit to update FOIA to include the new technology. In almost all cases, state lawmakers – often backed by the very same police unions that championed body cameras – have gutted the promised transparency by all but fully exempting the footage from public view. In North Carolina, for instance, the move was in direct response to fervor over a police shooting of yet another young, black man – ironic because it’s that very same issue that first propelled body cameras into the forefront of modern policing.

Quashing public access superseded accountability.

Iowa, on the other hand, has done nothing. In many respects, it’s no better than North Carolina’s crackdown. Body cameras achieve their oft-stated purpose only if the public has access to questionable cases. Wisconsin also has taken no action to update its open records laws to address body camera footage.

Make no mistake, there’s very real privacy concerns surrounding the footage. Dash board footage is confined to a cruiser’s anterior view. Officers wearing body cameras catch significantly more intimate moments, often inside people’s homes, police regularly note. Clearly, any update to Iowa’s FOIA should include specific exemptions for these scenarios. It would have to exempt video integral to an active investigation.

That’s all fair. But fostering a situation where body camera footage is, by default, shielded from public view is not.

Illinois’ FOIA offers sweeping exemptions for body camera footage, which troubles many watchdogs. But, at the very least, it generally requires release following a police-involved shooting. Iowa’s FOIA should require the release of any video associated with a police-involved shooting. That requirement alone would compel Bettendorf to release last month’s shooting of a man wielding an airsoft-type toy weapon in Home Depot. It should require the release of any video related to founded allegations of an officer’s abuse of power.


Catch the latest in Opinion

* I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.

Related to this story

Get up-to-the-minute news sent straight to your device.


News Alert

Breaking News