Guest Editorial: Challenges Remain for Police Reform
Includes
communications and body cameras.
From the McLean
Connection
By Phillip Niedzielski-Eichner
#Oct. 8 will
be the second anniversary of the 2015 release of the Ad Hoc Police Practices
Review Commission Final Report. The catalyst for the Ad Hoc Commission’s
formation by the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors was the August 2013
shooting death of John Geer. The commission was charged with assessing the
Police Department’s performance against national best practices.
#The
commission made more than 200 recommendations for transforming an excellent
Police Department into one that is “best in class” and for strengthening the
public’s trust and confidence in the department.
#I served as
commission member and as the chairman of Use of Force Subcommittee. I am also a
member of a loosely configured Implementation Committee, a group of former
commission members dedicated to helping to see that our recommendations are
effectively implemented.
#I commend
both the Board of Supervisors (BOS) and Police Department for their progress
implementing the commission’s recommendations. Significant reforms are underway
that when fully realized will generate increased accountability and public
confidence. Major reforms already in place include:
§ #forming the
Office of the Independent Police Auditor to determine the thoroughness,
completeness, accuracy, objectivity and impartiality of investigations of death
or serious injury cases.
§ #convening a
Civilian Review Panel to review civilian complaints regarding “abuse of
authority” or “serious misconduct” by a police officer;
§ #creating
“Diversion First,” which offers alternatives to incarceration for people with
mental illness or developmental disabilities; and
§ #recrafting
the Use of Force General Order to enshrine sanctity of human life as an
organizing principle, with de-escalation as the strategy of first resort when
confronted with a threat rather than the use of deadly force.
#WHILE MUCH
HAS BEEN accomplished, more is work is needed. For example, the commission
advocated in strong terms for information-sharing reform to promote timeliness,
completeness and transparency. In this regard, a revised Police Department
Communication Policy is still in process.
#The
commission also called for all officers to be outfitted with body worn cameras,
contingent on the enactment of laws, policies and procedures that protect
individual privacy. These cameras are to complement the dashboard cameras now
mounted in each Fairfax patrol vehicle.
#While a
potential aid to criminal prosecution, the body-worn camera’s equally important
contribution is to foster greater transparency and the accountability of all
parties during the interactions of the police with the public. As the American
Civil Liberties Union noted in an October 2014 report, body-worn cameras
“[have] the potential to be a win-win, helping protect the public against
police misconduct, and at the same time helping protect police against false
accusations of abuse.”
#While the
county leadership has committed to deploying this technology, its approach has
been appropriately methodical. Key considerations are operational, privacy,
data security and cost. For example, the supervisors have approved a pilot
project that will deploy cameras in two of the county’s nine magisterial
districts and the department is currently evaluating proposals from prospective
suppliers.
#THIS PILOT
PROJECT needs to generate answers to following questions, among others: the
county needs to establish when cameras will be running and how will the public
know the cameras are on? When can biometric technology – such as facial
recognition – be used? How will the video footage be secured from hackers? Who
will have access to the data and under what procedures?
#How will the
massive amount of video data be stored and for how long? As the county
understands and appreciates, the cost of deploying body-worn cameras is not in
the cameras themselves, but the storage of the massive amount of data that is
generated. As reported by the Center for Digital Government and Government
Technology magazine, “When it comes to [body-worn cameras], data storage is the
800-pound gorilla in the room. Video … is a data hog.”
#This reality
generates cost-driven data-retention policy considerations. How long should
non-evidentiary video be maintained? Some police departments say it should be
60-90 days, others say less or more. With regard to evidentiary data used in
criminal prosecutions, the Virginia Commonwealth requires that evidence be
stored for 99 years.
#Finally, who
controls access to the data? This question is becoming an increasingly
significant issue nationally. Protecting evidence chain-of-custody for purposes
of criminal prosecution is a necessary but not sufficient role to warrant the
cost and the data protection risks inherent in the deployment of body-worn
cameras. The real return-on-investment is the potential for influencing the
behavior, through greater transparency and accountability, of all parties in a
law-enforcement engagement.
#The drive to
use this technology is inexorable. A recent CATO Institute/YouGov poll found
that 92 percent of the public supports the use of body-worn cameras. Implicit
in this level of support are high public expectations that this technology will
make a difference in law enforcement practices. Heightened expectations alone
should give our policymakers pause, particularly when we know that no
technology deployment is free of all mistakes and errors. The only thing worse
in today’s context than not collecting the data during a controversial
use-of-force incident, is for the public to learn that video data under the
Police Department’s control is missing.
#We should
therefore challenge the assumption that video-camera data must be maintained
under the sole access control of the Police Department. Options that should be
given explicit consideration by the Board of Supervisors, Police Department and
Commonwealth’s Attorney include assigning video data access control to the
Independent Police Auditor or alternatively assigning this role to a board
composed of the Police Chief, Independent Auditor and Commonwealth’s Attorney.
#On this
second anniversary of the Ad Hoc Policy Review Commission Report, the county and
Police Department have many accomplishments to be proud of with regard to
implementing the commission’s recommendations.
#Quality-driven
change is hard; some changes are especially difficult. Body-worn camera
deployment is one that requires careful study and diligent attention to complex
legal and operational details. I commend the county for taking the appropriate
measured response to meeting this recommendation and, especially with regard
the matter of access to video data, challenge the conventional wisdom that
access control to such data must be under the sole purview of the Police
Department.
#Phillip A. Niedzielski-Eichner is a member of the Fairfax County
Planning Commission, served on the Ad Hoc Police Practices Review Commission
and a former member of the Fairfax County School Board.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)