Seeking Input on a Potential Body-Worn Camera Program in Kirkland

Due to the fluidity of law enforcement work, BWCs record more than the public space stationary cameras. Officers could potentially record inside private residences and other non-public areas, and film sensitive situations that might emerge during calls for service. Significant privacy concerns can also arise when interviewing crime victims, particularly in situations involving rape, abuse, or other sensitive matters. When implementing BWCs, law enforcement agencies must balance these privacy considerations with the need for transparency of police operations, accurate documentation of events, and evidence collection. Read more(PDF, 548KB).

It is generally up to each police department within Washington State to determine their BWC policy when cameras are activated and deactivated. State law stipulates several issues that policies must address at a minimum such as when a body worn camera must be activated and deactivated, when officers have the discretion to stop and start body worn cameras, what to do when there is a communication or language issue, documentation, training, and data protection. Read more(PDF, 548KB).

Washington State is a two/all-party consent state when it comes to recordings. State law RCW defines that advising a person they are being recorded is considered obtaining consent: The law also addresses that recordings of an emergency nature, such as the reporting of a fire, medical emergency, crime, or disaster, does not require all-party consent. There may be situations where a person’s ability to acknowledge or consent to recording may be compromised. Because of this, BWCs may have a disproportionate impact on those with disadvantaged positions, such as people with mental illness, who are homeless, or who are otherwise in crisis. Read more(PDF, 548KB).

While Washington State law prohibits the disclosure of BWC recordings from medical facilities where an individual is receiving treatment or health care information, consideration should be made to record non-law enforcement action in medical facilities and officers’ BWCs recording medical treatment on-scene of a call for service. Read more(PDF, 548KB).

The City of Kirkland currently follows all State of Washington retention schedules. The City will need to develop a policy for retention of BWC recordings within the parameters of state policy and with consideration of the privacy of those recorded. The longer recorded videos are retained, the longer they are subject to public disclosure, which can be problematic if the video contains footage associated with privacy concerns. Read more(PDF, 548KB).

Disclosure of BWC footage can promote transparency and accountability but can also create privacy concerns for recordings of victims, sensitive incidents/investigations, or from private areas. State law describes several situations in which nondisclosure is essential for the protection of privacy rights including certain medical situations, inside private homes, when the footage involves a minor or a deceased person, and other circumstances. State law also clarifies the public records requests as they pertain to BWC footage. Read more(PDF, 548KB).

Body-worn camera recordings are stored digitally and record a significant amount of footage requiring a large amount of digital media storage space. In addition to a comprehensive, secure digital media storage solution, direct media management and oversight is needed. Consideration for additional personnel to categorize recordings, determine retention schedules, perform redaction and transcription, and destroy media in a timely manner is imperative. Read more(PDF, 548KB).

Input from the community into the development of operational policies governing the use of BWCs is important to the City of Kirkland and encouraged by state law. BWCs have been shown to promote transparency and accountability.  Research also showed there may be concerns over unintended impacts of BWCs, such as whether the presence of recording devices discourages people from coming forward with information or impacts community members disproportionately. It’s essential that the community carefully consider all potential benefits and drawbacks of a body-worn camera program and it’s why the City of Kirkland is inviting input now. Read more(PDF, 548KB).

Officer concerns can include questions surrounding their own privacy during periods in which they are not interacting with the public, the ability to review footage prior to writing reports, understanding policies on what is recorded and released, and the effects of public disclosure requests.  One of the factors that will need to be addressed is how the Department and City will use camera footage to monitor officer performance. Body-worn cameras would be considered a change in working conditions and would be subject to the collective bargaining agreement process. Read more(PDF, 548KB).

For the City of Kirkland, a body-worn camera program is estimated to cost approximately $2.2 million for a 5-year period. This includes the cost of equipment, the storage of thousands of hours of footage, and additional personnel needed to review and categorize the footage and respond to public record requests. The cost can be offset by a $220,000 grant offered to the City by the U.S Department of Justice.