An Indiana Senate committee last week flipped the burden of proof to law enforcement for why video taken with body-worn cameras should be kept from the public.
The flip followed the spirit of the Indiana Access to Public Records Act, which says the default setting should assume the business of government, and that includes law enforcement, should be done in public. Here’s the exact wording:
“A fundamental philosophy of the American constitutional form of representative government is that government is the servant of the people and not their master.
"Accordingly, it is the public policy of the state that all persons are entitled to full and complete information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts of those who represent them as public officials and employees. ...”
More and more police agencies are issuing body-worn cameras to their officers so they can document the actions they take on the job. The cameras can protect officers from being accused of something they didn’t do, while at the same time making a record of something an officer does that could be construed as an abuse of powers.
The Legislature is debating what happens to the recordings made by these cameras. It’s a sticky issue.
Some things recorded could jeopardize an ongoing investigation, identify an undercover officer or invade the privacy of innocent citizens caught on camera during a police action or in a sensitive situation. There’s also an issue of storing hours and hours of video, which could take up a lot of computer space at significant cost.
A bill passed by the Indiana House would give police departments broad authority about what to release for public inspection, putting the legal burden on the group making the request for disclosure to prove why release of the recording would be in the public’s interest and not cause harm to someone or influence a trial.
The Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Brent Steele, R-Bedford, is considering turning that around. According to the Associated Press, Steele said the bill won’t advance to the full Senate unless it’s changed to put the legal burden on law enforcement agencies as to why the video must be kept private to avoid harming someone or influencing a court proceeding.
The Senate idea is better for Hoosiers, including police agencies, which would gain more trust from the public through a more transparent law. Police should be able to articulate the good reasons to keep some video recordings from public consumption. But major purposes of such cameras should be to increase police transparency and hold law enforcement accountable, particularly in situations in which force is used.
The bill should be altered to require police departments to justify why videos should be concealed rather than to require the public to justify why the recording by a public agency should be withheld. That would be more consistent with “the public policy of the state” ensuring the availability of information regarding affairs of government and official acts of public officials and employees.