Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Packet 06-27-2017 SpecialCITY OF PLYMOUTH AGENDA SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 27, 2017, 5:30 p.m. MEDICINE LAKE CONFERENCE ROOM 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. TOPICS A. Body worn cameras B. Set future Study Sessions 3. ADJOURN Special Council Meeting 1 of 1 June 27, 2017 rp City of Plymouth Adding Quality to Life To: SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING Prepared by: June 27, 2017 Reviewed by: Item: Agenda 2A Number: Dave Callister, City Manager Dan Plekkenpol, Deputy Director of Public Safety Body Worn Cameras Purpose: The purpose of this memo is to present the potential initiation of a body worn camera program for the Plymouth Police Department. The information shared will be high level and represents information created by the League of Minnesota Cities and adopted by our department in the form of a draft body worn camera policy should the City Council decide to adapt this technology. Please refer to the attached information memo by the League of Minnesota Cities. Background: Recent local and national officer involved shooting events have created a perceived need by communities for increased transparency and trust from their police departments. Our City has not had a strong reaction from our citizens requesting or specifically demanding the institution of body worn cameras to accomplish this need. With that said, our department has a responsibility to act progressively to have a high level of transparency and trust with our citizenry. A body worn camera may or may not be the answer for our community. The positive results of utilizing body worn cameras would be to document the actions of our staff for the purpose of evidence to be used for an arrest situation when the case is brought before the court. The same would hold true should a citizen have a complaint of inappropriate actions taken by our staff. The negative results of using a body camera system would be the captured video is not a full representation of the full vision of the officer. The price of a body worn camera system may be viewed as cost prohibitive. These costs include video storage, increased case review time by attorneys, increased case management by police clerical staff, increased staff time to redact video for data requests by the public. Staff members within the police department were assigned to sub -committees to develop a comprehensive body worn camera program. The Technology Committee researched vendors and narrowed a choice of viable vendors to Data911 or Axon (formerly named Taser International). The associated costs are documented in the budget section on this document. The Policy Committee developed policy that is congruent with recently adopted State Law for body worn camera implementation and usage. The Plymouth Police Department Policy Draft has been attached. Budget: As stated in the League of Minnesota Cities document, communities considering the implementation of body worn cameras should be cognizant of the involved costs. The projection of the first two years of body camera implementation will have budget range of $285,000 to $320,000 dependent on several factors. These factors include the following costs; hardware, software, case review time, data request Page 1 time and video storage. The range in cost is also dependent on the chosen vendor and how efficiently their product will integrate with our existing squad camera system. Requested Action: City Administrative Staff to engage in a discussion with City Council members during the June 27, 2017 study session to determine if the initiation of a body worn camera program is the correct action at this time. If City Council members wish to gain more comprehensive information prior to the scheduled body camera study session, please refer to this website to view an excellent webinar presented by the League of Minnesota Cities: http://www.Imc.org/page/1/BodVCameras-materials.isp I hope that this memo, the included draft policy and the linked information will give you a solid base into the body worn camera program that potentially could be used by the Plymouth Police Department. Attachments: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo Plymouth Police Department Policy Page 2 moor 00 NEW rt MINNESOTA ■ "'- 61 ASSOCIATION of LEAGUE of MI N N E SOTA - CITY ATTORNEYS Minnesota Counties k ` CITIES IntergovernmentolTrust The League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust thanks the following organizations that comprised the working group to develop and review the model policy: Minnesota Counties Intergovernmental Trust, Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association, Minnesota Association of City Attorneys, Minnesota County Attorneys Association, Minneapolis Police Department, St. Paul Police Department, Cannon Falls Police Department, Burnsville Police Department, and Columbia Heights Police Department. Their participation does not necessarily signify agency endorsement of the model policy by the individual's employing agency. INFORMATION MEMO Use of Body -Worn Cameras State law offers significant guidance on policies governing law enforcement use of body -worn cameras (BWC) and the resulting data. This discussion and the linked model policy are intended to help cities administer BWC programs and data soundly and in accordance with law. RELEVANT LINKS See, Justice Department Announces $20 Million in Funding to Support Body - Worn Camera Pilot Program, May 1, 2015, (last viewed June 29, 2016). 2016 Minnesota Laws ch. 171, section 6, to be codified as Minn. Stat. § 626.8473, subd. 2. 2016 Minnesota Laws ch. 171, section 6, to be codified as Minn. Stat. § 626.8473, subd. 3. I. Program considerations Body -worn cameras (BWCs) are a relatively new addition to the law enforcement toolkit. According to the United States Department of Justice, they hold "tremendous promise" for improving public safety and increasing transparency and accountability. In addition, BWCs provide a means of capturing more convincing proof for use in criminal cases and protecting officers against false claims of wrongdoing. However, communities considering a move toward body cameras should also take stock of the costs involved in setting up and maintaining a BWC program. These will include purchasing the necessary hardware and software, arranging and paying for data storage, responding to requests for access, preparing data for release, and paying for independent biennial audits of the BWC program. Transparency, reporting, and external oversight Minnesota's new laws mandate that communities moving forward with a BWC program receive public comments at three junctures in the process. First, enforcement agencies must provide an opportunity for public comment before purchasing or implementing a BWC system. Minimally, the agency must receive comments by mail and email, but may certainly hold public meetings and forums if desired. Second, the council or board with budget oversight for the agency needs to allow public comment at one of its regular This material is provided as general information and is not a substitute for legal advice. Consult your attomey for advice concerning specific situations. 145 University Ave. West www.Imc.org 7/18/2016 Saint Paul, MN 55103-2044 (651) 281-1200 or (800) 925-1122 © 2016 All Ri fs0saved 1:7=R=1%1►III duRI►111" League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 7/18/2016 Use of Body -Worn Cameras Page 4e 2 meetings. Third, agencies must allow for public comment and input when developing their BWC policies. Next, the legislation appears to be forward looking in that it anticipates further evolution of BWC technologies. It requires agencies that obtain BWC equipment with capabilities that go beyond recording video and audio 2016 Minnesota Laws ch. to notify the BCA of these acquisitions within 10 days. In turn, these 171, section 5, to be codified notifications will be accessible to the public and must be posted on the as Minn. Stat. § 13.825, subd. 10. BCA's website. Finally, the new legislation imposes independent audit requirements on 2016 Minnesota Laws ch. agencies that operate BWC programs. Agencies will be required to arrange 171, section 5, to be codified for an independent biennial audit to determine whether they are classifying as Minn. Stat. § 13.825, subd. 10. data as required by law, how the data is being used, and whether the data is being purged and destroyed as required by statute. The audits must also examine whether personnel have obtained unauthorized access to BWC data or inappropriately shared data with other agencies. The audit results are public with few exceptions, and must be reviewed by the governing body. In turn, the law mandates the governing body to order the suspension of a BWC program if the audit shows a pattern of substantial noncompliance with legal requirements. Summaries of the audit results must be provided to the Legislative Commission on Data Practices and Personal Data Privacy within 60 days following completion of the audit. III. Policy requirements 2016 Minnesota Laws ch. Minnesota's new legislation mandates that agencies have a written policy to 171, section 6, to be codified as Minn. Stat. § 626.8473, govern their BWC programs. Professional organizations, including the subd. 3. International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) and the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) have released model policies in the past to aid agencies in developing their own guidelines. While these may be PERF Policy. useful references, Minnesota law now lists a number of areas that must be covered by the policy, including state -specific rules on the administration and retention of BWC data. The 2016 state law identifies the following as mandatory policy elements: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 7/18/2016 Use of Body -Worn Cameras Page 4e 2 RELEVANT LINKS: Body -worn cameras, LMC Model Policy. 2016 Minnesota Laws ch. 171, section 6, to be codified as Minn. Stat. § 626.8473, subd. 3(b)(4). Body -worn cameras, LMC Model Policy. • Data classifications, access procedures, and retention policies. • Procedures for testing the recording equipment, documenting malfunction reports, and addressing malfunctions. • Circumstances under which recording is mandatory, prohibited, or is left to officer discretion. • Circumstances under which officers must tell people they are being recorded. • Guidelines for when a recording may be ended. • Procedures for the secure storage of data and the creation of backup copies. • Procedures to ensure compliance with the policy and to address violations. Red typeface in the League's model policy indicates that the language is included to satisfy a requirement for guidance on that particular topic. While this language is recommended, agencies may certainly have other options for addressing mandatory elements. IV. Deciding what to record The new legislation does not establish mandatory rules for when officers are required to record or are prohibited from recording. Agencies must instead cover these topics in their written policies, along with specifying when decisions to record are left to the discretion of officers in the field. Developing guidelines on when to record involves tradeoffs, and as of now, there is no recognized consensus as to best practices. If the agency's goal for having BWCs is to maximize accountability, then the most logical policy choice might be to have officers turn on their cameras whenever they respond to a call for service or interact with someone in the community. On the other hand, if the agency's goal is just to gather better proof for use in criminal cases, then it might make sense to have officers treat body cameras like any other evidence -gathering tool, and exercise their professional judgment in deciding when to record. Most all agree that officers should turn on their cameras when they anticipate making an arrest, using force, or finding themselves in conflict situations with members of the public. The model acknowledges these differing schools of thought and also the areas of common agreement. Option 1 under "General guidelines for recording" requires the activation of cameras during all responses to calls for service and law enforcement -related activities. Option 2 more narrowly defines the class of events subject to mandatory recording, and then relies on officer judgment to identify and record other circumstances likely to yield relevant evidence. Both options require recording in situations such as arrests, uses of force, and public contacts that involve conflict. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 7/18/2016 Use of Body -Worn Cameras PagePye 3 RELEVANT LINKS: Practical and economic considerations, as well as philosophical ones, come to bear on deciding which option to choose and how much (i.e., when) to record. Once video data is recorded, it must be administered and retained in accordance with legal requirements. Agencies should expect that data storage costs and the time it takes to administer data will increase commensurately with the amount of data they choose to collect and store. Desires for accountability and transparency may weigh in favor of mandatory, broad, and encompassing recording requirements. But considerations of cost and practicality may point toward less mandatory recording and more reliance on officer judgment. Deciding which approach is best involves weighing these competing factors in the context of the prevailing social, political, and economic considerations within each community. This is a determination particularly suited to elected officials acting on input from law enforcement professionals. Agencies should consult with their city councils or county boards to develop a community -specific approach. V. Data administration issues 2016 Minnesota Laws ch. Part of the new legislation treats data collected through the use of BWCs 171, section 5, to be codified as Minn. stat. § 13.825. differently than most other forms of data. While most government data is presumptively public, BWC data is presumptively private. A specific provision, applicable only to BWC data, delineates who is a subject of the Body -worn cameras, LMC data. The new laws also establish unique access rights to BWC data. The Model Policy. model policy contains a multi -page section under the heading of "Administering access to BWC data" to address these issues. There are ambiguities in the new law, and agencies are encouraged to consult with their city attorneys or legal advisors for guidance. A. Labeling data for retention purposes Administering BWC data under both the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and the Records Retention Schedule is complicated. In very general terms, the Records Retention Schedule indicates how long entities need to keep data, and the Data Practices Act describes who is to have access. But BWC data is unlike other kinds of law enforcement data because retention is governed both by the Data Practices Act and the city's or county's records retention schedule. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 7/18/2016 Use of Body -Worn Cameras Page lge 4 Izi=R=1%1►III ONI►111" 2016 Minnesota Laws ch. 171, section 5, to be codified as Minn. Stat. § 13.825, subd. 3(a). 2016 Minnesota Laws ch. 171, section 5, to be codified as Minn. Stat. § 13.825, subd. 3(b). General Records Retention Schedule for Minnesota Cities. General Records Retention Schedule for Minnesota Counties. Under the 2016 Data Practices amendments, all BWC data must be maintained for a period of 90 days and then be destroyed according to the agency's retention schedule. Some specific kinds of BWC data must be maintained for one year and then be destroyed under the records retention schedule, such as data documenting duty -related firearms discharges, certain uses of force, and cases in which a formal complaint is made against an officer. But the expiration of these minimum retention periods under Data Practices does not necessarily mean that the data can or must be destroyed. Rather, the General Records Retention Schedule for Minnesota Cities (and the concordant General Records Retention Schedule for Counties) basically "kicks in" once the statutory retention periods have passed. The model policy includes a series of suggested labels for BWC data files, and envisions that officers will assign those labels to data files at the time of capture or transfer into storage. The labels have been developed to help agencies match up data files with the correct retention periods. For instance, if an officer has a recording from a DUI or disorderly conduct arrest, the model provides for labeling that file as "Evidence—Criminal." This label correlates to the category of "Arrest & Charge," found in the General Records Retention Schedule for Minnesota Cities. The retention schedule directs that this data should be maintained until the disposition of the criminal case, which may take longer than the statutory 90 -day retention period. By labeling this data at the time it is captured or moved to storage, the agency is informing itself from the outset that this data has evidentiary value in a criminal case, and should be retained accordingly. Agencies that choose not to deal with labeling data files at the time of capture or storage are likely deferring, rather than avoiding, the work involved in determining the correct retention period. Various BWC systems may offer different options for labeling data files, and agencies may find it useful to keep their own systems in mind when developing their policy. B. Data access issues and flagging The model policy also provides for a system of flagging BWC files to indicate the likely presence of information about individuals whose identities may be legally protected from disclosure to others. Examples of such individuals include undercover officers, victims of criminal sexual conduct, and vulnerable adults who are victims of maltreatment. Whether or not agencies use the flagging process, the categories of protected identities listed in the policy may serve as a useful checklist when responding to requests for access to BWC data. The policy includes the more commonly occurring protected identities, but is not intended to be all-inclusive. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 7/18/2016 Use of Body -Worn Cameras PageP pe 5 1:7= RATI-1\►III dUR1►CF'3 C. Officer access to video and critical incidents PERF notes that officers will be able to report and testify more accurately when they are provided access to "all possible evidence of the event." It is extremely unlikely that an officer could ever perceive or recall the same amount of information captured by a digital, high-definition recording device, particularly when under stress. The model recommends allowing officers to review BWC video footage before writing reports, giving statements, or providing testimony concerning typical law enforcement events. As PERF counsels, withholding video evidence from an officer until after he or she testifies can "unfairly undermine the officer's credibility." Some agencies and prosecutors have expressed reservations, however, about allowing officers to view BWC and other video footage prior to giving statements about an officer -involved shooting or other critical incident. Because the BWC captures more information than the officer could have possibly perceived at the time, the concern is that viewing the video may taint the officer's recollection by introducing new information to him or her Body -Worn cameras, LMC before a statement is obtained. The model provides two options for Model Policy. addressing this situation, and leaves it to agencies to include restrictions on viewing videos in their policies addressing critical incidents. Whether or not an agency allows officers to review video footage before being interviewed about a critical incident, PERF's concern about unreasonably undermining officers' credibility warrants consideration. BWC footage is likely to bring forward a greater amount of information and more accurate details than a human observer or participant. It follows that comparing an officer's recollection to the video is not a fair measure of credibility or truthfulness. D. Supervisory review Under the new legislation, agency policies must include procedures for making sure that personnel are complying with the policy. One of the obvious measures for ensuring that officers are following the policy is to involve supervisors in monitoring BWC use. Under the heading, "Agency Use of Data," the model requires that supervisors review BWC "usage" on a monthly basis for the purpose of determining whether officers have used their cameras in accordance with the department's guidelines. Reviewing "usage" could be limited to a cursory comparison of when officers are making recordings, and how they are labeling them, as compared to other records of the officer's activities. An alternative position is to have supervisors review actual footage to gain an additional perspective on officer performance in the field. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 7/18/2016 Use of Body -Worn Cameras Page ge 6 RELEVANT LINKS: Rob Boe LMCrr Public Safety Project Coordinator 800.925.1122 651.281.1238 rboe@lmc.org Jennifer Wolf MCrr Counsel for Risk Control 866.547.6516 (Ext. 6442) 651.290.6442 jwolf@mcit.org The IACP's model policy takes the position that supervisors should review random BWC recordings at least monthly to observe officer performance in the field. PERF, however, notes there is ongoing debate over this issue. While random supervisory review may promote accountability, officers may see this practice as an expression of mistrust and become resentful. This is an issue for agencies to consider in light of their own particular circumstances. VI. Further assistance The issue of body -worn cameras is a policy area with developing concerns. To discuss latest developments or for assistance with your questions, please contact the League of Minnesota Cities or the Minnesota Counties Intergovernmental Trust. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 7/18/2016 Use of Body -Worn Cameras Page tye 7 PLYMOUTH POLICE Policy and Operating Procedure Manual NfIN NESOTA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . - - - - - - - Chapter 6 o o Operations Patrol :; Division .......................................... O Policy 634 Body Worn Cameras 4 Effective: Draft Revised: Page 10 PPOLnoICEH Policy Body 634 • lit I. INTRODUCTION: It is our mission to provide superior law enforcement services through the advancement of technology. To further achieve this goal, body- worn cameras will be used for the purpose of documenting evidence and accurately capturing contacts between members of the department and the public. The Plymouth Police Department is committed to the utilization of body - worn cameras as a means to reach this goal. II. PURPOSE: The primary purpose of using body -worn cameras (BWCs) is to capture evidence arising from police -citizen encounters. This policy sets forth guidelines governing the use of BWCs and administering the collected data. Compliance with these guidelines is mandatory, but it is recognized that officers must also attend to other primary duties and the safety of all concerned, sometimes in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving. III. POLICY: It is the policy of this department to authorize and require the use of department issued BWCs as set forth below, and to administer BWC data as provided by law. This policy governs the use of BWCs in the course of official duties. It does not apply to the use of squad -based (dash -cam) recording systems. The Public Safety Director or their designee may supersede this policy by providing specific instructions for BWC use to individual officers, or providing specific instructions pertaining to particular events or specialized details. IV. DEFINITIONS: The following phrases have special meanings as used in this policy. A. Body -Worn Cameras: means a device worn by an officer that is capable of both video and audio recording of the officer's activities and interactions with others or collecting digital multimedia evidence as part of an investigation and is provided in Minn. Stat. 13.825. B. MGDPA or Data Practices Act: refers to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. 13.01, et seq. 634-2 Page 11 C. Records Retention Schedule: refers to the general records retention schedule for Minnesota Cities. D. Law Enforcement Related Information: means information captured or available for capture by use of BWC that has evidentiary value because it documents events with respect to a stop, arrest, search, citation or charging decision. E. Evidentiary Value: means that the information may be useful as proof in a criminal prosecution, related civil or administrative proceeding, further investigation of an actual or suspected criminal act, or in considering an allegation against a law enforcement agency or officer. F. General Citizen Contact: means an informal encounter with a citizen that is not and does not become law enforcement -related or adversarial, and a recording of the event would not yield information relevant to an ongoing investigation. Examples include, but are not limited to, assisting a motorist with directions, summoning a tow truck, or receiving generalized concerns from a citizen about crime trends in his or her neighborhood. G. Adversarial: means a law enforcement encounter with a person that becomes confrontational, during which at least one person expresses anger, resentment, or hostility toward the other, or at least one person directs toward the other verbal conduct consisting of arguing, threatening, challenging, swearing, yelling, or shouting. Encounters in which a citizen demands to be recorded or initiates recording on his or her own are deemed adversarial. H. Unintentional Recorded Footage: is a video recording that results from an officer's inadvertence or neglect in operating the officer's BWC, provided that no portion of the resulting recording has evidentiary value. Examples of unintentionally recorded footage include, but are not limited to, recordings made in police department locker rooms, restrooms, and recordings made while officers were engaged in conversations of a non -business, personal nature with the expectation that the conversation was not being recorded. I. Official Duties: for purposes of this policy, means that the officer is on duty and performing authorized law enforcement services on behalf of this agency. 634-3 Page 12 V. USE AND DOCUMENTATION: A. Officers will use only department -issued BWCs in the performance of official duties for this agency or when otherwise performing authorized law enforcement services as an employee of this department. B. Officers who have been issued BWCs shall operate and use them consistent with this policy. Officers shall conduct a function test of their issued BWCs at the beginning of each shift to make sure the devices are operating properly. Officers noting a malfunction during testing or at any other time shall promptly report the malfunction to the officer's supervisor and obtain a functioning device as soon as reasonably practical. C. Officers should wear their issued BWCs in an approved conspicuous location on their body. D. Officers must document BWC use and non-use as follows: 1. Whenever an officer makes a recording, the existence of the recording shall be documented. 2. If an event that is required to be recorded under this policy or captures only a part of the activity, the officer must document the circumstances and reasons for not recording in an incident report or CAD notes. Supervisors shall review these reports and initiate any corrective action deemed necessary. E. The department will maintain the following records and documents relating to BWC use, which are classified as public data: 1. The total number of BWCs owned or maintained by the agency. 2. A daily record of the total number of BWCs actually deployed and used by officers. 3. The total amount of recorded BWC data collected and maintained. 4. This policy, together with the Records Retention Schedule. 634-4 Page 13 VI. GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR RECORDING: A. Officers shall activate their BWCs when anticipating that they will be involved in, become involved in, or witness other officers of this agency involved in a pursuit, motor vehicle stops, Terry stop of a motorist or pedestrian, search, seizure, arrest, use of force, adversarial contact, and during other activities likely to yield information having evidentiary value. However, officers need not activate their cameras when it would be unsafe, impossible, or impractical to do so, but such instances of not recording when otherwise required must be documented as specified in the Use and Documentation guidelines, part (D)(2) (above). Any member assigned to a non -uniformed position may carry an approved BWC at any time the member believes the device may be useful. Unless conducting a lawful recording in an authorized undercover capacity. B. Officers have discretion to record or not record general citizen contacts. C. Officers have no affirmative duty to inform people that a BWC is being operated or that the individuals are being recorded. D. Once activated, the BWC should continue recording until the conclusion of the incident or encounter, or until it becomes apparent that additional recording is unlikely to capture information having evidentiary value. The officer having charge of a scene shall likewise direct the discontinuance of recording when further recording is unlikely to capture additional information having evidentiary value. If the recording is discontinued while an investigation, response, or incident is ongoing, officers shall state the reasons for ceasing the recording on camera before deactivating their BWC. If circumstances change, officers shall reactivate their cameras as required by this policy to capture information having evidentiary value. E. Officers shall not intentionally block the BWC's audio or visual recording functionality to defeat the purposes of this policy. F. Notwithstanding any other provision in this policy, officers shall not use their BWCs to record other agency personnel during non -enforcement related activities, such as during pre- and post -shift time in locker rooms, during meal breaks, or during other private conversations, unless recording is authorized as part of an administrative or criminal investigation. 634-5 Page 14 VII. SPECIAL GUIDELINES FOR RECORDING: Officers may, in the exercise of sound discretion, determine: A. To use their BWCs to record any police -citizen encounter if there is reason to believe the recording would potentially yield information having evidentiary value, unless such recording is otherwise expressly prohibited. B. To use their BWCs to take recorded statements from persons believed to be victims of and witnesses to crimes, and persons suspected of committing crimes, considering the needs of the investigation and the circumstances pertaining to the victim, witness, or suspect. In addition, C. Officers need not record persons being provided medical care unless there is reason to believe the recording would document information having evidentiary value. When responding to an apparent mental health crisis or event, BWCs shall be activated as necessary to document any use of force and the basis for it, and any other information having evidentiary value, but need not be activated when doing so would serve only to record symptoms or behaviors believed to be attributable to the mental health issue. D. Officers shall use their BWCs and squad -based audio/video systems to record their transportation and the physical transfer of persons in their custody to hospitals, detox and mental health care facilities, juvenile detention centers, and jails, but otherwise should not record in these facilities unless the officer anticipates witnessing a criminal event or being involved in or witnessing an adversarial encounter or use -of -force incident. VIII. DOWNLOADING AND LABELING DATA: A. Each officer using a BWC is responsible for transferring or assuring the proper transfer of the data from his or her camera to [specify data storage location] by the end of that officer's shift. However, if the officer is involved in a shooting, in -custody death, or other law enforcement activity resulting in death or great bodily harm, a supervisor or investigator shall take custody of the officer's BWC and assume responsibility for transferring the data from it. B. Officers shall label the BWC data files at the time of video capture or transfer to storage, and should consult with a supervisor if in doubt as to the appropriate labeling. Officers should assign as many of the following labels as are applicable to each file: 634-6 Page 15 1. Evidence—criminal: The information has evidentiary value with respect to an actual or suspected criminal incident or charging decision. 2. Evidence—force: Whether or not enforcement action was taken or an arrest resulted, the event involved the application of force by a law enforcement officer of this or another agency. 3. Evidence—property: Whether or not enforcement action was taken or an arrest resulted, an officer seized property from an individual or directed an individual to dispossess property. 4. Evidence—administrative: The incident involved an adversarial encounter or resulted in a complaint against the officer. 5. Evidence—other: The recording has potential evidentiary value for reasons identified by the officer at the time of labeling. 6. Training: The event was such that it may have value for training. 7. Not evidence: The recording does not contain any of the foregoing categories of information and has no apparent evidentiary value. Recordings of general citizen contacts and unintentionally recorded footage are not evidence. C. In addition, officers shall flag each file as appropriate to indicate that it contains information about data subjects who may have rights under the MGDPA limiting disclosure of information about them. These individuals include: Victims and alleged victims of criminal sexual conduct and sex trafficking. 2. Victims of child abuse or neglect. 3. Vulnerable adults who are victims of maltreatment. 4. Undercover officers. 5. Informants. 634-7 Page 16 6. When the video is clearly offensive to common sensitivities. 7. Victims of and witnesses to crimes, if the victim or witness has requested not to be identified publicly. 8. Individuals who called 911, and services subscribers whose lines were used to place a call to the 911 system. 9. Mandated reporters. 10. Juvenile witnesses, if the nature of the event or activity justifies protecting the identity of the witness. 11. Juveniles who are or may be delinquent or engaged in criminal acts. 12. Individuals who make complaints about violations with respect to the use of real property. 13. Officers and employees who are the subject of a complaint related to the events captured on video. 14. Other individuals whose identities the officer believes may be legally protected from public disclosure. D. Labeling and flagging designations may be corrected or amended based on additional information. IX. ADMINISTERING ACCESS TO BWC DATA: A. Data subjects. Under Minnesota law, the following are considered data subjects for purposes of administering access to BWC data: 1. Any person or entity whose image or voice is documented in the data. 2. The officer who collected the data. 3. Any other officer whose voice or image is documented in the data, regardless of whether that officer is or can be identified by the recording. 634-8 Page 17 B. BWC data is presumptively private. BWC recordings are classified as private data about the data subjects unless there is a specific law that provides differently. As a result: 1. BWC data pertaining to people is presumed private, as is BWC data pertaining to businesses or other entities. 2. Some BWC data is classified as confidential (see C. below). 3. Some BWC data is classified as public (see D. below). C. Confidential data. BWC data that is collected or created as part of an active criminal investigation is confidential. This classification takes precedence over the "private" classification listed above and the "public" classifications listed below. D. Public data. The following BWC data is public: 1. Data documenting the discharge of a firearm by a peace officer in the course of duty, other than for training or the killing of an animal that is sick, injured, or dangerous. 2. Data that documents the use of force by a peace officer that results in substantial bodily harm. 3. Data that a data subject requests to be made accessible to the public, subject to redaction. Data on any data subject (other than a peace officer) who has not consented to the public release must be redacted [if practicable]. In addition, any data on undercover officers must be redacted. 4. Data that documents the final disposition of a disciplinary action against a public employee. However, if another provision of the MGDPA classifies data as private or otherwise not public, the data retains that other classification. For instance, data that reveals protected identities under Minn. Stat. § 13.82, subd. 17 (e.g., certain victims, witnesses, and others) should not be released even if it would otherwise fit into one of the public categories listed above. E. Access to BWC data by non -employees. Officers shall refer members of the media or public seeking access to BWC data to [the responsible 634-9 Page 18 authority/data practices designee], who shall process the request in accordance with the MGDPA and other governing laws. In particular: 1. An individual shall be allowed to review recorded BWC data about him- or herself and other data subjects in the recording, but access shall not be granted: L If the data was collected or created as part of an active investigation. ii. To portions of the data that the agency would otherwise be prohibited by law from disclosing to the person seeking access, such as portions that would reveal identities protected by Minn. Stat. § 13.82, subd. 17. 2. Unless the data is part of an active investigation, an individual data subject shall be provided with a copy of the recording upon request, but subject to the following guidelines on redaction: L Data on other individuals in the recording who do not consent to the release must be redacted. ii. Data that would identify undercover officers must be redacted. iii. Data on other officers who are not undercover, and who are on duty and engaged in the performance of official duties, may not be redacted. F. Access by peace officers and law enforcement employees. No employee may have access to the department's BWC data except for legitimate law enforcement or data administration purposes: 1. Officers may access and view stored BWC video only when there is a business need for doing so, including the need to defend against an allegation of misconduct or substandard performance. Additionally, Officers may review video footage of a typical law enforcement incident in which they were involved prior to preparing a report, giving a statement, or providing testimony about the incident. The exception will be officer involved shootings or other critical incidents. Our department will abide by the investigative protocols established by the Minnesota BCA that officers will not typically be allowed to view BWC or squad camera footage prior to giving their statement. There may be isolated situations where this may be allowed. This decision will be made on a case by case basis. 634-10 Page 19 2. Agency personnel shall document their reasons for accessing stored BWC data at the time of each access. Agency personnel are prohibited from accessing BWC data for non -business reasons and from sharing the data for non -law enforcement related purposes, including but not limited to uploading BWC data recorded or maintained by this agency to public and social media websites. 3. Employees seeking access to BWC data for non -business reasons may make a request for it in the same manner as any member of the public. G. Other authorized disclosures of data. Officers may display portions of BWC footage to witnesses as necessary for purposes of investigation as allowed by Minn. Stat. § 13.82, subd. 15, as may be amended from time to time. Officers should generally limit these displays in order to protect against the incidental disclosure of individuals whose identities are not public. Protecting against incidental disclosure could involve, for instance, showing only a portion of the video, showing only screen shots, muting the audio, or playing the audio but not displaying video. In addition, BWC data may be shared with other law enforcement agencies only for legitimate law enforcement purposes that are documented in writing at the time of the disclosure. 2. BWC data shall be made available to prosecutors, courts, and other criminal justice entities as provided by law. X. DATA SECURITY SAFEGUARDS: A. Personally owned devices, including but not limited to computers and mobile devices, shall not be programmed or used to access or view agency BWC data. Officers shall not intentionally edit, alter, or erase any BWC recording. C. As required by Minn. Stat. § 13.825, subd. 9, as may be amended from time to time, this agency shall obtain an independent biennial audit of its BWC program. 634-11 Page 20 XI. AGENCY USE OF DATA: A. At least once a month, supervisors will randomly review BWC usage by each officer to ensure compliance with this policy. B. In addition, supervisors and other assigned personnel may access BWC data for the purposes of reviewing or investigating a specific incident that has given rise to a complaint or concern about officer misconduct or performance. C. Nothing in this policy limits or prohibits the use of BWC data as evidence of misconduct or as a basis for discipline. D. Officers should contact their supervisors to discuss retaining and using BWC footage for training purposes. Officer objections to preserving or using certain footage for training will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Field training officers may utilize BWC data with trainees for the purpose of providing coaching and feedback on the trainees' performance. XII. DATA RETENTION: A. All BWC data shall be retained for a minimum period of 90 days. There are no exceptions for erroneously recorded or non -evidentiary data. B. Data documenting the discharge of a firearm by a peace officer in the course of duty, other than for training or the killing of an animal that is sick, injured, or dangerous, must be maintained for a minimum period of one year. C. Certain kinds of BWC data must be retained for six years: 1. Data that documents the use of deadly force by a peace officer, or force of a sufficient type or degree to require a use of force report or supervisory review. 2. Data documenting circumstances that have given rise to a formal complaint against an officer. D. Other data having evidentiary value shall be retained for the period specified in the Records Retention Schedule. When a particular recording is subject to multiple retention periods, it shall be maintained for the longest applicable period. 634-12 Page 21 E. Subject to Part F (below), all other BWC footage that is classified as non -evidentiary, becomes classified as non -evidentiary, or is not maintained for training shall be destroyed after 90 days. F. Upon written request by a BWC data subject, the agency shall retain a recording pertaining to that subject for an additional time period requested by the subject of up to 180 days. The agency will notify the requestor at the time of the request that the data will then be destroyed unless a new written request is received. G. The department shall maintain an inventory of BWC recordings having evidentiary value. H. The department will post this policy, together with its Records Retention Schedule, on its website. XIII. COMPLIANCE: Supervisors shall monitor for compliance with this policy. The unauthorized access to or disclosure of BWC data may constitute misconduct and subject individuals to disciplinary action and criminal penalties pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 13.09. CONCLUSION: The use of this technology will add a higher level of transparency of the professional services provided by Plymouth Police Department. This device will also aid in the documentation of events to be used in an evidentiary manner. There needs to be an understanding that the camera view will not capture the entire incident or event, thus it cannot be construed that images are a complete representation of actions by officers and citizens. Michael S. Goldstein Public Safety Director 634-13 Page 22 rp)City of Plymouth Adding Quality to Life To: SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING Prepared by: June 27, 2017 Reviewed by: Agenda 2B Number: Mayor and Council Dave Callister, City Manager Item: Set Future Study Sessions Pending Study Session Topics (at least three Council members have approved the following study items on the list): • HOA turnover and stormwater drainage between plats Other Council requests for Study Session Topics: None at this time. Staff's requests for Study Sessions: • EDA —meeting with brokers Page 1 r�ity Plymouth Adding Quality to Life July 2017 Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 5:30 PM - 10:30 PM INDEPENDENCE Music in Plymouth DAY Hilde Performance Center CITY OFFICES CLOSED 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 7:00 PM NO REGULAR ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL MEETING QUALITY COMMITTEE (EQC) MEETING Medicine Lake Room 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 7:00 PM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers 26 27 28 29 5:30 PM SPECIAL COUNCIL 7:00 PM MEETING HOUSING AND Lodging Tax REDEVELOPMENT X3Y25 Medicine Lake Room AUTHORITY 7:00 PM REGULAR (HRA)MEETING COUNCIL MEETING Medicine Lake Room Council Chambers Page 2 r�ity Plymouth Adding Quality to Life August 2017 Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 7:00 PM 5:30 PM - 8:30 PM PLANNING Kids Fest COMMISSION Hilde MEETING Performance Center Council Chambers 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 7:00 PM 7:00 PM REGULAR COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL MEETING QUALITY Council Chambers COMMITTEE (EQC) MEETING Medicine Lake Room 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 6:00 PM 7:00 PM SPECIAL COUNCIL PLANNING MEETING COMMISSION Budget and CIP MEETING Medicine Lake Room Council Chambers 20 21 22 5:00 PM 23 24 25 26 SPECIAL COUNCIL 7:00 PM MEETING HOUSING AND Budget and CIP/Review REDEVELOPMENT Future Trail Projects Medicine Lake Room AUTHORITY (HRA) 7:00 PM MEETING REGULAR COUNCIL Medicine Lake Room MEETING Council Chambers 27 28 29 30 31 6:00 PM SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING Budget and CIP (if needed) Medicine Lake Room Page 3 r� City of Plymouth Adding Quality to Life September 2017 Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7:00 PM PLANNING LABOR DAY COMMISSION MEETING CITY OFFICES Council Chambers CLOSED 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 5:30 PM SPECIAL COUNCIL 7:00 PM 7:00 PM 4:00 PM - 8:00 PM MEETING ENVIRONMENTAL PARK Et REC ADVI- Best of the West Median/Beautification QUALITY SORY Local Business Projects COMMITTEE (EQC) COMMISSION Sampler Medicine Lake Room MEETING (PRAC) Hilde Performance 7:00 PM Medicine Lake Room MEETING Center REGULAR COUNCIL Park Maintenance MEETING Council Chambers 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 7:00 PM 10:30 AM - 3:00 PM PLANNING Plymouth on Parade COMMISSION Celebration MEETING City Center Area Council Chambers 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 5:30 PM SPECIAL COUNCIL 7:00 PM MEETING HOUSING AND Consider minimum age REDEVELOPMENT to purchase tobacco AUTHORITY (HRA) Medicine Lake Room MEETING 7:00 PM REGULAR COUNCIL Medicine Lake Room MEETING Council Chambers Page 4 r�ity Plymouth Adding Quality to Life October 2017 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6:30 PM 7:00 PM Volunteer PLANNING Recognition Event COMMISSION Plymouth Creek MEETING Center Council Chambers 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 7:00 PM 7:00 PM 7:00 PM REGULAR COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL PARK £t REC MEETING QUALITY ADVISORY Council Chambers COMMITTEE (EQC) COMMISSION MEETING (PRAC) MEETING Medicine Lake Room Plymouth Ice Center 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 7:00 PM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7:00 PM 7:00 PM REGULAR COUNCIL HOUSING AND MEETING REDEVELOPMENT Council Chambers AUTHORITY (HRA) MEETING Medicine Lake Room 29 30 31 26 27 28 29 6:00 PM - 8:30 PM Halloween at the Creek Plymouth Creek Center Page 5