Facial Recognition in Minnesota

Below are my comments which I have submitted to the LCC subcommitee on Data Practices for their hearing on Thursday, November 7, 2019.

I will not be able to attend the meeting of the LCC subcommittee on Data Practices, but I wish to make brief comments and direct members to information.

A number of years ago I read about new technology being used at the 2001 Superbowl in Tampa, Florida.  As thousands of fans entered the stadium, cameras with 'facial recognition' were being tested secretly.  News reports later told about it. Ever since I have been involved in following the technology and its implications.

The state of Minnesota is involved with facial recognition technology.  First, with digitization of millions of driver license photos with facial recognition standards.  Same is with the booking and arrest photos that the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension collects in the Minnesota Repository of Arrest Photos know as MRAP.  Both of these actions have happened within the last decade.

Comparison with photos (recognition purposes) has happened with these state databases in two significant ways. There has been an active use of the drivers license photo base in dealing with fraud (Minn statute 256.01 subdivision 18d and e) in the human services area.  MRAP has been used by law enforcement agencies in the past. I have done data requests with the Department of Public Safety on this topic which has given me information about their programs.

The MRAP program has increasingly over the years NOT been used for the purpose of comparing photos with facial recognition.  In conversations with officials I've been told they are looking at new software.

Tony Webster did a data request to Hennepin County Sheriff covering biometrics and the use of it which facial recognition is a part of.  What Mr. Webster discovered was that Hennepin County Sheriff Rich Stanek was in midst of researching and implementing facial recognition without policymakers and public knowledge.  Mr. Webster did a story on this: "Hennepin County Sheriff circumvents state to expand facial recognition database"   Link: https://tonywebster.com/2016/06/hennepin-sheriff-facial-recognition/

Local media also reported on this issue brought to attention by Mr. Webster's piece.

Facial recognition technology challenges First and Fourth Amendment principles to their core.  Nothing new as Minnesota policymakers have discovered with avalanche of new technology such as Stingray, license plate readers, for example.  There are no restrictions or regulations in Minnesota with use and deployment of this particular technology.   A recent paper entitled,  "Facial Recognition and the Fourth Amendment" by Andrew Guthrie Ferguson gives some insight on implications of this new technology. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3473423

Racial bias in use of facial recognition is being discussed across the country by policymakers, law enforcement, and the public.  In the City of Detroit debate is happening per the New York Times - "As cameras track Detroit's residents, debate ensues over racial bias https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/08/us/detroit-facial-recognition-cameras.html 

The Center on Privacy and Technology at Georgetown University (Washington DC) has done research on facial recognition.  It focused on states use of facial recognition and extensive research on the topic in their study - "The Perpetual Line-Up: Unregulated Police Recognition in America"  You find attached to this email the report and profile of Minnesota.  The report is long, but has recommendations for legislatures and Congress.  This is the link to those recommendations: https://www.perpetuallineup.org/recommendations

The Center recently released two additional reports:

- Garbage In, Garbage Out: Face Recognition on Flawed Data  https://www.law.georgetown.edu/privacy-technology-center/publications/garbage-in-garbage-out-face-recognition-on-flawed-data/

- America Under Watch: Face Surveillance in the United States https://www.law.georgetown.edu/privacy-technology-center/publications/garbage-in-garbage-out-face-recognition-on-flawed-data/

The United States House of Representatives had a hearing on facial recognition this past summer.   One of the pieces of research done was by the General Accounting Office in a report entitled: "Face Recognition Technology"  The report deals with the federal government initiative of having a a connected database of photos among the states that can be used for facial recognition.  A number of states have agreed to this with the federal government, some have banned used of drivers license photos, other states have current laws restricting use of of drivers license photos.  The report is attached.

This is the first time that a body of the Minnesota Legislature is taking up the topic of facial recognition on it's own without being intertwined with other initiatives.  Today's meeting is not to be one of reaching what the law to be, but the beginning of discussion with the public as to what the law should be.

It takes time and examination to answer the serious questions this new technology challenges us with.

I wish to thank Clare Garvie (Center on Privacy and Technology at Georgetown University) and Freddy Martinez (Open the Government) for providing information that was used in this comment.

Feel free to contact me for any questions or want more information.

Rich Neumeister

Attachments which I sent to the subcommittee are below.

Perpetual Line-Up: Unregulated Police Face Recognition in America

https://www.perpetuallineup.org/sites/default/files/2016-12/The%20Perpetual%20Line-Up%20-%20Center%20on%20Privacy%20and%20Technology%20at%20Georgetown%20Law%20-%20121616.pdf

Minnesota profile on Facial Recognition

https://www.perpetuallineup.org/jurisdiction/minnesota

GAO Report-Face Recognition Technology

https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/699489.pdf

Body cameras, attitude, legislature, and what's next

It has been a long time since I last wrote on these pages.  One huge reason why was my experience this past legislative session on the issue of body cameras.  I have said to many it was the most bitterest experience I had at the Minnesota Legislature in being there for four decades.  As many of you know I do not get paid for the work I do at the People's House.  It was time to reflect and assess, which I have done.  Like a "firebird" I have raised myself from the ashes of the past legislative session.  I will still be involved in the process, but with a different focus and effort

What have I been up to.  Here is a sample.  Communication I sent to interested parties today:

Next Monday, August 15, 2016, Public Record Media will be holding a free workshop for the public at the Duluth Public Library, 520 West Superior St.  From: 6:30pm to 8:00pm

This email is a follow up with more detail in which you may have an interest in to share with others or use in an announcement on Facebook or other type of media.

This will be our third year coming to Duluth.  The response from the residents of the Duluth community has been unbelievable. We have had continued interest from the community with communication from them with questions about freedom of information laws and how to use it since our first time in the Zenith City, in 2014.

This year we are a taking a different approach to our program, not necessarily a broad program explaining what freedom of information is.  But focusing on specific elements of the law with two presenters.

JT Haines, Duluth attorney, who has worked with Public Records Media as counsel in past.  He will explain important points about the use of the law to get access to public data.  He has focused as part of his past duties on proposed mining operations in northern Minnesota, such as Twin Metals and NorthMet projects.  He will share his experiences

The other presenter will be Rich Neumeister, an advocate for open government and an avid requester of public records.  The presentation by Mr. Neumeister will focus on the new body camera law which was passed by the Minnesota Legislature.  The law took effect on August 1, 2016.  Many people believe that the use of body cameras will bring transparency and accountability to the public on the use of police powers.  On the other hand, there are umpteen people who believe that the law is so geared towards law enforcement that there is in reality no clarity or onus.  Are they tools of surveillance and investigation............or a gadget to monitor how police do their duties?

Another topic covered in the program will be about the concept of inspection when one goes to the government agency to see and review the data individuals have requested.  In Minnesota law, it is very clear that people have a right to inspect data about their government or data that government has on them.  But in recent years, various agencies and entities are putting roadblocks for the public to get access to government data. 

Governor Dayton, veto the body camera bill

Less than several weeks after the determination that Jamar Clark's death (shooting by Minneapolis officer) was justifiable by Hennepin County Attorney Freeman, the Minnesota Legislature will be passing a bill that will nearly make all body camera footage unavailable to the public without going through indomitable barriers and court.

The Conference Committee which reached agreement is being lauded by Senator Latz and Representative Cornish as a balanced bill for transparency, accountability, and as a vehicle of building public trust.  What was not mentioned is the impediments that the individuals including the subjects and public will have in getting access to the footage. Also not cited are the added protections it yields to officers who may be under inquiry, likewise the secrecy of officers bad behavior which the public will never know about or see.

The calls for greater accountability and transparency. nationally and locally with the use of body cameras, is being hacked to zero by the SF 498 Conference Committee report. (agreed upon bill)

Language in the bill allows an officer to review footage which can be evidence before they do a report or make a statement.  A practice that community groups and organizations from NAACP to American Civil Liberties Union oppose.  Made-to-measure statements done by officers is the fear that critics have of this provision. Tainting the evidence.  Officers under investigation for wrong doing would be able to review their own evidence (body camera footage) before the investigators could question them in a formal report or statement setting.

The City of Minneapolis are endowing hundreds of body cameras to their officers to build trust, accountability, and transparency.  This action can show that there is nothing to hide as their officers do their duties on the public streets and be answerable.  But this is for nought. 

The body camera footage is the document, the 21st Century document, the public should be able to have access to the video in situations such as arrest and general use of force situations.  To control body camera video with barricades of judgment and construing such words as what is "substantial bodily harm" or "common sensibilities" means the body cam footage is secret and defeats the purpose of the cameras.

There are parts of the legislation that allows for narrow public access but it is blocked with mechanisms of interpretation by the same agency that the public may have interest in to see if they are doing their job.  Why it is important for clear and unfettered access for the public in specific bearings, such as officer shootings and demonstrable use of force.

The deployment and use of body cameras and what the governing rules should be are knotty and arduous.  But what the Legislature will be passing is not what it should be. Without significant input from grassroots organizations, and the greased passage of bill by the Minnesota House in last 10 days ending with the Conference Committee report yesterday, the bill is the one that law enforcement wants and is chuckling behind the scenes saying......we have fooled the public on this one!

Even so, under current law police departments such as Duluth and Burnsville, as example, have implemented body camera programs and have made accountability and transparency a preference with protecting people's privacy.  Minneapolis is set on doing body cameras whether or not the law changed.  Instead, of rushing through this drastic and exorbitant legislative proposal, the Legislature may want to hold back, but I do not see that happening.

So, who does the responsibility sit upon, the Governor.  Governor Dayton can either sign or veto the body camera bill.  I urge him to veto the bill and the public should also. 

As I said in a previous post:

"The legislation on body cameras this session should die.  Efforts should be put in motion immediately to draft a change to law for the 2017 session. That legislation should deal with the actual issues in a candid, pithy, and unclosed approach."

Governor Dayton can take the lead in doing this by having a task force appointed with various groups and interests represented in a fair and open matter.  With this action the Governor ensures that Minnesotan's will realize what the use of body cameras will do and the power of this new technology and what robust safeguards are needed.  Senate File 498 is not it, the legislation makes law enforcement who have considerable power over the lives of Minnesotan's the least accountable to the public with this new tool.

NOTE:

These are all the posts I have done on body cameras sorted by date.

http://opensecretsmn.blogspot.com/search?q=body+cameras&max-results=20&by-date=true

Minnesota law enforcement neuters police oversight and accountability

Minnesota law enforcement ambitious attempts to improve community trust, transparency, and accountability with use of body cameras took a turn for the worse, with law enforcement agencies and interests themselves lobbying legislators to turn the bill to make it hard to trust, less transparent, and no accountability to and for the public. (say one thing do another)

This week the Senate passed their body camera bill passed the body.  In the House, there is a scheduled hearing for the House version which is similar. 

Lobbyists and lawyers from the Minnesota Police Chiefs Association, League of Minnesota Cities, Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association, along with others from similar interests have been putting on great pressure to pass their "owned" bill on the issues that really matter. (Some funded directly or indirectly by taxpayer dollars)  The legislation allows for secrecy of documented police behavior on public streets when they are on duty.  Sets up barriers for subjects and the general public to gain access to body camera videos.  Even the limited footage allowed to the general public allows agencies with broad discretionary power not to release. No specific consent or notice to film you and your abode when agents of government come into your home in non-emergency situations with digitally enhanced cameras, among some of the goodies law enforcement interests got.

As top cop lobbyist, Dennis Flaherty states in public testimony last year before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the use of body cameras is a "new paradigm" which can make officers "more accountable and transparent to the public we serve." but in the same testimony he states "making data public really serves no public purpose."  

Appears that Minnesota Police Chiefs Association are on the same side with the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association.....promise transparency and accountability with use of body cameras, but then undercut with doing action and talking out of both sides of their mouths.

Nothing new.  Have seen it many times.  Are legislators really going to buy into these efforts by the special interests of law enforcement without knowing the full ramifications and consequences of these unique bills?

This is the first attempt in 35 years to mass a major shift of police information that have been public to become secret at the Minnesota Legislature with hardly any policymakers asking the tough questions. I asked Rep. Cornish when bill was introduced last year about if he would be open to changes.  The die was already cast with  him telling me whatever the cops want that is what it will be.

I was hoping for changing the culture of how law enforcement works in Minnesota with greater oversight, community trust, accountability. and transparency with body cameras.  It basically is going to be used as an investigative and surveillance tool.

It is important that any body camera law not be used to shield a policeman's nightstick, gun, or power to be used in secret without accountability and transparency.  The body camera issue is complex and the legislation needs to be looked at in detail.  This has not happened.

When the police enter your home with bodycams

Most of us in Minnesota have come to realize, our home, abode, 'our place' is the "very core" of the Fourth Amendment for the protection of our privacy.  It's where an individuals expectation of privacy is at its highest.

But this is being challenged by new technologies, such as the body camera.  The body camera which is digitally enhanced, possibly high definition, with the ability of what is captured to be magnified, zoomed, looked at and reviewed over and over again.  The body camera systems also have other enhanced features such as facial recognition and LIVE-stream. The video is grabbed and stored by government, in this case, law enforcement.

Body cameras have the ability to diminish the domain of your guaranteed privacy without your consent, knowledge, or wherewith all.  Sizes of body cameras range from the size of a fist to a large button, and technology is even making them smaller with wider angles.

Law enforcement is of the view you consent to have them come into your home, whatever appendages like a body camera they have on whether you notice it or not they can record.

Should law enforcement officers need your specific consent when they knock on your door in non-emergency situations, to record you and the inside your home?  My answer is yes.

A POLICE OFFICER CANNOT ENTER YOUR HOME WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT, UNLESS there is legal warrant or exigent circumstances exist. The law is clear that (1) they must have consent and (2) they must seek at the time they are seeking entry. There is no guessing about what or when. Should officers be able to record and tape in your home without your permission, when they are there for non-emergency services and you give them acceptance to come in your home? My answer is no. Specific consent should be needed.

If one invites an officer in your home in a non-emergency call for service, law enforcement does not want the duty to ask your specific permission to videotape.  That is the issue.  If they must request CONSENT to enter, why are the Police Chief's and other law enforcement interests so opposed to getting CONSENT to create potentially a permanent record of your place of sanctuary????

With the ease of body cameras of their size and where they can be placed and even without your knowledge, in non-emergency situations, when in your home the device is filming as a continuous "search"  (protected by the Fourth Amendment) of anyone or anything that hits it's lenses. The sensitive ears on these devices also pick up the words.

Again this is non-emergency calls such as about dogs barking, cars parked too long on the street, noisy neighbors, writing reports and taking statements which is the great majority of service calls to a home. The police are not calling on you to see if you are drug dealer, or do money laundering, or suspect in a crime.

If two officers come to your home without a warrant or not in exigent circumstances with body cameras rolling continuously their "search" is not limited to the circumstances of what brings them there.

When officers are invited in the home, they do like most of us when one visits someone's house, discovers things visually.  Such as the book that is on the end table or the weird piece of furniture one may have. And one may remember it.

But Minnesotans don't expect law enforcement officers to look at their letter on one's desk, glimpse long into the various rooms that they may pass............But this is what body cameras literally do.

A quick glance in the living room or the bedroom on the way to the kitchen may not inform much with the human eye.  But the digitally enhanced, body camera, possibly high definition, with the ability of what is captured to be magnified, zoomed, looked at and reviewed over and over again can.

This is the nub of the question.  Should government be able to come into your home with a body cam on a non-emergency situation and videotape your words and whatever it sees which far exceeds the rationale for law enforcement being there in the first place without your specific consent to record. Can they do with a body camera running the very thing a warrant protects against - record forever the exact details of your place of abode.  It is technical slight-of-hand to capture evidence.

With body cameras there is intrusion in our homes that is different and unforeseen.  Granted these tools can be used to help law enforcement.  But should they be used in non-emergency situation in our homes without specific consent to record, without a warrant, and not in exigent circumstances.

Law enforcement takes the position that all videotapes will be all private that are filmed in the home, therefore we do not need to get consent or even a strong notification which can enhance an individuals choice.  I disagree with the premise just because the body cam videos are private one does not need consent specific to record in the home.

We live in the 21st Century.  The Fourth Amendment to have real meaning with new technologies such as body cams which is an investigative and surveillance tool needs application of its true context and spirit

 "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly ...

Law enforcement has made it clear in the body camera debate at the Legislature, their position, is that you have NO expectation of privacy IN YOUR OWN HOME. When you invite an officer in your home in a non-emergency situation if you do not know or not notice (remember the size range from large button to fist size of body cameras) or do notice...bye-bye to your Fourth Amendment right to specifically consent to be recorded.

A body camera captures more nuts and bolts (views and hears) than a human eye and ear.  Captured to the cloud or server the body camera footage which the government has can be used and reviewed over and over again.

The home has had a deep and protracted appreciation of "special protection as the center of the private lives of our people."  The Legislature should affirm and acknowledge this and require consent specific to body camera filming in non-emergency situations. Let the Fourth Amendment be realized with this new tech tool, the body camera, draw a firm line at the entrance to the home if there is no warrant or exigent circumstances, consent should be clear cut to record the intimate specifics of an individual and contents of their home.

It is the ordinary citizen who will be fooled by the officer’s friendly demeanor and failure to notify or to request consent to filming. Those in the know, such as lawyers, will condition their consent to an entry on such things as turning the body cam video off, staying in one room, and leaving upon demand. All legal restrictions that most Minnesotans will not think of.


.Updated May 5, 2016

Senator Latz, tell the whole story

There is no question the issue of body cameras is an intricate and complex one.  Secondly, as someone who has been at the Legislature lobbying for four decades I am very much aware of behavior of this institution and the elected officials who make it their workplace.

When there is a convoluted issue which SF 498 presents to policymakers, for many they may chose to ignore the bill or take partial interest, but for sure they rely on a Senator or two to understand and to explain the bill.  With body cameras, work has been done on this issue by Senator Ron Latz. 

A Chief Author of a bill in my judgement there is a special responsibility to be clear and concise what their bill 'truly does'.  In the case of SF 498, Senator Latz did not do this.

As someone who has been involved in the body camera issue since the fall of 2014 I am very much aware by current law a fair amount of video from body cameras are not available to the public and will never be.

As a leader of the effort, Senator Latz on the floor yesterday was not as candid as he could have been. One of the first statement's, the Senator said, "All of the data collected by the devices is public, anyone can access the footage"  This is not true.

Under current law, video dealing with sexual assault, child abuse, vulnerable adults are among other classifications that video would never be released to the general public.  Secondly, law enforcement has vast discretionary authority to not release the data in many situation and be available to the public. This is a guide issued by the Department of Administration which states the current law.  Matter of fact the City of Burnsville have had body cameras for six years, Duluth has had them for two years, both under current

Senator Latz throughout his advocacy of the bill has used the argument "all data" will become public if the Legislature does not act.  I confronted him about his statements off the floor last year and stated it was misleading. In public testimony it was clearly stated by representatives of Minnesota Coalition on Government Information that current law makes private many of the situations used and described as examples. He continued to even ignore that.

Again, when he stated it yesterday "All of the data collected by the devices is public," I was stunned.

The Senator is entitled to do what ever he wants to do, but when the person is not forthright on a dominant rationale for the bill, sunshine needs to be brought to it.

I disagree with the Senator that the bill is balanced.  And discussion can be done on it's merits, but do not obfuscate and instill fear with not being accurate and on the level.

However, it's still a secret police bill (body cameras)

When I read the Latz/Cornish (SF498/HF430) body camera legislation for the first time, two points came to mind, it was written by police interests for the police and it was barren of any accountability/transparency mechanisms for the public.  In other words, a secret police bill.

I called it a terrible piece of legislation to both legislators when I saw them to discuss their proposal.  One legislator was very direct to me whatever the cops want that is what it will be.  To the Senator I said it was important for three things for the bill: (1) ability for people to know when they are being filmed, and using a mechanism such as consent or a strong notice provision (particularly when in home);  (2) videos from body cameras filmed in public should remain public with current privacy protections in law;  and (3) to address the fast paced technology of body cameras such as facial recognition, live stream, and the video becoming the "document of record."

There were some revisions on the Senate side, but still tilts towards secrecy.  Currently, the Senate bill does not allow the public general access to any body camera video other than when a dangerous weapon is used, or use of physical coercion that causes substantial bodily harm, and it's in a public place.  In other words, almost all body camera video will never be accessible to the public.

Nevertheless, even with modifications the bill is still dangerous.  The main problem it had, it still has. It maintains to deserve the tag what I said in the first paragraph, it's a secret police bill.

The legislation places overwhelming power with law enforcement agencies.  It allows them to interpret language and be discretionary which makes it hard for the public to get access to body camera videos even in what the current Senate bill proposes.  Even places barriers for the subject of the video to get access.  The bill gives the impression that there is transparency to make police accountable with use of body cameras, but it provides little.

The bill sets out guidelines for the benefit of the law enforcement agency, not for the purpose of why body cameras are being adopted in the first place:.  As Mayor Hodges so clearly stated about body cameras they "bring increased accountability and transparency for both the police officers and for the public."  The bill builds it's wall to help the police agency, but not necessarily the public.

The proposal is is below par and awkwardly written.  It is confounding and and allows interpretations from the agency view to make it defective even for the limited release of body camera videos which the bill proposes  It suppresses access to public data.

The bill clearly states, for example, the video would be released to the public if there was physical coercion when there is substantial bodily harm and if in public, but at the same time an agency could say it does not meet their definition of what "substantial bodily harm" is therefore the video is not released.  So where does that leave the public and the promise of transparency and accountability.

The law enforcement agency can do almost whatever it wants to do with the body camera video collected and stored.

For example, when an officer enters your home with a body camera it collects and gathers a great amount of "government data".  What magazines you read which are on your table, the way you live, the food you may eat which is on the kitchen counter, are among the details it captures.  The role of the body camera is to file and save for another time.  Not to rely on the human eye and memory, but to rewind and enhance the digital film to really see what is going on in your home.  All done without your specific consent to film or possible knowledge of the camera.

An officer told me off-the record how law enforcement agencies are looking forward to the treasure trove of videos they will get for intelligence purposes and parallel investigations.

There is no requirement in the bill for a specific consent provision or notification for body cameras filming in your home when there is not a warrant or emergency situation.

In another section of the Senate bill, it provides that body camera video in an inactive criminal investigation are to be private.  In other words, for example, video that documents arrests, incidents that involve use of hold restraints and use of Tasers, even evidence used such as statements by witnesses will not be available to the public.  It appears also body camera video used in evidence in court where there is a conviction would not be available to the public.

The likely and probable abuse of police power hidden from the public is real.  And daunting.

A recent KARE 11 report highlights what law enforcement officers can do and if it was on body camera video the public or news media would never know with the Senate bill or Cornish's.  Two officers found an individual in a car appeared to be under the influence.  They found out he was a cop.  Rather than cite or arrest him he got the treatment of “Professional Courtesy.”  An attitude given to other officers who find themselves in precarious situations as this officer was.  Per the KARE 11 report:  "He was not taken into custody.  No mugshots were taken.  His car was not towed.  Instead, the Blaine officers helped him arrange a ride home."

The "average Joe" would not get this kind of treatment, but maybe the Mayor, a police chief, local politician may, but we would never know if body cam videos are private and secret.

The bills will close down the ability for the public to oversee if law enforcement are doing their duties in a professional and constitutional manner.  If the public was interested to see if a law enforcement agency or it officers has or is doing racially biased policing (such as the Metro Gang Strike Force) you are out of luck.  No public access.

It precludes and bars access to most of the body camera video that documents the most routine of police actions such as arrest, stop and frisk, searches, and stopping of motor vehicles.  One would not be able to see if the pursuit was justified or if the use of force was necessary based on the resistance by an individual.  No public access.

Basically, all video in the public venue such as an arrest would be private and not available to the public.  How police operate on behalf of the public with the power they have should be able to be scrutinized for accountability.  The Latz/Cornish bills do not allow that.

The Senate bill strengthens law enforcement officials to refuse copies of the video even to those who have a right to it: the subjects.  Because of confused draw up of the bill a subject of the video could be denied a full documented copy of the video because of other subjects right to consent before release.  If no consent from other subjects, that part of the video is redacted, even the police officer who actions are part of the video tape, it appears if there is no consent.

The Latz/Cornish bills are skewed towards law enforcement interests not the public interest.  The bill seems to say government of law enforcement, by law enforcement, and for law enforcement.  The bill makes the public and media go through hoops and court to get the most basic of video to oversee agencies that have great power to arrest, detain, and compromise individual liberties and rights.

As top cop lobbyist, Dennis Flaherty states in public testimony last year before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the use of body cameras is a "new paradigm" which can make officers "more accountable and transparent to the public we serve." but in the same testimony he states "making data public really serves no public purpose." 

Law enforcement need privacy for delicate matters.  There is no question in that.  Current law recognizes that with a number of classifications already for victims and other situations.  The law allows law enforcement a fair amount of discretion already.

But the Latz/Cornish bill is not the approach and policy to take.  It is not an appropriate start for legislation on an issue as complex and intricate on the use of body cameras by Minnesota law enforcement.  And which has a profound impact on our rights of liberty and privacy.  The elemental philosophy underlying the bill is perilous and alarming.  And with three weeks left in session, the legislation cannot be fixed.

The legislation on body cameras this session should die.  Efforts should be put in motion immediately to draft a change to law for the 2017 session. That legislation should deal with the actual issues in a candid, pithy, and unclosed approach.

The data that law enforcement agencies are concerned about can and will be protected under current law til January. As evident by the City of Burnsville who have had body cameras for nearly six years.  Secondly, with recent guidance on body cameras by the Information Policy Analysis Division in regards to the Data Practices Act law enforcement have a lot of tools in their toolkit to keep data from public and the media if they so desire.

What's Minneapolis position on the body cam bills at Legislature?

Minneapolis is a key player with their influence at the Legislature.  Where they stand on the various bills going through the Legislature - for strong transparency and accountability for the public or very limited transparency and accountability for the public.  Are the elected officials speaking or the law enforcement officials of Minneapolis?

I sent this email to City Council members.  I was only able to find four email addresses out of the 13 Council members.

"My name is Rich Neumeister.  I 've been in the forefront of many privacy and open government issues for nearly 4 decades at the Minnesota Legislature.  I am a citizen who lobbies for no money.  My public record what I have done speaks for itself.

I want to encourage you to take interest on what is happening at the Legislature on the issue of body cameras. Being the state's largest City you will have the most body cameras appendaged to officers gathering "government data" (videos).  Many policymakers in your City have stated that you are interested to develop trust with communities in Minneapolis with the police department in using the powerful tool of body cameras.

Even Mayor Hodges stated: "I am proud to support body cameras for all officers: they are an essential tool for holding officers accountable for their behavior, making corrections when necessary, and building community trust, for police officers have the potential to increase public trust in law enforcement, reduce the risk that citizens will not be victims of excessive force and protect officers from unfounded accusations of abuse."

But these goals - which the Mayor has announced and which many in law enforcement and in the political arena support  - are being squelched by special interests or even by the same parties who say they support "transparency and accountability" at the Minnesota Legislature.

There are three bills on the issue that 3 legislators Rep. Scott, Rep. Cornish, and Senator Latz are involved with. Good article in the Pioneer Press today, on those bills and related issues. http://www.twincities.com/2016/03/04/why-cant-these-3-police-body-camera-bills-find-any-common-ground/

So what is Minneapolis's position on these bills?  Specifics?  The Latz/Cornish bills downgrade accountability and transparency.  As top cop lobbyist, Mr. Flaherty states in public testimony last year before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the use of body cameras is a "new paradigm" which can make officers "more accountable and transparent to the public we serve." but in the same testimony he states "making data public really serves no public purpose."  He and his organization, Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association, support the Latz/Cornish versions of the body camera bill with very little transparency which then allows "hollow" public accountability.  The Minnesota Police Chiefs Association is basically of same persuasion.

I encourage you as policymakers to speak out on what the City's position through your lobbyists on this important issue.

It is my intent to make sure that if body cameras are to be used by Minnesota law enforcement, they are not a front for accountability which would create more distrust, and continue the legacy of decades of "tension and hostility" in the communities where law enforcement officers serve.  I hearten you to do the same. There are grievances because of abrasive/abusive practices and behavior, "further aggravated by the lack of effective mechanism" to deal with complaints against law enforcement.  Body cameras are being proposed to be an effective mechanism for oversight.

But oversight will be hollow and vacant if the laws that regulate the power of this law enforcement tool do not provide real transparency.

I also support a consent provision which allows people to say no in being filmed in their home, which is the very core of the Fourth Amendments protections in non-emergency situations

Any questions, contact me."

Rich Neumeister

"People" need to show at Legislature on body cameras

Being a member of the public influencing legislation at Minnesota Legislature, one truism stands out:  LAWS ARE MADE BY THOSE WHO SHOW UP!

When it comes to body camera use by Minnesota law enforcement, it's judicious to have agile and sharp legislation in how the cameras and the recording are used.  Questions of many for ourselves to ask can be ones like these:  Can I say no to an officer filming me in the privacy of my home?  Can the public review the the tapes to see if their is a pattern of racial bias and profiling?  Who gets to see the videos and under what situations?  How will they achieve accountability/transparency or is it just another cop tool to be used against the public in secret?

Over the past year since legislation has been introduced on body cameras, SF 498 (Senator Ron Latz) and the companion bill HF 430  (Representative Cornish) there's been several public legislative hearings on the bills.  All were in the Senate.  The House decided not to hold a hearing on HF 430.

Who appeared at the hearings to testify on the body camera bills were the Minnesota Chiefs Police Association, Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association, Minnesota Newspaper Association, Minnesota Coalition on Government Information and the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota.  There were other interested parties on the edges such as the League of Minnesota Cities and the Minnesota Sheriffs Association.

These are all established and traditional groups with salaried lobbyists except for one.  Several are pushing for secrecy, less access to the public to body camera videos, and body cameras to be used as a surveillance and investigative tool.  Others are pushing the use of these tools for accountability and transparency.  Some are mixed.  But my point being is that there is really no grassroots community organizations "at the table" who represent people in a unique way "in the community." sharing their viewpoint on body cameras last session.

There is quite a difference of opinion between a representative of  law enforcement who compares a can of mace and a body camera as being the same (law enforcement tool) and lobbies for secrecy of  body camera videos, with the person or community who sees police behavior that is abrasive and abusive or sees and experiences racial bias and profiling.

If the general public and communities viewpoints are not heard, are they being represented by the groups above, maybe yes, maybe no.  But my educated guess on the whole they are not.....

Going back to my first point, "LAWS ARE MADE BY THOSE WHO SHOW UP"

Who shows up to the hearings to testify and to meet the policymakers to share viewpoints determines what the law will be.

So what can you, community/grassroots groups,  and individuals, do in the near future.

(1) Attend the first of many legislative committee hearings on the body camera issue.  Testify yourself or have your group do it. The first one hearing (TENTATIVELY scheduled) will be on Wednesday, December 16, 2015 in Room 200 of the State Office Building.  Tentatively for the morning. To confirm the date and time contact Senator Latz's office at 651-296-8065, or Representative Cornish's office at 296-4240.  The hearing has not been listed, but one can go to this link to find out, formally when it is.  http://www.senate.mn/schedule/schedule.php?ls=&type=upcoming&date=12/03/2015  Change of plans do happen.  Plans are for a joint committee hearing of two House Committees (Public Safety and Civil) and Senate Judiciary.

(2) Bone up on the topic of body cameras.  To help understand what is happening in Minnesota on issues of body cameras, a good start would be to the The Legislative Commission on Data Practices and Personal Data Privacy. The Commission decided to have an opportunity for parties to make comment and who provided material.  The material and the audio of the meeting are here: http://www.lcc.leg.mn/lcdp/meetings.html  (December 1, 2015 meeting).

(3) Follow through on the issue of body cameras when the Legislature convenes in March, but most important start meeting with policymakers and like minded individuals/groups to help shape the legislation.

There are parties demanding the release of any video of Jamar Clark's shooting death be public. If such a tragedy happened like that again or other kinds of abusive and abrasive behavior by law enforcement, in the future, there could be law saying the body camera video is secret to the public.

Other bad behavior by officers also would be under wraps by the legislation without the public having the opportunity to see.

A quote from Justice Arthur Goldberg states: "If law is not made more than a policeman's nightstick, American society will be destroyed."

It is important that any body camera law not be used to shield a policeman's nightstick, gun, or power to be used in secret without accountability and transparency.  The body camera issue is complex and the legislation needs to be looked at in detail.

I have written several posts on body camera issues and concerns.  These are linked here :

http://opensecretsmn.blogspot.com/search?q=body+cameras

The promise of body cameras?

There is a history of a dual standard of law enforcement using abrasive/abusive police practices in our country and communities.  There has been report after report detailing the long history of police prejudice and bad behavior.  Social research in the field has substantiated this behavior for decades.  So what are law makers doing about it?

Out of the blue has come an idea which is advancing across the country:  body cameras.

The idea is being pushed by law enforcement as a concept to bring accountability.  But they also want to use it primarily as an investigative tool.

Many of the proponents echo what Mayor Hodges has stated in her public comments.  Hodges has said: "I am proud to support body cameras for all officers: they are an essential tool for holding officers accountable for their behavior, making corrections when necessary, and building community trust, for police officers have the potential to increase public trust in law enforcement, reduce the risk that citizens will not be victims of excessive force and protect officers from unfounded accusations of abuse."

The mayor also stated that body cameras: "bring increased accountability and transparency for both the police officers and for the public."

But these goals - which the Mayor has announced and which many in law enforcement and in the political arena support  - are being squelched by special interests or even by the same parties who say they support "transparency and accountability" at the Minnesota Legislature.The Senate proposal - which made its way to the floor as an amendment to the license plate reader bill and passed the Senate - is one which in broad terms does not allow public access to  body camera videos.  The legislation takes the current presumption of public access to police body came video and turns it upside down.  One criticism of the approach that the Minnesota Senate took is that there was not a collegial group discussion in the committee process about what privacy protections are already in current law.

Senate File 498 (the Senate body cam bill), says that data are not available to the public except in very limited situations.  I take the position that in some cases the data will be secret.  Privacy in some scenarios is another word for secrecy.  Videos collected by police would not be available to the public except in very limited situations.  For example, take the recent incident of Jamar Clark's shooting.  The standard in the current bill is if the incident involved a dangerous weapon, which was the case, and took place in a public place, which it did, the data would be public......but if the incident happened in a house, it would not be available to the public.

If body cameras are to be a tool to persuade the public that law enforcement can be trusted, accountable, and transparent, the Senate approach is the inappropriate way. To make sure that law enforcement officers and police administrators are doing their job appropriately,  public data is needed.  Proponents of the Senate bill say one just has to get consent of the individual to get access to the video.  Many people are not going to give consent for a number of reasons.  The court process laid out to gain access in the bill is just as high as the "blue wall" which many in the public perceive and believe there is.

There is power with the use of the body camera,.  Who has that power - the guidelines and rules - is what the legislation is all about.

Many actions of law enforcement would be secret under the Senate proposal.  For example, arrests, use of force, detainment, stop and frisk, and testimony.  In those cases, body cameras would become worthless tools for public accountability.

When the Duluth Police Department released body camera video of how a law enforcement officer saved an individual from suicide, I had this thought :if the Senate bill was law, there would be many videos released showing officers doing their duties well, but many others would be kept in the dark, when an officer's duties fall short.

There are issues to consider about public disclosure of body camera videos, but it is important to take the current law in consideration.  Many private situations are already addressed.  Specific concerns can be addressed, but the Senate bill did not take the made-to-measure approach. This is one significant reason among several why it is opposed by several organizations and advocates for transparency/accountability such as the The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, the Minnesota Coalition on Government Information, and the Minnesota Newspaper Association.

The Minnesota House did not move on a bill this past session.

Significant large issues need legislative addressing and discussion:

- Fourth Amendment/First Amendment issues. (consent in home/surveillance)

- Role of contractors and vendors.

- Advancement and changing of technology with body cameras. ( such as live stream, facial recognition, miniaturization)

- Use of body camera video for secondary purposes by law enforcement.

- Enforcement and compliance of policies. ( such as same standards across he state or different for each agency)

- Retention. (how long should video be kept, ie)

- When body cameras are on and off.

The list is not final, and issues will arise as discussion, information, and knowledge is gained by the public and policymakers.

It is my intent to make sure that if body cameras are to be used by Minnesota law enforcement, they are not a front for accountability which would create more distrust, and continue the legacy of decades of "tension and hostility" in the communities where law enforcement officers serve. There are grievances because of abrasive/abusive practices and behavior, "further aggravated by the lack of effective mechanism" to deal with complaints against law enforcement.  Body cameras are being proposed to be an effective mechanism for oversight.

But oversight will be hollow and vacant if the laws that regulate the power of this law enforcement tool do not provide real transparency.

Update: February 3, 2016

Since this post has been published an alternative bill (Rep. Peggy Scott) on body cameras has been a subject of a Joint-Committee hearing among the others. The draft bill is listed among the Senate version and current House bill.

Civil Law and Data Practices
House Civil Law and Data Practices, House Public Safety and Crime Prevention and Senate Judiciary Joint Hearing

Room: Room 200 State Office Building
Chair: Rep. Peggy Scott, Rep. Tony Cornish and Sen. Ron Latz

Agenda:

HF430	Cornish	Portable recording system provisions added, and audio and video data captured by a law enforcement officer classified.

Informational hearing on policy related to police-worn body cameras

HF430
SF498
MG 108 (attached)

Committee Documents:
ScottBodyCameraBill.pdf

Who has power with body cameras, the cops or you?

The Minnesota Legislature is being pushed hard by law enforcement interests to make much body camera video unavailable to the public  The Senate has already passed a bill making secret a fair amount of body camera video.  Law enforcement is pushing hard for secrecy because they want to keep from the public the ability to monitor police prejudice, abusive/abrasive behavior and practices, and the dual standard of law enforcement that is in our community.  Bottom line, law enforcement does not want the public to have the power to do the oversight of accountability of law enforcement with the new tool of body cameras.

There is power with the use of body cameras, in viewing hours of body camera videos, I see how it can be used by the public to truly use as a tool to have appropriate control over conduct by police, to help eliminate of abusive and abrasive practices by cops, and to counteract the dual standard of law enforcement in our community which has permeated for years.  The videos I watched would all become secret if the Senate's version of the body camera bill becomes law.

A representative of law enforcement recently compared body cameras to cans of mace - making the point that they are both tools for police. The body camera is not just any tool, however.  It may be a tool for law enforcement, but it is also a tool for public accountability - but only if the data is available to the public.

There is power with the use of body cameras, who has that power and the rules of it is going to be front and center next legislative session.  Right now law enforcement may have an edge to have less public accountability, less transparency, and have the power with the use of body cameras, unless the public gets involved.

Personal note:
If anyone is interested to have me speak to a group, organization, or anyone on the issue of body cameras contact me: ranneu12@yahoo.com or follow me with a message on Twitter @richneumeister

Not use cost as reason for secrecy with body cams

In the underbelly of discussion with body cameras in Minnesota is the "it costs too much money" argument.  The bemoaning and griping of many law enforcement and local government officials can be heard before the Legislature, city councils, and other venues.  Andy Skoogman, executive director of the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association, has said to the Star Tribune protecting "departments from costly and time-consuming editing" from public data requests, is one reason why they support in the Legislature, HF430/SF498.  The bill makes basically all videos collected by body cameras private or not public.  In the same article, Mr. Skoogman says the bill "keeps police accountable....." I am scratching my head on that one.  How can a police department be accountable and transparent with its behavior to the public if most of the body camera video is not public to the community?

Words about cost is one of the major rationale to keep the videos secret.  In a recent application to the Commissioner of Administration to make most body camera videos secret, less accessible to the public, signed by 24 cities, uses an excuse that access to the general public will bring "exorbitant cost involved with responding to requests...."  A group of law enforcement officials and cities are trying for the second time to go around the Legislature to make data collected form the body cameras not public.

I have been told by a law enforcement official,  a major motivation to keep body camera video, not public, is the cost factor, particularly with smaller cities other than Minneapolis and St Paul.  The person described the financial pressure to review and redact the videos may cause.  Some local political subdivisions will not buy body camera systems unless there is less body camera videos available to the public, the authority commented.  Rationale for secrecy!

Under current law, a fair amount of body camera video is not available to the public.  The Minnesota Government Data Practices Act gives law enforcement ample leeway to not disclose recordings to protect ongoing investigations and individuals privacy. But many others want to go way beyond that pushing to keep videos from the public to a point gouging increased accountability and transparency.

There is a compelling need for civic accountability with law enforcement agencies.  Arguments to make body camera video not accessible to the populous based on cost is ill-advised and uncalled for.  It undermines the body camera idea to advance faith and confidence between the public and law enforcement.

Opportunity to hear about body cameras, license plate readers (LPR), public health care program data, and more.

MNCOGI to present data policy priorities

On January 28, 2015, MNCGOI (Minnesota Coalition on Government Information) will present its data policy priorities for the 2015 Minnesota legislative session. MNCOGI board member Don Gemberling will address MNCOGI’s views on body cameras, license plate readers (LPR), public health care program data, and more.

The event is open to the public, and will be held in room 181 of the State Office Building from 11:00am to noon on January 28. A livestream provided by The Uptake will be available at theuptake.org. Contact MNCOGI with questions at mncogi@gmail.com, or call legislative issues committee chair Matt Ehling at 612-335-2037.

MNCOGI is an all-volunteer non-profit dedicated to government transparency and accountability.

No right to privacy in home w body cams?

Some heads of law enforcement agencies throughout Minnesota want body cameras. Based on public testimony at the Minnesota Legislature one head law enforcement official does not believe people have a right to privacy in one's own home.  It was very clear in testimony by Chief Ramsey, Duluth Police Department, in reaction to a question by Representative Mary Liz Holberg.

Rep Holberg outlined a situation if there was a call for service with the following question.

"....you want to enter my home in Duluth with body cams running.  Do I have a right as a citizen in your city, have a right to have you turn off the camera before you enter my home?"

Chief Ramsey's response:  "Madame Chair, right now, no you do not."

(http://www.lcc.leg.mn/lcdp/audio/101014.mp3.......comment at 3hr 12 minutes)

Do you have a right to say no in a non-emergency situation to body cam recording by police in your own home?  Is it a violation of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure?

The Minnesota Legislature will be deciding these issues in 2015.  Start contacting your legislators.

License Plate Readers and the Legislature

The 2013 Legislature will be considering a proposal that takes law enforcement data gathering to new heights.  Sanctioning the use of new technology and making secret the data collected by it.

Automated License Plate Recognition(ALPR)is the new technological tool.  Basically, its cameras set up stationary on places like bridges or light posts.  Another way is to be attached to roving or sitting patrol cars in parts of the city or countryside "sucking" up thousands of license plate numbers.

With this new tool or "toy" of law enforcement becoming known through blog posts and media reports there needs to be full public discussion of its merits, uses, and implications.  Law enforcement officials need to be asked tough questions by the public and policymakers.

As I have been following the issue of ALPR's for a long time I would like to see several questions answered by law enforcement officials-

A. Why do law enforcement agencies such as Minneapolis, St Paul, and others get ALPR's and start the collection of movements of law abiding and innocent people without public discussion?

B. Why did Minneapolis Police who have collected millions of license plate scans on law abiding and innocent people not have any protocols, policies, or procedures until the Star Tribune did its story?

C. What authority do Minnesota law enforcement have to collect millions of records on law abiding and innocent people and then retain it?

D. Why did the City of Minneapolis seemed surprised that the license plate scans were public? Should they not have already known?  The presumption of data being public has been law for decades.

E. Is there a violation of state law in the collection and storage of data on individuals because it may not have been authorized by the legislature or local governing body?

Tough questions to answer.

Law enforcement may say something like this:

"We are granted authority by government to maintain order and pursue the bad guys.  And we will do whatever it takes if it's legal."

The problem with that line of thinking is that it does not allow the the public to "police the police", ask the questions with answers to see if their actions are legal, but also to evaluate if the tactic, effort, or change compromises civil liberties, accountability, and transparency.

Starting in January 2013, the Legislature will gets its chance to weigh in on ALPR's, as the ultimate state body of "Who watches the watcher's?"