Police dash-cam videos - The Seattle Police Department policy

[sojomojo]

There’s been a debate over the use of police dash-cam and body-cam videos; and public disclosure of those videos. It seems most police departments, their legal departments, police unions and guilds oppose releasing any official videos until the investigation has concluded which could take months if not years. Then there’s the Seattle Police Department which post their dash-cam videos as quickly as possible.

Yesterday, February 21, there was an officer involved fatality shooting in Seattle. In less than 24 hours, the Seattle Police uploaded their dash-cam video to their YouTube Channel. Even I was surprised at how quickly the police posted an officer involved fatality shooting especially one that's not as clear cut as I would have hoped it would be. Nevertheless, I wish other police departments would be as transparent as the Seattle Police.

I recall a Seattle Police spokesman say that it’s their policy to post dash-cam videos to YouTube as quickly as possible since they're going to be made public eventually so why delay it. Regardless as to how good or bad it makes the officer's actions appear, the SPD spokesman said there’s no way to spin it since “it is what it is.” People will have to make their own judgment call as to the officer's conduct. If the police don’t release the dash-cam video or heavily edit it, all it does it create public distrust of the police.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6K49zBT-n4

I hope other police departments would be as transparent with their dash-cam and body-cam videos. It would help restore public trust and hold officers accountable for their actions.

As of now, only a few Seattle Police officers have body-cams since they're in the testing phase. From what I’ve heard, body-cams will soon be required for most uniformed police officers. Some long-time veteran officers are resisting, but I hope this becomes the norm.

[Brackneyc]

There’s been a debate over the use of police dash-cam and body-cam videos; and public disclosure of those videos. It seems most police departments, their legal departments, police unions and guilds oppose releasing any official videos until the investigation has concluded which could take months if not years. Then there’s the Seattle Police Department which post their dash-cam videos as quickly as possible.

Yesterday, February 21, there was an officer involved fatality shooting in Seattle. In less than 24 hours, the Seattle Police uploaded their dash-cam video to their YouTube Channel. Even I was surprised at how quickly the police posted an officer involved fatality shooting especially one that's not as clear cut as I would have hoped it would be. Nevertheless, I wish other police departments would be as transparent as the Seattle Police.

I recall a Seattle Police spokesman say that it’s their policy to post dash-cam videos to YouTube as quickly as possible. It's their position that videos are going to be made public eventually so it’s best to get it out there as quickly as possible. Regardless as to how good or bad it makes the officer's actions appear, the SPD spokesman said there’s no way to spin it since “it is what it is.” People will have to make their own judgment call. If the police don’t release the dash-cam video or heavily edit it, all it does it create public distrust of the police.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6K49zBT-n4

I hope other police departments would be as transparent with their dash-cam and body-cam videos. It would help restore public trust and hold officers accountable for their actions.

As of now, only a few Seattle Police officers have body-cams since they're in the testing phase. From what I’ve heard, body-cams will soon be required for most uniformed police officers. Some long-time veteran officers are resisting, but I hope this becomes the norm.

Releasing video the day after? Oh fck no. Bad policy. Good luck officers.

[ElrondHubbard]

Good policy. What should they do, edit out the mistakes? You want to be able to trust cops? Then there has to be transparency.

[Brackneyc]

Good policy. What should they do, edit out the mistakes? You want to be able to trust cops? Then there has to be transparency.

Idk, how about investigating the incident. They still do that, don't they? Or do we defer to the comments section of YouTube for a verdict?

[mcbourque]

The incident yesterday happened 10 blocks from my house. Just saying...

We are all worried yesterday after hearing the sirens and we basically kind of want know exactly where and what happened. Like... is it still safe for me to walk in my neighborhood. That sort of thing.

[acrawlingchaos]

Excellent policy. Americans have every right to be aware of the conduct of it's public servants.

Releasing video the day after? Oh fck no. Bad policy. Good luck officers.

I can't think of a reason why there should not be more transparency.

Idk, how about investigating the incident. They still do that, don't they? Or do we defer to the comments section of YouTube for a verdict?

These video are often delayed and often edited before they reach the defense. Freedom of information will not hinder an investigation. I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion, or why the sarcasm.

[so-tex]

Idk, how about investigating the incident. They still do that, don't they? Or do we defer to the comments section of YouTube for a verdict?

Lol.
Qft.

[acrawlingchaos]

Lol.
Qft.

Then why not something as simple as having all video being maintained in its original form by an independent 3rd party that would document the procedure? Perhaps include a standard operating procedure of release and full disclosure in a timely fashion?

[Brackneyc]

Excellent policy. Americans have every right to be aware of the conduct of it's public servants.

I can't think of a reason why there should not be more transparency.

These video are often delayed and often edited before they reach the defense. Freedom of information will not hinder an investigation. I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion, or why the sarcasm.

I think posting official police videos on a public website the day after an incident is risky. I'm all for transparency. I am not about creating a public uproar based on a snippet of information without some context. A video is a snapshot in time, and is rarely conclusive on its own.

[acrawlingchaos]

I think posting official police videos on a public website the day after an incident is risky. I'm all for transparency. I am not about creating a public uproar based on a snippet of information without some context. A video is a snapshot in time, and is rarely conclusive on its own.

Why wait; so the police have time to create context? Maybe the public deserves or even needs to be in an uproar and I would hardly call a video of a police officer taking the life of another man "a snippet". Being inconvenienced is not an adequate reason to withhold information from the public.

[DuracellBunny]

Why wait; so the police have time to create context? Maybe the public deserves or even needs to be in an uproar and I would hardly call a video of a police officer taking the life of another man "a snippet". Being inconvenienced is not an adequate reason to withhold releasing information to the public, which is what I am summing your reluctance up to.

I have no idea of the law in washington, but there could conceivably be legal issues further down the line. If footage is released prior to an investigation and then the officer is later charged with something, his lawyers can make all sorts of arguments.

[quietchef]

Releasing video the day after? Oh fck no. Bad policy. Good luck officers.

And that's why metropolitan areas are having an even harder time to fill vacancies and deal with veterns jumping ship.

There are consequences for transparency on every side. Is knowledge worth the price? Are we ready to turn over justice to the court of public opinion? Are we ready to measure guilt from one camera angle?

Are we ready for what will take the place of our local police departments when they lose the public's confidence?

[acrawlingchaos]

I have no idea of the law in washington, but there could conceivably be legal issues further down the line. If footage is released prior to an investigation and then the officer is later charged with something, his lawyers can make all sorts of arguments.

"Then why not something as simple as having all video being maintained in its original form by an independent 3rd party that would document the procedure? Perhaps include a standard operating procedure of release and full disclosure in a timely fashion?"

And that's why metropolitan areas are having an even harder time to fill vacancies and deal with veterns jumping ship.

Source? Dash and body cams are making positions difficult to fill?

There are consequences for transparency on every side. Is knowledge worth the price? Are we ready to turn over justice to the court of public opinion? Are we ready to measure guilt from one camera angle?

What is a consequence of transparency, Yes it is worth the price to know, and how often do you suspect a single camera angle has made a case before?

Are we ready for what will take the place of our local police departments when they lose the public's confidence?

What's going to take place? Angry citizens showing up to demand answers?

[DuracellBunny]

"Then why not something as simple as having all video being maintained in its original form by an independent 3rd party that would document the procedure? Perhaps include a standard operating procedure of release and full disclosure in a timely fashion?"

Make all recordings write only and have to be kept for 3 years. Then make the recordings subject to freedom of information requests unless they are sub judice.

[Flounderbout]

police are public servants...

the public deserves to know what they're doing the second it happens..

how anyone can make a case for withholding what they're doing is beyond me.

Maybe because a possibly edited video on an uncontrolled public site, complete with added commentary and biased angle, is not a terribly good record of "what happened". Anyone with any experience of television will tell you that the producer wields huge power. Take one 60s segment of a five minute clip to show one thing. Take another to show a completely different thing. Letting the public be the producer of video clips of police actions invites manipulation of the true facts.

I completely agree that the public should see a complete account of its officials' actions. But clips chosen and uploaded by the public may not be remotely reliable as an account of such actions.

[NorwichGrad]

I like the idea.


I agree with Oceanside and ACC. Cops (and military and politicians) are public servants. There has to be transparency if We the People�s employees are to be trusted once again. I also like ACC�s idea of having a third party so that complete stories are not edited to favor one side or the other.


I know there are lots of good cops out there. But there are also bad ones.


http://killedbypolice.net/

[ElrondHubbard]

And that's why metropolitan areas are having an even harder time to fill vacancies and deal with veterns jumping ship.

There are consequences for transparency on every side. Is knowledge worth the price? Are we ready to turn over justice to the court of public opinion? Are we ready to measure guilt from one camera angle?

Are we ready for what will take the place of our local police departments when they lose the public's confidence?

What causes the public to lose confidence in its "sevants" is when they hide they behaviors from us, and then stonewall and obfuscate. If this policy leads to people not applying to fill vacancies or jumping ship, then its likely that those are the people we didn't want in the first place, those who are not liable to keep their public behavior consistent with the rules and expectations OF the public.

I've known some really honorable, professional police officers, people who I was proud to be associated with. I've known some who were petty, egomaniacal, and not so honorable. I can't imagine the former having a problem with the Seattle policy. I can imagine the latter wanting to get out from under the spotlight.

[ElrondHubbard]

What causes the public to lose confidence in its "sevants" is when they hide they behaviors from us,

bingo...

and besides, with complete disclosure though camera's what would all the conspiracy theorists on internet do with their newfound time on their hands.

What's even wose is when the guy you quoting can't type his 'r's pwopely.

[quietchef]

What causes the public to lose confidence in its "sevants" is when they hide they behaviors from us, and then stonewall and obfuscate. If this policy leads to people not applying to fill vacancies or jumping ship, then its likely that those are the people we didn't want in the first place, those who are not liable to keep their public behavior consistent with the rules and expectations OF the public.

I've known some really honorable, professional police officers, people who I was proud to be associated with. I've known some who were petty, egomaniacal, and not so honorable. I can't imagine the former having a problem with the Seattle policy. I can imagine the latter wanting to get out from under the spotlight.

All that I'm seeing is a lack in confidence of the internal affairs office and a want for lynch justice. There's an office and a due process that officers and the public have to account to. It is the honorable law enforcement officers that will be most hurt when an idiot officer makes a mistake and the public demands an answer. It will be the good cops that don't come home that night.

I'm not about hiding the facts, but rather let our elected judges and district attorneys prosecute and give officers their own due process. Keeping confidence in the system is one of the ways we can continue to function as a society and enjoy the freedoms we do. Taking that away comes at a price as well.

[quietchef]

I like the idea.



I agree with Oceanside and ACC. Cops (and military and politicians) are public servants. There has to be transparency if We the People�s employees are to be trusted once again. I also like ACC�s idea of having a third party so that complete stories are not edited to favor one side or the other.


I know there are lots of good cops out there. But there are also bad ones.


http://killedbypolice.net/

I like the idea too, I just don't see it working on a mass media stage without consequences. Some things need a judge and jury.

And it's so easy to criticize someone without taking into account that they are trained and put in these situations weekly if not daily, year round, as a career choice.

Just to play devil's advocate, why stop with police? Let's telivise interrogation rooms, judges chambers, and the oval office! What do they have to hide? They're all public servents.

[Clinos]

All that I'm seeing is a lack in confidence of the internal affairs office and a want for lynch justice. There's an office and a due process that officers and the public have to account to. It is the honorable law enforcement officers that will be most hurt when an idiot officer makes a mistake and the public demands an answer. It will be the good cops that don't come home that night.

I'm not about hiding the facts, but rather let our elected judges and district attorneys prosecute and give officers their own due process. Keeping confidence in the system is one of the ways we can continue to function as a society and enjoy the freedoms we do. Taking that away comes at a price as well.

The problem with this is that people are no longer buying the 'We've investigated ourselves and found no issue with our behaviour, here's a promotion'. That's what will incite people to violence against law enforcement, not the immediate full story that then plays out in court. It's wiser for a PD to do this to keep their officers safe.

Who would you rather give the public trust to? A department that fights for years legally just to show a heavily redacted video and a news blurb on page 15 of the paper, or a department that is immediately upfront with all the information even damaging information at the expense of saying we aren't hiding anything. I'd stake a bet those officers consider that as well.

[NorwichGrad]

I like the idea too, I just don't see it working on a mass media stage without consequences. Some things need a judge and jury.

And it's so easy to criticize someone without taking into account that they are trained and put in these situations weekly if not daily, year round, as a career choice.

Just to play devil's advocate, why stop with police? Let's telivise interrogation rooms, judges chambers, and the oval office! What do they have to hide? They're all public servents.

Because as a Citizen you are more likely to get shot and killed by a cop than get whacked in the head by a judge�s gavel.

Don�t get me wrong, I don�t disagree with you regarding cops having to deal with a$$holes on a daily basis. But that�s what they signed up to do. And there are criminals out there that threaten the lives of cops and innocent people and the bad guys deserve to get shot. I�m all for that.

But the point of this discussion, I think, is to hold public servants accountable and not get away with murder. And by having the means (i.e. bodycam or dash cam) to tell the judge and the jury the complete, unaltered story is the best way to protect ALL sides.

[acrawlingchaos]

Make all recordings write only and have to be kept for 3 years.

Stored at a independent facility there is this information is properly stored. With current data storage technology, there is no reason why this couldn't be stored independently.

Then make the recordings subject to freedom of information requests unless they are sub judice.

There are concerns with sub judice restrictions interfering with 1st Amendment Rights in the US.

Maybe because a possibly edited video on an uncontrolled public site, complete with added commentary and biased angle, is not a terribly good record of "what happened". Anyone with any experience of television will tell you that the producer wields huge power. Take one 60s segment of a five minute clip to show one thing. Take another to show a completely different thing. Letting the public be the producer of video clips of police actions invites manipulation of the true facts.

I completely agree that the public should see a complete account of its officials' actions. But clips chosen and uploaded by the public may not be remotely reliable as an account of such actions.

Not sure I follow you. He was talking about official releases through a public message, not cell phone videos uploaded. I'm with OS I don't understand how anyone can make a valid case for with holding information from the public when parties involved are in direct interest of the public.

All that I'm seeing is a lack in confidence of the internal affairs office and a want for lynch justice.

Lynch justice... interesting choice of words. Question, how does making the information available obstruct due process?

Just to play devil's advocate, why stop with police?

Sure, let's take a look.

Let's telivise

And start with this. Televising live feeds of public servants conducting day to day operations and making videos of public interest available are not the same.

interrogation rooms, judges chambers, and the oval office!

Interrogation rooms should absolutely be recorded, and those videos should be made available if the circumstance arises (such as allegations of criminal activity during an interrogation). Judges chambers are usually videoed as well, and if a judge is accused of killing someone in his chambers, that should be made available to the public. The President is the most heavily televised figure world wide and the White House no doubt has a top of the line surveillance system. If the Obama or Biden start putting rounds in Citizens, in the oval office, they should absolutely be made available to the public.

What do they have to hide? They're all public servents.

Yup.

[acrawlingchaos]

Serious question. If the entire event is caught on camera from just prior to first contact until after last contact, how can anything be taken "out of context"?

[ElrondHubbard]

Serious question. If the entire event is caught on camera from just prior to first contact until after last contact, how can anything be taken "out of context"?

It's possible under a number of circumstances. For one thing, the camera has a limited field of view, and there may be things going on outside of that view that play into the actions that take place within the view. That possibility will always have to be considered. But that's no reason not to release the data that you have. The camera is one link in the evidence chain, not necessarily the entirety of it.

Believe it or not, other than the inevitable You Tube reactionaries, I trust the majority of the public to be able to realize that what they see is a limited perspective, and to withhold judgement unless the image is actually definitive -- which it will often, but not always, be.

Funny to me how people who worship the Second Amendment and think we should trust the general public to walk around with loaded guns often are the same people who don't trust the same public to be able to view a video without jumping to irrational conclusions.

Which is it, people?

[acrawlingchaos]

It's possible under a number of circumstances. For one thing, the camera has a limited field of view, and there may be things going on outside of that view that play into the actions that take place within the view. That possibility will always have to be considered. But that's no reason not to release the data that you have. The camera is one link in the evidence chain, not necessarily the entirety of it.

Believe it or not, other than the inevitable You Tube reactionaries, I trust the majority of the public to be able to realize that what they see is a limited perspective, and to withhold judgement unless the image is actually definitive -- which it will often, but not always, be.

Funny to me how people who worship the Second Amendment and think we should trust the general public to walk around with loaded guns often are the same people who don't trust the same public to be able to view a video without jumping to irrational conclusions.

Which is it, people?

Oh I fully understand that there will be those that will exaggerate what they see and of course the media will do what it does, I also realize that sometimes videos are not definitive. I think the hysteria will dissipate with transparency though, as the conspiracy element is removed.

And you make a valid point. If you can trust it's citizens with a firearm, you can trust them with disclosure of videos of significant public interest.

[Fishman15]

Why wait; so the police have time to create context? Maybe the public deserves or even needs to be in an uproar and I would hardly call a video of a police officer taking the life of another man "a snippet". Being inconvenienced is not an adequate reason to withhold information from the public.

Isn't that what trials are for?

[Juggertha]

I'm all for cams and independent hosting.

[Flounderbout]

And you make a valid point. If you can trust it's citizens with a firearm, you can trust them with disclosure of videos of significant public interest.

I agree. The US should trust its citizens with guns and videos. But not Kinder Surprise. Kinder Surprise are a dangerous menace, and must be banned.

[mcbourque]

I agree. The US should trust its citizens with guns and videos. But not Kinder Surprise. Kinder Surprise are a dangerous menace, and must be banned.

Darn it! And all this time I had it wrong. It's the Kinder my kids get from grandma I should be scared of!