[Senate Hearing 114-901]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 114-901
BODY CAMERAS: CAN TECHNOLOGY
INCREASE PROTECTION FOR LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND THE PUBLIC?
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME AND
TERRORISM
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 19, 2015
__________
Serial No. J-114-18
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
www.judiciary.senate.gov
www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
52-847 WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa, Chairman
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Ranking
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama Member
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
JOHN CORNYN, Texas CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
TED CRUZ, Texas SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana AL FRANKEN, Minnesota
DAVID PERDUE, Georgia CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
THOM TILLIS, North Carolina RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
Kolan L. Davis, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Kristine Lucius, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director
.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME AND TERRORISM
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina, Chairman
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island,
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama Ranking Member
JOHN CORNYN, Texas CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota
David Glaccum, Majority Staff Director
Ayo Griffin, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Graham, Hon. Lindsey O........................................... 1
Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon......................................... 2
Prepared statement........................................... 69
Grassley, Hon. Charles E......................................... 2
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J.
Prepared statement........................................... 79
Cornyn, Hon. John................................................ 3
Feinstein, Hon. Dianne........................................... 67
Durbin, Hon. Richard J........................................... 65
Franken, Hon. Al................................................. 3
WITNESSES
Scott, Hon. Tim, U.S. Senator from South Carolina................ 4
Prepared statement........................................... 34
Bruder, Jarrod M................................................. 7
Prepared statement........................................... 61
Henderson, Wade.................................................. 11
Prepared statement........................................... 51
Miller, Lindsay.................................................. 5
Prepared statement........................................... 42
Weir, Peter...................................................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 36
APPENDIX
Items submitted for the record................................... 33
BODY CAMERAS: CAN TECHNOLOGY
INCREASE PROTECTION FOR LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND THE PUBLIC?
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 19, 2015
United States Senate,
Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3 p.m., Room 226,
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lindsey O. Graham,
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senator Graham [presiding], Cornyn, Whitehouse,
Klobuchar and Franken.
Also present: Chairman Grassley, Senators Durbin, Coons and
Blumenthal.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LINDSEY O. GRAHAM,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Chairman Graham. Thank you for coming here today. The
Subcommittee will come to order. We will have a hearing today
entitled ``Body Cameras: Can Technology Increase Protection for
Law Enforcement Officers and the Public.''
We will have two panels. The first panel will be Senator
Scott, my colleague from South Carolina.
I will make a very brief opening statement and turn it over
to Senator Whitehouse. I know Chairman Grassley and Senator
Cornyn may want to say something, but anybody can if they would
like.
We have this hearing today at the request of Senator Scott.
As most of you know, there has been a lot of discussion in this
country about how to protect the public and law enforcement
officers when force is involved and the idea of body cameras
for all of our police officers not only to protect them, but to
protect the public, is a hot topic right now, and Senator Scott
has been one of the leaders in this area.
The incident in North Charleston, which I think most of us
have seen videos of, is a good indication of how video is
priceless in situations like this.
There are a lot of proposals up here on Capitol Hill to
have grants and pilot programs about outfitting our law
enforcement community with body cameras and that is the purpose
of this hearing today, to see which would be the best way
forward.
Chairman Graham. Senator Whitehouse.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
guess welcome and congratulations to your first Subcommittee
hearing as Chairman of our Crime and Terrorism Subcommittee.
Chairman Graham. Do not get used to it.
Senator Whitehouse. I am delighted that we are doing this
and I appreciate very much that our Chairman is providing this
forum for his junior Senator--always a good tradition in the
Senate--to begin to address the question of how well body
cameras work.
I would ask unanimous consent that my statement in that
regard be entered into the record.
I think this is a very important Subcommittee and I hope we
have more hearings in the weeks and months ahead. I have been
particularly grateful to work with the Chairman on the Graham-
Whitehouse bill improving the criminal enforcement in the cyber
arena, and I hope we will be able to pin down a hearing date to
begin to get that bill, through a hearing, ready in time so
that when we address cyber on the floor, we have alleviated any
criticism that our bill did not get a hearing.
I also look forward to what I hope will be a lively hearing
on what I consider to be a pretty egregious separation of
powers violation by the Administration.
We are looking to schedule at least those two other
hearings. They are good topics and I hope that we can make this
a very active Subcommittee. I think it may be the most
important Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, saying that
as Ranking Member.
Chairman Graham. Thank you very much. We will do both
hearings. Senator Grassley, would you like to make a comment?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IOWA
Chairman Grassley. Thank you very much. I want to thank you
for holding this hearing. I appreciate Senator Scott and his
strong interest in this subject.
As Chairman of the Full Committee, I fully support Senator
Scott's request for our Committee to look into this matter.
Recent interactions between police and the public have
increased the consideration of body cameras to record an
officer's work. It is a good idea to explore the experience of
State and local governments that have employed body cameras.
Certainly, the potential exists for body cameras to enhance
public trust of police and they may provide evidence to show
the public how well law enforcement handles very trying
situations. They may also show whether police training is
working well, and it is possible that their existence might
cause police officers to change how they perform certain
aspects of their job.
Body cameras themselves are relatively inexpensive, but
costs associated with their use seem to be considerable. Many
practical questions regarding their use need to be thought
through. These include determining when cameras would and would
not be operating, how privacy of people's homes and of crime
victims would be maintained, how footage is to be retained and
chain of custody preserved, and public access to the tapes.
The Justice Department has also funded some pilot programs
and research to determine the best practices for operation of
police body cameras.
Before we decide what, if any, Federal legislative response
is appropriate, we should obtain a good sense of the issues
that have arisen in State and local use of body cameras. We
should also know which of the competing approaches have been
more effective and further shared values.
The last thing that we would want to do is create an
incentive or even mandate actions that would cost State and
local governments large sums of money and not reflect the
accumulated wisdom that derives from existing State and local
practice.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you once again for holding this
hearing and I look forward to the testimony of witnesses, which
I am going to have to read because I have another assignment I
have to go to. I appreciate having the courtesy of what I have
just said.
Chairman Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
John, would you like to say anything?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CORNYN,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Senator Cornyn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
express my gratitude to Senator Grassley, as Chairman of the
Full Committee, but to you as Chairman of the Subcommittee for
starting the conversation here on a topic that I know is very
near and dear to Senator Scott's heart.
We all recognize that body cameras are not a panacea and
will not solve all the problems, but they may be a piece of the
answer and one building block where we can begin to rebuild the
public's confidence in law enforcement, which is absolutely
critical to maintaining security and safety in our communities.
It is also important--Mr. Chairman, I know you agree
because you are a cosponsor of this bill that would create a
commission to study our criminal justice system writ large.
Once we get through doing the things that we can do to help
improve our criminal justice system, things like passing the
Corrections Act that Senator Whitehouse and I are the chief
cosponsors of, to help act on the lessons of prison reform that
have played out in our States, I hope we can continue this
conversation in a way that lets us revisit what works and
correct and eliminate what does not work, with a goal toward
maintaining and rebuilding the public's trust in law
enforcement, which is absolutely critical in our communities.
I want to just commend Senator Scott for his leadership in
this effort. Thank you for being here today.
Chairman Graham. Senator Franken.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. AL FRANKEN,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
Senator Franken. Very quickly. I just have a classified
briefing at 4 p.m. I am going to stay here until. Maybe I will
get to my questions and maybe I will not.
I discussed this very briefly with Senator Scott. There are
so many questions here that I assume that we will get to it,
and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing about
what activities, what practices should be on camera and which
ones should not, how we develop the best protocols, how we use
the experience of communities and States and studies, to figure
out when is the camera on and when is it off.
I am looking forward to hearing from Senator Scott, and I
thank you for calling this hearing.
Chairman Graham. Thank you, Senator Franken.
Senator Scott, thank you very much for coming, and I do
appreciate your leadership on this. You have been very hands-on
when it comes to trying to deal with this issue. Please,
proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. TIM SCOTT,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Senator Scott. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and
Ranking Member. Thank you all for participating in the hearing
today.
I want to also thank Senator Grassley for agreeing to hold
this hearing today on a very important issue. A very timely
response from you, Mr. Chairman, as well as Senator Grassley.
I would say if a picture is worth 1,000 words, then a video
is worth 1,000 pictures and untold lives. It is certainly time
for a national conversation about body cameras and policies
affecting communities in distress.
Whether we are talking about Ferguson, Baltimore, Ohio, New
York City, Oklahoma, or my hometown, North Charleston, South
Carolina, one thing is certain--long-term solutions are very
important. They are critical.
In addition to body cameras, I will continue to work on
things like my opportunity agenda that I believe will breath
new hope and new opportunities into distressed communities.
Things that have impacted my life, having grown up myself
in a single-parent household in poverty in North Charleston, I
will tell you that the foundation for changing some of the
outcomes starts with education. Long-term education will
provide a path, an avenue out.
Think about work skills for those adult learners,
apprenticeship programs where you can earn and learn at the
same time, as well as entrepreneurship programs.
I am here today because I believe strongly that another
important piece of the puzzle in rebuilding trust between law
enforcement and the community truly is body-worn cameras by
officers.
I say one piece because there is no silver bullet. There is
no panacea, but rather many pieces to this puzzle. We are here
today to listen and to learn from experts on how these cameras
can be helpful and, at the same time, for us to understand the
concerns, like data retention, disclosure issues, including
FOIA, costs and training, when do you use the cameras.
I look forward to the discussion, as well as the hard work
ahead. The good news is that according to at least one study,
public complaints against officers wearing cameras falls by 90
percent. Use of force--use of force drops by as much as 60
percent. That is moving in the right direction.
Tasking the Federal Government to support body cameras
through resources should not be confused with Federalizing
local policing, which I would object to, nor is it an attempt
to mandate the use of body cameras. Rather, it is an attempt to
keep law enforcement officers and our communities safer.
Let me close with the heartfelt desires of Ms. Judy Scott,
whose son was killed in North Charleston, Walter Scott. She was
not looking for revenge. As a matter of fact, on the first day,
she said, ``I forgive the officer.''
She did not speak about the need for justice in her initial
comments. She allowed the system to work that out. What Ms.
Judy Scott simply said to me was this: ``I want to make sure, I
really want to make sure that mothers do not have to bury their
sons.''
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Scott appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Graham. Thank you very much, Senator Scott. Thank
you. If our second panel would come forward, please.
Al, did you want to ask questions? He can take my turn if
he needs to.
Thank you all. Could you please stand and raise your right
hand?
[Witnesses are sworn in.]
Chairman Graham. Our panel consists of Mr. Peter Weir, who
is the district attorney for the First Judicial District, State
of Colorado, from Golden, Colorado; Lindsay Miller, senior
research associate, Police Executive Research Forum,
Washington, DC; Wade Henderson, president and CEO of the
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and Human Rights,
Washington, DC; and, Jarrod Bruder, executive director, South
Carolina Sheriff's Association, from Columbia, South Carolina.
Welcome to you all. We will start with Ms. Miller and just
move across the panel.
STATEMENT OF LINDSAY MILLER, SENIOR
RESEARCH ASSOCIATE, POLICE EXECUTIVE
RESEARCH FORUM, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Miller. Good afternoon and thank you, Chairman Graham
and Members of the Committee, for the opportunity to speak
today about the important issue of body-worn cameras.
My name is Lindsay Miller and I am a senior research
associate with the Police Executive Research Forum, which is an
independent, nonprofit research organization that focuses on
critical issues in policing.
Our work on body cameras began in 2013, when we partnered
with the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Community-
Oriented Policing Services to research the use of body cameras
in police agencies.
Last September, PERF and the COPS Office released a
publication that examines the benefits of body cameras and
considerations for implementation. The report also provides a
set of 33 comprehensive policy recommendations that reflect
promising practices and lessons learned.
Today I am just going to touch briefly on a few of our key
findings and recommendations, and my submitted written
testimony provides additional details on these topics.
First and foremost, we caution that the decision to
implement a body camera program should not be entered into
lightly. Agencies must thoughtfully examine all of the issues
that cameras raise and develop careful written policies to
govern their use.
We also found that when implementing a camera program and
developing policies, it is critical that agencies engage with
community organizations, line officers and unions, local
policymakers and elected officials, prosecutors and other
stakeholders. Making it a collaborative process can help
strengthen the legitimacy of a program and make implementation
run more smoothly.
We also caution, again, that while body cameras can be a
very useful tool, they are not a cure-all. We need to view them
as just one tool and remember that they are not a substitute
for good policies, good training, and good community policing
programs.
When it comes to the benefits of body cameras, we found
that cameras have been useful for several things: strengthening
police accountability and agency transparency; improving the
behavior of people on both sides of the camera; as Senator
Scott said, reducing and resolving officer use-of-force
incidents and complaints against officers; identifying and
correcting problems within the agency both at the individual
level and throughout the entire agency; strengthening officer
performance by using the footage for training and monitoring;
and, improving evidence documentation for investigations and
prosecutions.
We also looked at some of the considerations that agencies
must take into account when implementing cameras. These include
privacy considerations, especially when it comes to filming
victims and witnesses; the impact that cameras have on
relationships between police and members of the community; how
to address concerns that officers and unions may have about
wearing cameras; managing the expectations that body cameras
create especially among courts, oversight bodies and members of
the public; and, finally, how to manage the significant ongoing
financial costs of a body-worn camera program.
Turning to our actual policy recommendations, I am just
going to cover a couple of them. One of the most important
questions that an agency will answer is when to require
officers to turn their cameras on and off. Our report
recommended that with limited exceptions, they should be
required to activate their cameras when responding to all calls
for service and during all law enforcement-related encounters
and activities that occur while the officer is on duty.
We also recommend that officers should be required to
obtain consent prior to recording interviews with crime victims
and they should have limited discretion to keep their cameras
off during conversations with witnesses and members of the
community who wish to provide information about a crime, but
who do not want to speak on camera. This addresses some of the
significant privacy concerns that come with videotaping crime
victims and witnesses.
One of the biggest issues that is emerging that is facing
police agencies is when to release video footage to the public
and the media. This is a very difficult issue and there really
are no easy answers.
Our report generally recommended a fairly broad disclosure
policy to promote agency transparency and accountability.
However, agencies must also balance this need for transparency
with the very real privacy and evidentiary concerns that come
with releasing footage to the public. We always want to make
sure that videos of people in their most vulnerable do not end
up on YouTube.
Again, these are just a couple of our 33 recommendations,
which also cover data storage and management, training and
evaluation. We also provide useful strategies for how police
leaders can engage officers, policymakers and the public.
Again, when implemented correctly, body cameras can provide
real benefits both for police and the community. However, it is
critical that agencies slow down, think about all of these
issues, and take an incremental approach to camera deployment.
Above all, police agencies must always remember that the
ultimate purpose of body cameras is to help officers protect
and serve the people within their communities.
I thank you again for the opportunity to speak today and I
welcome any questions that you might have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Miller appears as a
submission for the record.]
STATEMENT OF JARROD M. BRUDER,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SOUTH CAROLINA SHERIFF'S
ASSOCIATION, COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA
Sheriff Bruder. Chairman Graham, distinguished Members of
the Committee, my name is Jarrod Bruder and I am the executive
director of the South Carolina Sheriff's Association. It is
truly an honor to appear before you today.
I come to testify on behalf of the 46 sheriffs of South
Carolina. I would like to begin by applauding the Subcommittee
for taking the time to study the positive and negative effects
of implementing body-worn cameras before enacting legislation.
As you will hear throughout my testimony, embracing new
technology for the purposes of increasing transparency, officer
accountability and officer safety can produce tremendous
benefits, but it can also generate serious unintended
consequences.
For more than 5 years now, law enforcement agencies
throughout South Carolina have been experimenting with the use
of body-worn cameras. To date, approximately 15 percent of our
sheriffs' offices have implemented a body-worn camera program.
These agencies have found this technology provides a
significant benefit to their department and individual
officers. Not only do these cameras provide valuable training
opportunities, but they also help to resolve officer-involved
conflicts.
Additionally, these agencies have experienced significant
reductions in complaints on officers. Simply put, everyone,
including the officer and the person interacting with the
officer, tends to behave better when they know they are being
filmed.
In the end, body-worn cameras have produced a more
accountable and more professional police force for these
agencies.
In my experience, the primary issue preventing law
enforcement agencies from fully embracing the use of body-worn
cameras is the exorbitant cost. While I am sure that every
sheriff and police chief would love to have an agency that is
more accountable and more professional, they must weigh the
cost of this technology against the potential benefits.
Unfortunately, the cost is often too much for an agency to
absorb.
This technology is extremely unique in that the initial
phase of the camera--of implementing the cameras is arguably
the cheapest phase of implementation. The greatest cost can be
found in the storage or retention of data.
At a time when many law enforcement agencies in South
Carolina are struggling to find sufficient funds to protect
their officers and the public, a legislative mandate to
implement body-worn cameras seems like a nightmare to many.
Thankfully, pending legislation in South Carolina will
create a statewide trust that will fund the initial and ongoing
costs associated with body-worn cameras. This provision, along
with several others, has resulted in our support of this
legislation.
Another issue preventing law enforcement agencies from
fully embracing this technology is the protection of privacy.
While transparency and openness are welcome concepts for some,
those notions are not always conducive to producing successful
police work. Oftentimes, our best tips come from criminal
informants, witnesses or victims who wish to remain anonymous.
There is a great fear in the law enforcement community that the
proliferation of body-worn cameras will further divide our
communities and have a chilling effect on the exchange of
information between our officers and the communities they
serve.
In my humble opinion, these cameras are not intended to be
the source of embarrassment or humiliation. Law enforcement
officers often encounter citizens at their lowest moments in
life. Data from these cameras should be used as evidence to
enhance our pursuit of justice, not to humiliate or entertain
our neighbors.
When this data is viewed as evidence rather than as a
public document, it ensures that a single moment of
indiscretion does not provide a lifetime of embarrassment. It
also ensures that one's guilt or innocence is determined in a
court of law, not a court of public opinion.
As the use of body-worn cameras increases, it is important
for community leaders to manage the expectations of the public.
It should be understood that every police action will not be
caught on camera. Critical incidents can happen in the blink of
an eye. There will be times when it is neither possible nor
feasible to have body-worn camera footage. The absence of video
should not automatically equate to an innocent suspect or a
guilty officer. Rather, data from body-worn cameras should
simply assist in the overall quest for justice.
In conclusion, I would like to answer the question that has
brought us here today. Yes. When used properly, technology and,
more specifically, body-worn cameras can increase protection
for law enforcement officers and the public. We should be
careful, though, not to put too much trust in this technology.
Body-worn cameras can aid in transparency, but they will not
mend community relations alone. Neither will they address the
root causes that have led to so many tragic incidents.
Technology, no matter how far it advances, will never
accomplish what can be gained when people take the time to sit
down, talk, listen and attempt to understand a different
perspective.
It is often said that public safety is a core function of
government. While I certainly believe that is true, there are
far too many law enforcement agencies in this country that are
barely making ends meet. Law enforcement agencies are in
desperate need for cultural diversity training, use-of-force
training, and de-escalation training.
Advanced training, not just basic training, is absolutely
critical in our efforts to provide public safety. If we truly
want to increase protection for law enforcement officers and
the public, then we need to provide our law enforcement
agencies with the funds necessary to attract, recruit and
retain the best and brightest officers. Those officers should
be psychologically tested and equipped with the best training
available to ensure they serve and protect our communities with
equality, fairness and justice.
With that, I again thank you for the opportunity to speak
and will gladly take any questions.
[The prepared statment of Sheriff Bruder appears as a
submission for the record.]
STATEMENT OF PETER WEIR, DISTRICT
ATTORNEY, FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT,
STATE OF COLORADO, GOLDEN, COLORADO
Mr. Weir. Good afternoon. Chairman Graham, Ranking Member
Whitehouse and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Peter
Weir. I am an elected district attorney from the First Judicial
District in Colorado. That is located in Golden, Colorado, just
to the west of Denver.
I also am privileged today to be speaking on behalf of the
National District Attorneys Association. We appreciate very
much the opportunity to lend our voice to this important topic.
I would like to suggest that any discussion of body-worn
cameras is also a discussion of the foundation of our criminal
justice system and that foundation is one of trust. It is trust
in the fairness of the system, trust in the men and women who
work in the system, and ultimately trust that justice will be
done.
When we talk of data that is generated by body-worn
cameras, we need to keep in mind that that data is actually
evidence. We are talking about the generation of evidence.
There are many, many uses for the recordings generated by body-
worn cameras. As has already been alluded to and as it goes to
the issue of trust, accountability and transparency are
critical functions of that.
However, we cannot lose sight of the fact that there are
many, many considerations to take into account when we start
dealing with the collection, retention, distribution and
processing of evidence, which is what is generated by the body-
worn cameras.
Clearly, from a prosecutor's perspective, this evidence can
be very, very important. When you present a case to a jury,
certainly they would benefit from being able to see the place
and the circumstances immediately after the commission of a
crime. Jurors would benefit from being able to evaluate
credibility and demeanor of the witnesses that are recorded
contemporaneously with the crime.
When we start talking about officer-involved shootings,
body-worn cameras can certainly play a role in determining
whether or not the officer acted within the scope of his
authority or whether that officer may have violated his oath
and acted outside justifiable legal grounds.
Clearly the prosecution community supports the use of body-
worn cameras in appropriate circumstances with appropriate
safeguards and appropriate procedures involved in the use of
the body-worn cameras.
As has been mentioned already, there are some areas of
concern that are shared by prosecutors, and I need to stress
that it is critically important as we go down this path that
the prosecution community be part of the dialog in creating
policies and procedures not just at the Federal level, but also
at the State and local level, to be able to engage with their
local law enforcement authorities to identify the issues that
may be very unique to each jurisdiction, because in this
discussion, one size does not fit all.
We are talking about judicial districts, law enforcement
agencies, sheriff's departments of various sizes and what may
work in one locale may also not work in other locales.
The question that is critical for prosecutors is exactly
what is being recorded, what is the extent of the recording.
Perhaps another way to put it, when should you not record? It
would be easy to say just record everything; anytime that an
officer is on the street, the camera is on. But is this really
the process that we want?
This certainly results in extraordinary costs associated
with this, the costs of not necessarily the camera itself, but
the costs of appropriate storage, archiving and cataloging so
that that evidence can really be used in an appropriate manner.
Prosecutors are also concerned with respect to the storage
and retrieval of that evidence. We have obligations to present
this evidence to defense attorneys. We must be able to know
which portion of a recording pertains to a specific case and be
able to distribute that to the defense bar.
That leads us to the question of what is our broader
responsibility to the public. Many States have open records
laws or criminal justice records acts that mandate that much of
this information must be disclosed. Where is the right line
between collecting this important evidence and what, in fact,
we will be distributing to the public at large?
As has already been testified to, these cameras are not a
panacea because they show different perspectives. We are very
optimistic at the possibility of body-worn cameras and used
appropriately, we feel it can be an important tool for both law
enforcement and prosecutors.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Weir appears as a submission
for the record.]
STATEMENT OF WADE HENDERSON, PRESIDENT AND
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, THE LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE
ON CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Henderson. Good afternoon, Chairman Graham, Ranking
Member Whitehouse, and Members of the Subcommittee. I am Wade
Henderson, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on
Civil and Human Rights, a coalition of more than 200 national
organizations charged with the promotion and protection of the
rights of all persons in the United States.
I am also the Joseph L. Rauh, Jr. Professor of Public
Interest Law at the David A. Clarke School of Law at the
University of the District of Columbia. Thank you for bringing
us together today.
Over the last year, we have seen a growing movement to
address policing practices that have a disproportionate impact
on low income communities, communities of color, and African
Americans in particular.
These practices, like discriminatory profiling, excessive
use of force, and both explicit and implicit racial bias in law
enforcement, have framed the national debate around police
reform and prompted a national conversation on the use of
technology, specifically, body-worn cameras, as one possible
means to enhance accountability and transparency in policing.
Americans across the Nation have been transfixed by a
serious of video clips recorded by concerned citizens that
capture tragic encounters between police and the people they
serve.
Not since the brutal images of the bloody Sunday marchers
being savagely beaten in Selma, Alabama were broadcast across
the Nation 50 years ago, have we seen video make such a
profound impact on our Nation's public discourse.
Prior to these broadcasts, the Voting Rights Act did not
exist, but those images inspired the Nation to write and pass
the Voting Rights Act less than 5 months later.
Today, citizen-recorded videos have inspired the Nation
once again. When one hears Eric Garner's plea that he cannot
breathe or sees Walter Scott being shot from behind, it is hard
not to be moved.
Chairman Graham, you spoke for millions and certainly for
me when you described the video of Walter Scott's killing in
North Charleston as, quote, ``horrific and difficult to
watch.''
There is a temptation to create a false prevalence between
these citizen-recorded videos and body-worn cameras operated by
law enforcement. I urge the Committee not to give in to this
temptation because body-worn cameras won't be operated by
concerned citizens and won't be recording officers. The will
instead be directed at members of the community.
That is why last Friday, the Leadership Conference joined
with a broad coalition of civil rights, privacy and media
rights organizations to release shared civil rights principles
for the use of body-worn cameras by law enforcement.
These principles, which I would like to introduce into the
record today, recognize that cameras are just a tool, not a
substitute for broader reforms of policing practices.
They point out that, quote, ``Without carefully crafted
policy safeguards in place, there is a real risk that these new
devices could become instruments of injustice rather than tools
for accountability'', unquote.
That is why it is so important thay when cameras are
deployed it is with a set of clear and narrowly defined
purposes and that policies governing their use are developed in
concert with public stakeholders.
These cameras should be tools of accountability for police
encounters, not a face or body scanners for everyone who walks
by on the street.
Facial recognition and other biometric technologies must be
carefully limited. If those technologies are used together with
body cameras, it will actually intensify stark disparities in
surveillance in more heavily policed communities of color.
Early experiences in pilot programs suggest that without
strong rules, officers will not necessarily record when they
should. For that reason, it is vitally important that
departments impose stringent discipline on officers who fail to
record encounters that are supposed to be on camera.
Finally, our principles call for a prohibition on officers
viewing footage until after their reports are filed. Footage
can be misleading or incomplete. That is why other sources of
evidence, including the officer's own independent recollection
of an incident, must be preserved.
Allowing officers to preview footage provides an
opportunity to conform reports to what the video appears to
show rather than what the officer recollects. Moreover, there
is a risk that the officer's report and the video may seem to
confirm each other independently when they really are not
independent at all.
The Leadership Conference urges Federal, State and local
governments, as well as individual police departments, to
consider our principles as they develop and implement body-worn
camera policies and programs.
Without the appropriate safeguards, we are at risk of
compounding the very problems in policing that we are seeking
to fix.
Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statment of Mr. Henderson appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Graham. Thank you, Mr. Henderson. We will accept
your principles, without objection, and make it part of the
record.
Senator Franken, would you like to go first?
Senator Franken. Thank you. This is just--I feel like we
are in the infancy of this technology and as now Ranking Member
on Privacy, Technology and the Law Subcommittee, I can see--Mr.
Henderson raised facial recognition and the use of that
possibility. We know that technology is here and this raises so
many issues.
One of the issues I talked about with Senator Scott before
this hearing, just a little while ago was, because we have
heard testimony about the cost of this from Sheriff Bruder.
In these studies, Ms. Miller, is there any indication of
the benefits in terms of cost--money? In other words, I would
imagine that reducing by 80 percent, 90 percent the negative
sort of interactions, that there may be an actual financial
benefit from that.
Ms. Miller. That is what we heard from the police
executives that we worked with. They said that this drop in
complaints, the drop of lawsuits has really helped them on the
back end save money. There have not been a lot of studies,
cost-benefit analysis yet into the technology. My organization,
PERF, is actually starting one now. We are going to be working
on that over the next year to kind of look at that, to see what
are the cost savings in terms of lawsuits and investigations
and do those help outweigh some of these significant costs.
Anecdotally, we hear absolutely, they are worth it 100
percent, even though the costs are very steep.
Senator Franken. There are benefits, but there are also
costs. I mean, there are dollar benefits versus other benefits.
Ms. Miller. Sure. Yes.
Senator Franken. The dollar benefits may not equal the
costs, the dollar costs. This is--some of the issues that are
being raised are, obviously, when does the officer turn it on,
when does he turn it off. I think all of us can sort of, in our
minds, see ``60 Minutes'' stories of a miscarriage of justice
because of editing of footage. That is not very hard to do.
Then the question is what kind of protocols are put in
place to guarantee that that does not happen. I imagine that
that has been thought through.
Does anybody have any response to that in terms of how do
we avoid the ``60 Minutes'' story or the ``20/20'' story or the
``Dateline'' story that we all have in our head 3 years from
now or 20 years from now, someone who has been in prison for 20
years for something they did not do because of a misuse of
this?
Mr. Henderson. Senator Franken, it is a terrific question.
Let me first thank the Chairman, the Ranking Member and the
entire Subcommittee for convening this hearing, because you
have, by doing so, put the issue squarely on the public table
and we appreciate that.
To avoid the problem you have identified, let us begin with
the need to develop these policies in public, that there should
be transparency and there should be involvement of various
sectors of the public, obviously, the law enforcement
professionals, certainly those who are professional advocates
in this area, but clearly the public at large, scientists and
others, and guidelines have to be developed with an eye toward
the subsequent use of this information in various cases.
Second, these cameras are really--they offer protection
both to good officers and to the public they serve. Officers
who are, in fact, inclined to do what they should be doing--
and, by the way, that is the vast majority of officers who are
currently on the beat. We lift them and salute that they are
committed to do.
Unfortunately, not every officer follows appropriate
protocols. The existence of these cameras we hope will have a
prophylactic impact and influence on officers who would be
inclined not to follow existing protocols or present protocols.
Third, it will require law enforcement to, in fact, revisit
the protocols they currently have so that they can ensure that
their officers receive appropriate training on the use and
appropriate involvement of these cameras.
All of these steps we feel can contribute to a wise
investment. This should not be undertaken lightly. The expense
is obviously considerable. When you balance the impact on the
public they serve, the money that will be saved in litigation
costs that result from unfortunate incidents of bad policing,
the balance of the costs will probably work out in favor of the
purchase of cameras.
Senator Franken. Thank you. I know that all of you have the
same kind of questions that I wanted to be asking. Mr. Weir
talked about storage, archiving, retrieving and disclosure,
essentially, as all policies and before storage, I guess, is
what do you shoot and when. Those are all--Mr. Henderson, you
talked about a carefully crafted policy. I think those are all
things that we need to keep in mind as we go through this
technology and this new world.
Chairman Graham. Senator Cornyn.
Senator Cornyn. Thank you for your thoughtful testimony and
that is perhaps one of the most refreshing things I have heard,
how unsimple this is. This is a little bit more complicated
than I think meets the eye, because some of the suggestion is
all you need to do is put cameras on officers and you are good
to go and that clearly does not appear to be the case.
I have a particular question about victims. There is
something called the Federal Crime Victims' Rights Act. One of
the rights guaranteed is the right to be reasonably protected
from the accused and one of the others is a right to be treated
with fairness and respect for victims' dignity and privacy.
I would be interested, Ms. Miller--maybe we can go down the
line here and I would just like to get your comment on how do
we might be able to make sure that we protect the victims of
crime.
Ms. Miller. Thank you for the question. Our report, we
recommend that officers be required to obtain consent prior to
filming conversations with crime victims. That puts the--it
gives the crime victim the dignity and the privacy to be able
to determine whether he or she wants to be filmed. Then on the
back end, of course, there is the issue of public disclosure,
which is another privacy issue when it comes to victims, and we
recommend that agencies really consider the privacy--as I said
in my testimony, you do not want to see people that are most
vulnerable show up on YouTube.
Careful reviewing, making sure that the footage is not
disclosed if it is evidentiary, if it contains interviews with
victims, and then careful redactions if it does have to be
disclosed.
Senator Cornyn. Mr. Bruder.
Sheriff Bruder. In South Carolina, we are currently working
through State legislation to implement body-worn cameras. One
of the moves that we have done there is to basically make body-
worn camera footage exempt or actually not even subject to the
Freedom of Information Act. It is not considered a public
document. In doing that, we make sure that the individual
victims of those crimes, they are not--their identity is not
shared, their incident is not shared. Those types of things can
only be achieved through the discovery process in court and
that is one of the biggest concerns we had there, as well as
making sure that people were not victimized for long-term
periods based on that.
Senator Cornyn. Mr. Weir.
Mr. Weir. Senator, thank you. Thank you for the attention
on victims. I think this is something that is very important in
this discussion.
Victims certainly have the right to be protected and they
have the privacy rights associated with that. Any policies that
have to be crafted have got to be done thoughtfully and in some
detail.
There may be circumstances, frankly, when recording of a
victim would be appropriate, thinking of the domestic violence
victim that is recanting.
There are also circumstances where it would be absolutely
inappropriate, the victim of a sex assault or a child victim
subject to abuse.
I think the clarity of the policies within an agency
becomes critical at that point, because what you are left with
in a courtroom setting is video for a number of purposes, and
then it is remarkable in its absence when perhaps the most
important individual in a proceeding is not on video, and being
able to explain that to a jury and perhaps have it in
appropriate jury instructions to explain that to a jury I think
would be very, very important.
Senator Cornyn. Mr. Henderson.
Mr. Henderson. Senator, we agree completely that there has
to be clear operational policy for recording, retention and
access to film. We certainly believe that the rights of
individual victims should be protected and that there are clear
incidents where the rights of privacy of the individual would
preclude a release, a casual release of this information.
However, in incidents involving the police use of force,
there should be access to that information as quickly as
possible. It should be shared broadly with the public. Those
policies that govern the retention and access to information
should be strictly enforced.
That when officers fail to record incidents that should be
recorded, there should be consequences for that. Obviously,
there has to be adequate training, there has to be
reinforcement, and has to be a sense that these officers are,
in fact, being helped as much by the existence of these cameras
as the public they serve. When those things work in conjunction
with one another, we think they produce positive results.
Senator Cornyn. Mr. Henderson, if I could just follow up.
As I was telling Senator Scott, as we were talking about the
officer being responsible for turning the camera off and on and
being trained to turn it on at the right time, I could see how
that itself will be controversial, because what did the officer
record, what did the officer choose not to record.
As we said earlier, this is not perhaps quite as simple as
it appears.
Mr. Henderson. You are right, Senator, but, again, if the
department provides clear operational guidelines for the
recording, retention and access to that film, then the officer
is not left having to decide for him or herself what incidents
require recording and what do not.
He will have that clear, bright line that we hope will
encourage him to do the right thing or her to do the right
thing.
That is why it is so important that these guideline be
developed with public review, that they be disclosed openly,
that that transparency and debate in the public sphere serves
the interests of the officer, as well as the public.
Senator Cornyn. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Graham. Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman. This is a very
interesting hearing and I appreciate all of the witnesses. I
will echo what my friend, Senator Cornyn has said. The
unsimpleness of this is perhaps the most significant thing that
we have heard.
As Sheriff Bruder probably knows better than the rest of
the panel, police officers see people at their worst. They see
people at times of real emotional agony. They see them with
horrific physical injuries. A video record of a great deal of
that would be hugely intrusive to those individuals, hugely in
demand by our 24/7 news media ``if it bleeds, it leads''
culture.
I think you could expect some really intense conflict over
this availability. You can go into people's homes if you are a
police officer. If your camera is running in somebody's home,
does that person have a right to not have what is in their home
seen? If the person is a celebrity, if they are a public
official, a sports hero, or something like that.
I think it is really important to solve the problem of
police use of force, but we want to make sure we do not open a
whole new array of problems.
Sheriff Bruder, you said there are 46 different sheriffs in
your home State.
Sheriff Bruder. Yes, sir.
Senator Whitehouse. In Rhode Island, we have got 39 cities
and towns and most of them have their own police departments.
Sheriff Bruder. Yes, sir.
Senator Whitehouse. How many of your sheriffs have what you
would consider a sophisticated IT department?
Sheriff Bruder. A handful. Obviously, a lot of them have to
comply with CGIS requirements from the FBI. They have got some
IT, advanced IT stuff there, but only a handful have the
ability to go back and do those things.
Senator Whitehouse. We have police departments that have
been hit by CryptoLocker and shut down.
Sheriff Bruder. Right.
Senator Whitehouse. I think police departments are very
often targeted by hackers nowadays, whether it is CryptoLocker
or other devices. The question of the hackability of all of
this when you consider what the Rupert Murdoch folks did over
in England, hacking into telephones, how easy would it be to
pay somebody to hack into these and get some of that very, very
personal footage out.
I do not know how--I appreciate, Mr. Henderson, your desire
that there be a clear, bright line, but at this point, I do not
see a clear, bright line if you are a police officer who has to
make an on/off decision about when you turn it on. Do you know
when you are going to be using force in advance? Probably not.
Does that mean that any encounter, you should turn it on
sort of just in case and then maybe erase it after? This is
really complicated. What are the best policies out there right
now? Are there a couple that we could look at where you think
people have really got this right in the public records law, in
terms of something that a patrol officer who already has 5,000
other things to remember can implement in a sensible way and in
a way that is protective of the myriad of privacy rights that
surround this?
Ms. Miller.
Ms. Miller. I think that when we----
Senator Whitehouse. PERF is terrific, by the way. Thank you
for your work and thank you for your organization's great work.
Ms. Miller. Thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you for the
question.
When we did our research, we looked at a lot of different
policies and we spoke to a lot of agencies from across the
country, because I think this technology is so new that I could
not even really point to one policy that was a model at this
point.
I think that for one thing, every State law is different
when it comes to disclosure and evidence. They are all going to
be a little different. What we did was we gathered all of those
policies, we spoke with all of the people who have experience
in this, law enforcement officials and civil rights groups and
unions and different folks and we kind of came up with what we
found were, at that phase, some of the best practices and the
best policies.
When it comes to turning the cameras on and off, the policy
we saw the most and that we thought was probably the best was
to do it during all calls for service. When you get a call on
the radio, when an officer gets a call on the radio and goes to
that call, they turn it on from the minute they get that call
and it goes until the end of that incident.
Then also during all----
Senator Whitehouse. An officer comes to somebody's house
responding to a call. The person who made the call says, ``I do
not want you to come in with your camera on, this is my house,
I do not know what you are going to do with all that footage.''
What is the officer's choice then?
Ms. Miller. It depends on the jurisdiction. We would
recommend that the officer continue recording, unless this is a
victim who is saying that they do not want their face on the
camera. At that point, we say continue recording because most
of the agencies we worked with said as long as the officer has
a legal right to be in the home, which he would as responding
to a call for service, then that is when they should be
recording, because you do not want some incident to occur then
and not have the footage of that incident. There is an
accountability piece there, as well as the privacy piece.
Senator Whitehouse. That is kind of the backside of the
Supreme Court decisions we are dealing with right now about
police surveillance, where the Supreme Court has taken a look
at things that police always have done, but said now when they
are hyper-enabled by technology, it is actually a new question.
My time is up, but this is a really interesting hearing and
I appreciate the Chairman holding it.
Chairman Graham. Thank you. Senator Coons. Senator
Klobuchar. You all decide among yourselves.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Chairman Graham and Senator
Klobuchar and Senator Scott, for calling this hearing, Ranking
Member Whitehouse.
This is an important time and an important issue. The
American public, as we all know, is searching for answers on
how to effectively heal the divisions we have seen play out
between law enforcement and the communities they serve.
Last week was National Police Week, and we honored 273
officers killed in the line of duty. A stark reminder that
policing is a dangerous profession, and it is our duty as
elected officials to provide State and local police with the
support, the equipment, the training and the resources they
need to come home to their loved ones and families at the end
of each day on the job.
In the recent weeks and months, we have also seen
disturbing footage taken from a number of scenes in New York,
and Missouri, and Ohio, and South Carolina, and in Maryland,
and in each of these instances, the actions taken by law
enforcement and the ensuing public response has highlighted the
deep divisions that still exist in many places between law
enforcement and the communities they protect.
It is also our duty as elected officials to try and help
bridge those divides, and I welcome today's hearing as an
opportunity to learn and work constructively on what is the
best way forward for finding common ground.
Like many of my colleagues, I believe that body-worn
cameras have tremendous potential if implemented correctly and
thoughtfully to increase accountability, to settle conflicting
witness accounts, to contribute to officer safety and to
transparency, and to heal some of these deep divides. There are
very important concerns that you, as witnesses, have raised so
far today and I think meeting those concerns will be absolutely
essential to ensuring that cameras become properly deployed
tools of accountability rather than means of furthering
division.
I have a couple of simple questions, and I would appreciate
your answering them in turn, if you would not mind, to just
continue this conversation.
When designing and implementing rules for the use of body-
worn cameras, who should be at the table? How can communities
ensure that the rules around use of cameras and access to video
footage are properly followed once in place?
If you would, please, Ms. Miller.
Ms. Miller. Thank you for the question. The first part, we
recommend that police agencies engage with pretty much any
stakeholder who is going to be affected by the cameras.
Community organizations, line officers, unions, prosecutors,
local policymakers, courts--all of these people need to be
included at the table when it comes to policy develop and
engaged and their voices heard.
When it comes to the second part of your question and kind
of the accountability portion, we recommend that agencies share
their policies online, on their websites with the public, that
they share their retention schedules for data with the public,
and we recommend that they regularly collect statistical
information about the usage of cameras and make that public, as
well, so that the public can see how the cameras are being
used, what is being released, things like that. Those are kind
of our two recommendations.
Senator Coons. Thank you. Mr. Bruder.
Sheriff Bruder. Again, in South Carolina, we are looking at
implementing statewide legislation to have body-worn cameras.
The legislature has kind of sent that task over to the Law
Enforcement Training Council, which is made up of various law
enforcement agency heads from across the State.
I know that they have already had plans to include many of
the groups that Ms. Miller has mentioned, as well as our
criminal attorneys, their associations, those kinds of folks to
make sure that everybody has input on the implementation and
the development of those policies.
I echo Ms. Miller's comments on the accountability, that
that is probably the best way to go about doing that.
Senator Coons. Thank you. Mr. Weir.
Mr. Weir. Thank you, Senator, and thank you for the
question. I think it is critical, once again, to keep in mind
that we are not just looking at the front end of this process.
The accountability and the transparency associated with video
recording is very, very important. The back end of this is what
are we going to do with it.
This, in fact, is evidence that is being collected and how
that evidence is stored, managed and appropriately disclosed to
defense counsel and perhaps disclosed to the public or perhaps,
under some circumstances, not disclosed to the public to
respect privacy interests, all those are very important
considerations.
Many of these decisions, I believe, could be--should be
addressed on the local level, something that the community
itself needs to be engaged in. When we start talking about
building and developing trust between law enforcement and the
community, this is something that should happen well before we
are rolling out body cameras. The community has got to be
engaged and those relationships have got to be formed by all
partners.
We cannot lose sight of the fact that at the end of the
day, the collection of this data fundamentally is for
evidentiary purposes and how can we best preserve that
evidence.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Mr. Weir. Mr. Henderson.
Mr. Henderson. Senator Coons, thank you for the question. I
agree with the remarks of my colleagues. All affected
stakeholders should be invited to the table and there should be
a public debate on these issues. That includes elected
officials, that includes members of law enforcement, it
certainly includes legal advisors, people who may serve--former
prosecutors, defense bar, should be encouraged to come, civic
organizations, as well as recognized non-governmental
organizations that have roles to play in evaluating the
implementation of this; human rights groups, like Amnesty
International or Human Rights First might be included in the
debate.
Having said that, again, body-worn cameras are only one
tool. They cannot accomplish the systemic reform. For example,
we do not have a policy addressing a ban on racial profiling,
for example, and that continues to be a factor in law
enforcement in a particular community. It will defeat the
purpose of the body-worn camera if that purpose is to help
reiterate law enforcement and the community together in a new
approach to law enforcement.
Senator Coons. I really appreciate all your answers and I
am, again, grateful to the Chairman for calling this.
As the co-Chair of the Senate Law Enforcement Caucus and
someone who worked closely with law enforcement in my previous
county role, I will tell you that those are thoughtful and
thorough answers and it is my hope that some of the different
organizations you represent will work together to help develop
some model guidelines and some model policies.
It should be locally driven, but not every community is
going to have the resources and the time and the effort. I
think body-worn cameras are misperceived as an easy solution to
very complex and deep-seated problems. They can be a
constructive tool, but we need to do the hard work first to
make sure that the parameters and challenges are understood.
I am grateful for your testimony today. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Whitehouse. Chairman, before we turn to Senator
Klobuchar, can I ask unanimous consent that the statement of
our Ranking Member, Senator Leahy, be added to the record of
this proceeding?
Chairman Graham. Without objection. Senator Klobuchar.
[The information appears as a submission for the record.]
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you all for being here.
This is an issue that is near and dear to my heart. As many
of you know, I used to be prosecutor and actually Minnesota was
one of the first States in the country that videotaped
interrogations both in squad cars and custody, anything that
was in custody. It came about because of defense efforts,
actually, to prevent any kind of questions about bad
activities, but also to protect civil rights. I made the
argument, and our police pretty much agreed, that it also
protected them. It made for a better process. It allowed people
to see videotape of someone when they were being questioned so
that jurors could judge for themselves what they thought.
We had a few cases where we had people that would say
things that were somewhat incriminating on the videotape that
the jurors were able to see, and mostly it made sure Miranda
rights were read and that the process was fair.
I guess I would start with that, and I think it has come
now in more jurisdictions obviously, and our police have grown
to accept it and they did accept it actually pretty quickly
when it started there.
Of course, there are other issues with regard to body
cameras and privacy that we have pointed out that are different
than just interrogating one person. I want to start with this
concept of the interrogations. I guess I will start with you,
Mr. Weir and Mr. Bruder.
I realize that not every jurisdiction has this mandatory
recording of interrogations. How would you compare body cameras
to other types of interrogations? What are some of the issues
that you do not have with the interrogations that you have with
the body cameras?
Mr. Weir. Thank you, Senator, for the question. As you
know, there are other recording devices that are more
widespread right now, such as dashboard cameras used by law
enforcement in stops. Those have proven to be very effective
law enforcement tools for many of the reasons that you
articulated.
Oftentimes it shows the officer acting in absolute
conformity with the best practices that you would expect from
police and sheriff's officers and State troopers. It is also
great evidence of what actually happens on scene.
Senator Klobuchar. It is also a good training thing,
actually, I think for officers. They are able to watch each
other and see what is good and what is bad and make sure. It is
really, I think, a very good way for people to learn when they
are able to watch each other. Continue on.
Mr. Weir. I would certainly agree with that, Senator. I
would also agree that we are all about trying to improve our
process. From a law enforcement and prosecutor perspective, our
goal is to pursue the truth. Our goal is to achieve justice and
we do not hide from the facts. If, in fact, the video recording
helps establish those facts, then it is a tool that should be
used.
With respect to the taping, videotaping of interactions and
conversations with witnesses and defendants, that is a good
practice. Certainly, in my jurisdiction, we do that as often as
we possibly can. However, it is not mandated and I would be
very reluctant to be advocating mandating that given the fact
that, once again, in the pursuit of truth, the pursuit of
justice, there may be legitimate evidence that results from the
conversations between law enforcement and individual that could
be lost and that subverts our pursuit of truth and justice.
I think in the right circumstances, I think it should be
encouraged and it is used extensively, but I certainly would
not be in favor of any kind of a mandate.
Senator Klobuchar. I think in our State, it was a Supreme
Court decision called the Scales decision. I will tell you our
police have grown, for the most part, to like it and we have
not had issues of not being able to get convictions or anything
like that because of this practice.
Sometimes they have to explain why they pursued a certain
number of questions or why they did it a certain way, that is
true, but I think overall we have found it to be beneficial.
Mr. Bruder.
Sheriff Bruder. Thank you for the question. I would echo
Mr. Weir's comments that it is best practice and probably
advisable to go ahead and try to get those interrogations on
film when possible, but it is not mandated in South Carolina.
To kind of transition to a different point that you were
making and something that was a great fear of ours when we were
trying to support this legislation, we too have dash cameras in
our cars and we have seen a tremendous problem where somebody's
foot can go off the scene of the video and then the cases being
dismissed because you do not see everything that is happening
on video.
What we do not want to happen is for that to be taking
place with dash--body cameras. We do not want to get to the
point where the body camera footage is the end-all-be-all of
evidence.
Senator Klobuchar. I understand this. We used to call it
the CSI effect with juries because we would have a case--and
Mr. Henderson knows what I am talking about--where there would
be no possibility of DNA, but a defense lawyer would say, well,
if there is no DNA, and people are used to seeing this on TV.
Your point is well taken, although I think some of this--you
would have to explain to juries why something went bad, that it
is not necessary to have that for a case. I think that is a
good point.
When I came in, Senator Whitehouse was asking some
questions about just the best--the pilots of you, Ms. Miller.
We have a pilot going on in Duluth and in Burnsville,
Minnesota. Maybe we want to look into how they are doing there,
and Minneapolis with what they are doing. I do think those
pilot programs are one good way of figuring out what is working
best and allow States to develop some of these privacy policies
that are going to have to be in place to make this work.
I do not know if you wanted to add anything to that, Mr.
Henderson.
Mr. Henderson. Senator, thank you. No. I think pilot
studies can be very useful in providing information to be
considered by a wider audience before a major investment is
made in the purchase of these cameras.
Having said that, I hope that States and localities will
not use that delay as a basis for not going forward,
particularly now that the Department of Justice is making
available grant funds to support some States in moving in this
area. I think that should be encouraged. We support the
Administration's approach.
Senator Klobuchar. That is why I led with this
interrogation issue because at first it was something that our
officers were concerned about, and I think they grew to think
it was actually a pretty good policy over time.
This one, I will admit, has much more complications in
terms of some of the issues that were raised with privacy and
what you do with these tapes and that you protect people's
privacy as opposed to just interrogating someone in a squad car
or in a room.
That is why it is more complicated and we have to consider
that as we move forward.
I want to thank all of you for being so thoughtful today.
Thank you.
Chairman Graham. Senator Scott.
Senator Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you once
again holding this hearing.
I have met with more than a dozen groups over the last
couple of weeks and would love to turn the information over to
the Committee and submit it for the record.
Chairman Graham. Without objection.
[The information appears as a submission for the record.]
Senator Scott. Thank you, sir.
Ms. Miller, do you know how many jurisdictions around the
country are currently running some type of a pilot program and/
or have adopted the policy of body-worn cameras, approximately?
Ms. Miller. That is a great question. It is one I get asked
a lot, and it is one I do not know the answer to. I do not
think anyone knows the exact number. The most recent estimate I
have heard was between 3,500 and 4,000 agencies across the
country, but, again, that is just an estimate. I think it is
not even the most recent. I do not think it is necessarily
current.
That is something would--I think people are working on
trying to figure that out.
Senator Scott. The number is not nearly as important as the
level of activity around the country.
Ms. Miller. Yes.
Senator Scott. I think 4 or 5 years from now, looking back,
this will be a foregone conclusion how we find ourselves with
the vast majority officers wearing body-worn cameras.
I do think it is important for us to point out the fact
that the American Laboratory is currently at work looking for
best practices and the best policies. We can look around the
country and we will find the weaving together of the best
practices and policies around the country.
I do think it is important to perhaps reemphasize the
necessity of local development of the policies. Policing is a
local effort and not a Federal effort nor should we find
ourselves trying to figure out how to Federalize local
policing.
I think it is also important for us--Mr. Weir, I would love
to hear your thoughts on the mandates. I am of the opinion that
we should not mandate from the Federal Government what local
law enforcement should do for body cameras, but we certainly
should encourage it and we can, I think, Ms. Miller, as we have
discussed previously, create a framework for folks to work
within.
Thoughts.
Mr. Weir. Thank you, Senator. I agree and would expect that
most of my colleagues in the prosecution community would also
agree.
There certainly is a place to delineate best practices and
there certainly is a place to try to articulate the kinds of
issues that need to be addressed and perhaps even suggest
proposed solutions to some of those issues.
Fundamentally, this really is a local issue and it varies
significantly from one locale to another based upon resources,
officers training and the kind of requirements that are needed
to effectively prosecute. The resources are a huge issue not
just with respect to the money involved with the data storage,
but the personnel associated with that as far as being able to
accurately document what data you have on hand and then, from a
prosecutor's perspective, to be able to draw down that
information and be able to identify which portion of recordings
go with which case and how is it going to be used.
Although you are generating significant evidence, you also
generate significant work. If you have nine different cameras
on in a single incident, that exponentially increases the
amount of review that you may have, some of which may be
extraordinarily relevant to the issue, but some of it may not.
That still translates into personnel and manpower costs. I
think it is very, very important that it be done on a local
basis, perhaps with guidance from a Federal level or State
level and, also, as we have been discussing, I think, input
with respect to involved stakeholders from the community would
also be an important component.
Senator Scott. Thank you.
Sheriff Bruder and Mr. Henderson, I know that we have heard
a lot about privacy issues and whether you use cameras or not.
I think one of the questions I have has to do with privacy
issues in public spaces. With the number of cameras that are
now available, call it the iPhone or whatever, Samsung, but I
do not want to get in trouble with anybody, but whatever your
phone of choice is and/or your cameras at grocery stores or you
are walking down the street and if you are in my neighborhood,
you are on camera because I have them all around my house, as
well.
The truth is that there is a new conversation, and perhaps
new considerations that need to be absorbed as it relates to
privacy issues in public spaces, and I am not sure if you have
thought this through yet, Mr. Henderson.
For Sheriff, since you are a man who can arrest me in South
Carolina, I want to make sure we give you as much time as
necessary on that issue of privacy. That is my best joke, by
the way.
Mr. Henderson. Senator Scott, I'm sorry--I will be very
brief. I think you have identified a new, but very complex
challenge that faces 21st century society. After all, our
Congress has just gone through a debate over the collection of
data by the National Security Agency, what kind of information
can be gathered in various forms.
There obviously are new sensitivities, heightened
sensitivities about privacy in our society and that should be
the case.
I think we have to move with care and thoughtfulness. I
think that new policies have to be developed to meet new
challenges and how we both access this information, how we
retain and store it, who has access to it, these are all very
relevant questions that should be discussed before an
investment is made of substantial cost rather than after.
I am glad you have identified the issue, and I do not feel
that we have given adequate attention to the complexity of the
privacy challenges that face the country.
Senator Scott. I know my time is up, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you very much.
Chairman Graham. Thank you, Senator Scott. Senator
Blumenthal.
Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Graham. Mr. Bruder, would you like to make a
comment?
Sheriff Bruder. I will be quick. One of things--and that
exact conversation happened in the South Carolina Senate
Judiciary Committee and they have the exact same conversations
there. Ultimately, it came down to a matter of what was subject
to the Freedom of Information Act and what was not. Again, it
came down to a resource issue and the fact that we have got
very small police departments that would ultimately have to
create a FOIA department to be able to maintain all of this
data that was coming in and out and all of the requests.
Essentially the decision was made not to make it a public
document, but to be able to give a copy of that data to a small
amount of people and then they, obviously, could do with what
they wanted to after that.
That was our way of kind of narrowing it down so that the
public still does have input, the public still does have
knowledge, and, of course, the agency head, the law enforcement
agency head could still release it if it benefited the public,
as well.
Senator Scott. Thank you very much.
Chairman Graham. Thank you, Senator Scott. Senator
Blumenthal.
Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for
holding this hearing and thanks to Senator Scott for the bill
that he has introduced and the initiative that he has taken,
and thanks to all of you for being here today.
I am a strong supporter of body-worn cameras by police. In
fact, I have supported the full appropriation for existing
programs that would fund them, and I think they will make a
very substantial contribution to the credibility and
effectiveness of law enforcement.
At the same time, I respect Mr. Henderson's point, and I
think you have all made it in different words, that a lot of
care and thoughtfulness needs to go into this new policy.
A lot of people are pretty simplistic in their view of it.
You have a camera, so, of course, it will record everything, no
problem and there will be no questions.
In fact, there are questions about privacy, there are
questions about chain of custody, who has access to the results
of these body-worn cameras, where are the results stored, if
so, by a third party. The chain of custody issues are
multiplied and what are the standards.
Existing Federal programs do not fund standards and policy
guidelines, and I think there is a role for the Federal
Government to play, as you just said, Mr. Weir. In fact, not
only is there a role, there is a necessity for the Federal
Government to try to set some evidentiary standards and
criteria for admissibility here.
I might just say one of the toughest cases I ever had to
try involved the use of video in a drug prosecution where the
video failed for a short period of time and the defense was
that the critical, in effect, exculpatory support for the
defendant occurred during that period when the video failed and
tried to create reasonable doubt because of that malfunction.
We are not done with this topic simply by requiring cameras
to be worn by police. There are significant issues to be
overcome and I think you have all highlighted them.
I might just ask all of you not just for the number, but
could you point us in the direction of programs that are
working and working well so that perhaps we have models for
what should be done by other cities, in fact, maybe other
States, if you know of any.
Ms. Miller. Thank you again for the question. We worked
with several agencies that I think are doing a lot of things
right and even though their policies may differ and we may not
agree with every single policy they have, I think that they are
very thoughtful about what they are doing.
Oakland, California was one of the initial adopters of body
cameras. They have had them since 2009-2010. I have worked with
their chief quite a bit. Places like Daytona Beach, Florida;
Greensboro, North Carolina; Mesa, Arizona; they have all put a
lot of thought--Rialto, California, which is where one of the
studies was done. These places have all done a lot of work and
I think those are all agencies that have really done a good job
of considering all of these issues and are still engaged in
trying to reform their policies as they learn new things.
Senator Blumenthal. Mr. Bruder.
Sheriff Bruder. Thank you for the question. Obviously, it
is very new technology, so there are only a few in South
Carolina that have done it, and we have got probably 22
agencies out of the 316 in South Carolina that have actually
implemented body-worn cameras.
I can think of a couple off the top of my head that are
doing it very well. The Spartanburg County Sheriff's Office has
been doing this for coming up on a year and they seem to be
having great success with it. I also looked at the Charleston
Police Department. The Charleston Police Department has taken
the route that we have all discussed in bringing everybody to
the table to formulate their policies. I believe that they have
been approved by the ALCU and a number of other groups. A lot
of other agencies are kind of looking to Charleston and their
policies as a model that they can follow and implement in
similar ways in their own communities.
Mr. Weir. Senator, in Colorado, approximately 28 percent of
the law enforcement agencies are using body cameras in one form
or another. The greatest success stories that I hear are coming
from the very, very small departments. When I say small, these
are departments with less than 10 sworn officers. I think that
helps focus some of these issues and also perhaps reduces some
of the complexities associated with this.
Of that 28 percent in Colorado, there is only 1 department
in excess of 50 officers that have used body cameras and that
has been on a pilot basis. I think in Colorado that it is still
an open question, although the response from the agencies, the
smaller agencies, has been very positive.
Senator Blumenthal. Mr. Henderson.
Mr. Henderson. Senator, that is a great question. It
deserves a thoughtful response. I would prefer to submit my
answer in writing. I would like to consult with the task force
that helped to produce our civil rights principles, and I think
they have surveyed some of the programs currently in place and
I would like to get their advice before I respond.
Senator Blumenthal. I would welcome that response and any
other written responses after this hearing from any of you on
any of these topics. I might just say with all the questions
that may be raised, body-worn cameras are going to be a fact of
life for better, not for worse; better that the images should
come from cameras worn by police than cameras held by
bystanders. We know that the images from those bystander-held
cameras are going to be a fact of life, whether we like it or
not; better that they should be held or worn by police officers
who are sworn to tell the truth and enforce the law and seek
justice.
I am a strong advocate and simply raise these questions
because I think they are inevitable and you as professionals
would want them answered.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Graham. Senator Durbin.
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
coming before us today to discuss this issue.
Mr. Henderson, I am kind of stuck on this one point here
that Mr. Bruder raised. The State of South Carolina has deemed
data recorded by a body-worn camera not to be a public
document. Thus, the data is not subject to Freedom of
Information Act disclosure. He goes on to say in his testimony,
``Doing so will ensure that a single moment of indiscretion
does not provide a lifetime of embarrassment, ensures that
one's guilt or innocence is determined in a court of law and
not a court of public opinion.''
In your testimony, you noted the fact that footage from
body-worn cameras can be a valuable source of evidence to help
protect both officers and the public. The public needs access
to that information if it is going to protect them, does it
not?
Mr. Henderson. Senator Durbin, thank you for the question.
The answer is yes. I do think the public needs access to that
information.
I would say in every instance where there has been a use of
force by the police department in a particular encounter with
the public, that information should be made available and
accessible and relatively quickly in the aftermath of a
particular incident.
Heretofore, we have not had adequate data about the use of
force or, for that matter, death in custody. It was not until
the Senate this year adopted a provision requiring the
collection of data of individuals who died in the custody of
law enforcement that we are beginning to get that information.
I am concerned about unilateral declarations that exclude
access of this information to the general public without having
first a clear discussion of why that approach has been taken
and whether it conforms with existing exemptions of the Freedom
of Information Act.
I think in many instances, the judgment, and understandably
done in the desire to protect individuals from permanent
embarrassment over incidents that are relatively minor in
nature, that is a legitimate concern. That should not override
the public's need or access to information that is involved
particularly where the use of force by police officers has
taken place.
Senator Durbin. Mr. Bruder, what you are saying to us is
that you do not want this to be a fishing expedition. That is
the way I read your testimony.
How do you respond to this balance, protecting police
officers and protecting the public, while saying the police can
hold that information from that body cam and it does not have
to be disclosed.
Mr. Henderson suggests that if there is use of force, that
ought to create the exception. What do you think?
Sheriff Bruder. I agree with Mr. Henderson's concerns and
that is a fine line that we have been trying to walk in South
Carolina to allow access, that the public can see and have
confidence in what the law enforcement agencies have been
doing, but also to protect ourselves and protect the victims
and other people on the video from excessive or abusive FOIA
requests.
Our bill in South Carolina still allows the public to get
that information, whether that is through the individual who is
on the camera can request a copy of that and he can obviously
do what he would like to do with that data then, or the agency
head, the law enforcement agency head could still release that
information if he felt like it was in the best interest of the
public to go ahead and do that, and we have seen that time and
time again where questionable uses of force have been used and
we have gone back to gone ahead released the video.
One of the questions that was brought up earlier was about
tapering with the video or doing those types of things. This is
a topic that came up when we considered our release of
information.
Not only does FOIA prohibit us from releasing certain
things, but there are also ceratin things in South Carolina
that prohibit us from releasing victim identifying
characteristics or juveniles and those types of things and for
us to do that, we would have to go back and redact.
Obviously, it is easy to redact a document or a piece of
paper where you have got a black Sharpie that we can go out and
do those things, but how do you redact a video. Then
furthermore, once we get into court, will the question be
raised, okay, it is obvious that you have been able to redact
and do this to some degree, how do we know that what we are
watching here in court today is the actual true event of what
took place that day.
Those are all questions that we are still trying to figure
out as this new technology moves forward.
Senator Durbin. We are all trying to learn and I think the
march of science challenges us constantly. It was not that many
years ago DNA did not mean anything to anybody and now it has
ended up resulting in much better, I think, more complete
efforts to find the truth and justice and video evidence the
same.
The march of science is going to give us access to
information in real time with some degree of certainty that we
never had before.
Thank you very much. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Graham. Thank you, Senator Durbin. I will wrap it
up here. You all have been very informative. I have learned a
lot.
Number one, Ms. Miller, in the dash cam recording history,
has that worked pretty well as far as dash cams?
Ms. Miller. Yes. I mean, I think that there has been a lot
of success with dash cams. I think it is a good way for us to
kind of look to body cameras and see what they can do. I do
think there are a lot of differences and so it is hard to--we
always advice agencies you can incorporate things from your
dash cam policy, but we would not recommend relying on it.
Chairman Graham. You have to go much further with body
cameras.
Ms. Miller. Exactly. I do think they can be instructive.
Chairman Graham. Has any jurisdiction ever outlawed a dash
camera after it came into being for any reason?
Ms. Miller. No, not to my knowledge. I have talked to
places that--actually, there was one agency that I can remember
that ended up getting rid of their dash cams because of the
expectations that the courts started having and it was kind of
the CSI effect that was discussed earlier.
They found that their officers' credibility was being
undermined.
Chairman Graham. That is just one.
Ms. Miller. Yes. Just one that I have ever talked to.
Chairman Graham. Mr. Bruder, dash cams in South Carolina,
are they pretty common?
Sheriff Bruder. They are common. They are mostly required
by law, but we are still having a problem getting the funding
for that.
Chairman Graham. Would you say 80 percent, 70 percent?
Sheriff Bruder. Probably 70 to 80 percent of patrol
vehicles, not all law enforcement vehicles, but patrol vehicles
that do traffic enforcement.
Chairman Graham. How do they store the data or keep the
data?
Sheriff Bruder. They have methods that they do that within
the local agency there. They can go back and they can either
download that through a cloud means or they can go in and
physically connect to a computer and download it.
Chairman Graham. How much more expensive would it be with
body cameras? Would it be exponentially more expensive?
Sheriff Bruder. Based on the sheer number of hours and
amount of video that you are getting, it is going to be
exponentially greater. Most of our agencies have been looking
at these and trying to get different cost examples and a lot of
them have come back with the number of $100 per month per
officer to store data.
Chairman Graham. $100 per month per officer.
Sheriff Bruder. Yes, sir.
Chairman Graham. Ms. Miller, what is a guesstimate as to
how much it would cost the Nation, if every agency, every law
enforcement official had a body camera?
Ms. Miller. To store the data?
Chairman Graham. Just to buy the cameras, store the data,
the whole package.
Ms. Miller. Gosh, I am terrible at math. I hate to even
try. I have talked to agencies that spend millions per year on
storage alone.
Chairman Graham. Can somebody try to find that answer for
us?
Ms. Miller. Yes. We can definitely look into that.
Chairman Graham. Do you agree about $100 per month per
officer sounds right as far as storage?
Ms. Miller. I heard that. I have heard $800 per officer per
year. It depends on the size of the agency, how many videos
they are shooting, that sort of thing.
Chairman Graham. Mr. Weir, you talked about looking at this
as an evidence device; is that correct?
Mr. Weir. Yes, sir.
Chairman Graham. Chain of custody all would be very
important.
Mr. Weir. Absolutely, Senator.
Chairman Graham. Have you had a problem use dash camera
evidence?
Mr. Weir. We have not. In Colorado, the dash cameras are
used routinely by the Colorado State Patrol and then it is left
up to individual police departments as to whether or not they
also want to use the dash cameras.
Chairman Graham. From a prosecutor's point of view, this
has not been a difficult tool to employ.
Mr. Weir. Not with respect to dash cameras, Senator. Once
again, the complexity is logarithmic when you start talking
about body cameras.
Chairman Graham. No, no. I got you, but I just want to make
sure that what we use is good to go.
Mr. Henderson, the only reason we are probably having this
hearing is because of these private videos that have shocked
everybody. Do you agree with that?
Mr. Henderson. I do.
Chairman Graham. In those cases, we are glad we have video
evidence. You have got the North Charleston case that is in
litigation. I will be careful of what I say, but in that case
only God knows what the story would have been.
Mr. Henderson. You are absolutely right. It is these
private videos that have really motivated the public debate. As
I said earlier, you deserve great credit for convening this
conversation.
Chairman Graham. On balance, if you could get the right
protocols to protect privacy and make sure the officer is using
the camera in an appropriate manner, do you think it is best
for the Nation to go down this road?
Mr. Henderson. Without question, I think it is absolutely
essential.
Chairman Graham. Does everybody agree with that? If you do
not, speak up.
Mr. Weir. Senator, I think going down----
Chairman Graham. I am not saying a Federal mandate, but
just for law enforcement in general.
Mr. Weir. I think it can be an effective tool, but once
again, we have got to be very careful primarily on the back
end.
Chairman Graham. I got you. All the problems are real that
you have identified, but is this something worth pursuing? Is
the benefit greater than the cost, Mr. Weir?
Mr. Weir. I think potentially, yes.
Chairman Graham. That is common ground for everybody. The
benefit is worth the cost if we can do it right.
Does anybody know if the Capitol Hill Police wear body
cameras?
Ms. Miller. I think they are looking into it, but I do not
think that they wear them now.
Chairman Graham. It seems to me that if we were that
concerned about it, as Members of Congress, we would look into
that. I intend to do that.
I very much appreciate your testimony. One last question.
Let us say there is a grant program. Would you agree that
having certain criteria, that you have got to do certain things
before you get the grant, would make sense, Mr. Henderson?
Mr. Henderson. I think that is also absolutely essential.
Chairman Graham. Mr. Bruder, would that be okay with you?
Sheriff Bruder. Yes, sir. Absolutely. I would take that
opportunity just to point out that in the current grant
funding, I am not sure that data retention is covered, and
obviously we have pointed out today that is the most expensive
part.
Chairman Graham. You would not want to spend money on a
program that was not sound. Having conditions on the grant
makes sense.
Sheriff Bruder. Yes, sir.
Chairman Graham. Does that make sense to you, Mr. Weir?
Mr. Weir. It certainly does, Senator, yes.
Chairman Graham. Ms. Miller.
Ms. Miller. Yes.
Chairman Graham. A block grant is probably not the way to
go here. Have some conditions attached to it.
Ms. Miller. Yes.
Chairman Graham. Thank you all very much. I have learned a
lot.
The hearing will be adjourned. We will leave the record
open for 1 week for further questions and any information you
want to provide for the Committee. You have really done the
country a great service. Thank you all.
[Whereupon, at 4:34 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
A P P E N D I X
Miscellaneous submissions:
Civil Rights Principles on Body Worn Cameras..................... 54
The Leadership Conference........................................ 56
National Urban League............................................ 71
Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC), March
2, 2015....................................................... 77
Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC), May
19, 2015...................................................... 75
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
[all]