 The Denver Police Department, through the leadership of Chief White, support and embrace transparency. The police are merely a segment of the community, empowered to prevent crime and maintain order. And with that responsibility comes welcome scrutiny. We believe that the body-worn camera program, which began rolling out last night, is a critical component of our commitment to transparency. The department firmly believes that the body-worn camera program will provide a much better understanding of the facts and situations where police respond. It will improve the quality of witness evidence in criminal court cases. It will improve interaction between the police and the community. It will reduce the number of complaints against police officers. It will also protect officers against false or frivolous allegations. And it will document conductive officers who act outside the values of the mission of the Denver Police Department, enabling us to take appropriate actions to address that behavior. We are proud of our body-worn camera program and that it was developed after careful consideration. That included a successful pilot period under the watchful eye of researchers from Cambridge University and with a policy that was developed with input from the community. As police body-worn cameras are just being placed into the police environment across the United States, there are many unanswered questions which communities and the courts will surely address. We believe that we have a thoughtful and reasonable beginning to our program and we ask the community to support this effort with the understanding that it will evolve. So with that I'm going to ask Commander Archer to come up and speak with you. The Denver Police Department began exploring body-worn technology about four years ago and as the technology has improved and emerged, we selected a camera system and conducted a pilot program in 2014. It was about 21 weeks. It involved 105 of our officers who were assigned to District 6. Throughout this process of the pilot, we developed our policy in collaboration with the stakeholders, which included the officers, community feedback, our legal advisors, and then in 2015 we requested and received the $1.8 million in funding to purchase 800 cameras for the frontline officers that are in patrol in our gang unit and then in our traffic operations along with the video storage for this first year. To allow for the training and the equipment installation, the cameras are going to be phased in across the city over the next several months. Currently the first 200 cameras are being implemented in District 6, the gang unit and traffic operations. The remaining districts will receive their cameras. One district at a time will go in numerical order, so District 1 will be next, then we'll go to 2, 3, 4, 5. Finally, ending with the airport and that should be towards the end of 2016. So Chief White's committed to having officers wear the cameras while they work off duty. However, these logistics are still being finalized and right now our focus is on getting this first 800 out to the officers who are in the line assignments. Throughout this, we've seen enthusiasm and support for the project from the community and from the officers. When we ended the pilot, the officers did not want to give up their cameras. They kept asking how quickly could we get them back, so now that they're getting them back, they're ready to go. So we're confident that the body worn cameras are going to strengthen the public's trust and demonstrate the professionalism of our officers. So from here, let me introduce you to Sergeant Jess Lighthouser. He's a supervisor of the unit in charge of the body worn camera equipment and he and his staff are doing the training as well. We began implementing the training the officers yesterday. We started yesterday morning with the first cameras being deployed last evening. We trained about 80 officers yesterday. Those were all in District 6. With next week, we'll begin with the traffic and the gang unit also. The rollout per assignment is approximately four to six weeks. And as mentioned by the commander, we should have it completed by the end of 2016. The policy itself hasn't changed substantially from the pilot program. The officers will still activate them in the same situations as far as during traffic stops, during pedestrian citizen or vehicle contacts, during crisis intervention team calls, weapons calls, calls involving suicidal individuals during foot chases, during any adversarial encounter that the officer encounters forced entries warrantless or consensual searches during Miranda advisements, arrest and citations or anytime an officer believes that the body worn camera may be beneficial to document either a crime that has occurred or to provide better clarity as to as to how an incident had occurred. The officers are also instructed when to deactivate the camera. There are three main ways to look at deactivation of the camera. The first one is the officers are instructed that as soon as the initial situation is concluded or as stabilized, that at that point before they move into the investigative phase, they can deactivate the camera. However, part of that training is that at any time, if they feel the need or if the incident revolver changes into an incident requires the camera to be reactivated, they can reactivate it as needed. The second reason they can deactivate it is at the request of a victim. Again, that is based upon the situation itself. And then the third reason to deactivate the camera would be at the order or have a any type of a supervisory officer. In regards to our camera system itself, we went through an RFP process. We started after we concluded the pilot in 2014. Taser was ultimately selected and we selected the axon flex camera system. As many of you know, Taser has been around for quite a few years. They were founded in 1993. They've been doing body work cameras for over seven years now. They have deployed over 110,000 body worn camera systems across the nation. Cities such as Los Angeles, San Diego, Memphis, Cleveland and Fort Worth all use the Taser branded camera. They also employ a cloud based storage system, which is Sieges compliant. The Sieges compliant is the highest level of security that's afforded to the government. In regard to the encryption of the data or of the video itself, all the encryption for our video occurs at the dock at the upload point and is encrypted as it goes up. As mentioned, we picked the axon flex camera. It was based upon several things. A few of the items are we like the different mounting features. As you can see the officer here as it mounted on a pair of sunglasses, which were provided to the officer that can also matter on a collar mount, which mounted in this area. Or they have a head mount, which goes around the back of the head and would position the camera in the same general position as it here is with the collar mount. The camera has a 75 degree field of view. We did not want a super large field of view that provides a fisheye lens and can cause extra distortion on the ends. We want to get the best field of view as possible. The camera records after 30 frames per second. The storage in the camera is in the camera itself is last for about nine hours at our settings. And the battery which is located on his belt is also how you activate the camera. The battery lasts for 12 hours. The good thing about this particular battery system is we can swap the battery. So if the battery does go low, we are able to just put another battery in, there's nothing stored on the battery. Another feature that we liked about the camera is we like the low light capability. It has what they call retinal low light. We did not want to enhance beyond what a normal person or an officer would see. We want the video to represent what anybody else would have seen had they been there. This particular camera system also has a 30 second buffer, which it did have during the pilot. The way that the buffer works is the camera records all the time. It goes over the 30 second loop and continues to record it. As soon as the officer presses the activation button, it now saves that last 30 seconds. However, that last 30 seconds does not have audio that's video only. From the moment that they push the button, it now has video and audio. As officer or Detective Medford demonstrated, once he pushed it, it made an audible alert that notifies the officer and anybody else around that the camera is now in activation. When he deactivates it, it also makes a similar alert only it's a longer beep. That's all that I have. I will pass it on to Mary Dulac. So let me start by saying that we recognize that community trust in the police department is an essential component of public safety. And we also recognize that the public release of the video obtained from body worn cameras is going to play a role in that. But that being said, we also recognize that the public release of the video presents some unique and complex challenges that not only the Denver Police Department but departments throughout the country are trying to deal with. And no ideal model as to how you handle the public release of video has emerged because this technology has come on and is being deployed so fast. At this point, I think it's important to note that it is our desire to release requested video as soon as is practicable, mindful of some restrictions and some considerations. First of all, timing is going to be everything in this. Evidence in a charge case, video from a charge case will not be releasable until the conclusion of that criminal prosecution. That's an obligation that we have to ensure a defendant's right to a fair trial and to defer to the integrity of that criminal process. We may not be able to release video in an open investigation until the conclusion of that investigation. But that's a may that's going to be subject to a case by case analysis. We recognize that there's some video out there that is important for the public to see video from critical incidents officer involved shootings. That's the kind of video that we recognize that the community has an interest in seeing. And we may wait until a criminal filing decision is made. But again, it's all subject to a case by case review. We have been more proactive in releasing video and not necessarily from body cameras, but in other situations as a department, as the entire Department of Safety has been releasing more video proactively. And we've been releasing more video earlier. For example, there was a officer involved shooting in July. And once the district attorney's shooting decision letter was released, we issued and it was about eight weeks from the date of the incident. We did release an entire portion of the entire video that captured that incident. District attorney released a portion of that. On that same day, we released the entire video. Some of the considerations that we're going to be looking at really are based on the fact that you know, some of what a police officer is daily job encounters isn't very pleasant. And we're aware that any video that we release is going to be out there forever. So we are required to conduct a case by case review of the video and of any request for video and determine if the privacy interests of the individuals that may be contained on that video, confidentiality of any information. We're also going to consider any public safety considerations that may relate to that video. And we're going to balance all of that with the public interest in what's contained on the video. As a starting point, we start from the point that individuals in a public space generally don't have a real great expectation of privacy. However, there are still some sensitive and private circumstances that could occur in public. Clearly, we're going to look at video inside a home or video that may relate to a medical issue, video that depicts people in a crisis, victims, children that may be contained. Those are the kinds of video that we're going to look at and really scrutinize. And we may not be able to release portions of that video. Witness statements we may be hesitant to release because we don't want there to be witness in the future who's hesitant to provide a statement on video that is going to be out there in the news media immediately and subject them to that. So that's another consideration. Sometimes in a fluid situation at a crime scene, there may be individuals who are indicating that someone's a responsible party who really isn't the responsible party. And it would certainly not be appropriate for us to malign that person's character and perpetuity by releasing video that contained that information where an uncharged suspect is pointed out as culpable party. As we are moving forward, just as with the body cam policy, it's how officers are to utilize it. And just as we sought public input and we incorporated some of that public input and public comment into our current policy, that policy is the living document, as are going to be our policies and procedures for release of this video. We will continue to welcome public input into how this is going. This isn't anything that's set in stone at this point. When there is some suggestion, when there's another practice that another agency throughout the country may have, we're going to look at that. We're going to look at any ways of handling this. Also, a couple of things that I want people to be mindful of. When we roll this out to the department, through department wide, we're looking at a massive volume of video. A lot of the attention's been paid in the rollout of the cameras, the managing, the storing of that video, making that video accessible for the district attorney and the city attorney's office in their prosecutions. And that's where a lot of the attention's been made. But I want people to also appreciate that when you're requesting video from a particular incident, it may not be just one officer. We may have four officers who've arrived at that scene and each of those officers may have a different perspective and may have captured, their video may capture different things. And all of that video is going to have to be scrutinized.