 Lakeland Public Television presents Currents. Hello and welcome to Lakeland Currents. I'm Bethany Wesley. In 2010, the suburb of Burnsville became the first city in Minnesota to embrace the use of body worn cameras for its police officers. Today Burnsville is far from alone. It has been reported that more than 40 Minnesota law enforcement agencies, including the Minneapolis Police Department, have also taken steps toward utilizing such cameras. The Bemidji Police Department is now among them. The Bemidji Police Chief, Mike Mastin, has announced his intention to equip his officers with body worn cameras yet this year. In developing the policy for such cameras, Chief Mastin and the Bemidji Police Department have reached out to the community, both with a survey and public meeting to gauge community interest and collect public comment. Tonight I welcome Chief Mastin to our program to continue the discussion of what body worn cameras are, what they record, and how they could help strengthen the relationship between the police and the public. But before we begin our conversation, I'd like to turn your attention to an April report from Mal Meyer with Lakeland News. His report on the Bemidji Police Department's public meeting will help set the stage for tonight's discussion. The bill signed into law last May by Governor Mark Dayton, allows law enforcement to record audio and video on devices other than the cameras inside their patrol cars. The trouble with that is if it didn't happen in front of the squad car, it wasn't on video. According to complaints about police brutality or misconduct, it was hard to prove either way in favor of the citizen or the arresting officer. Now we're hoping that integrating the camera with the officer will get a firsthand view of what happened and be more apt to accurately investigate any claims against an officer. The department released a public survey in February and received a very positive response in light of this. As required by state legislation, they held their first public meeting Wednesday night. Mayor Rita Albright says she wanted to hear what community members had to say about it. I think it was great that we had some criminal justice students from Bemidji State University here. Apparently there's not a lot of broad interest because we didn't have a whole lot of citizens here, so maybe that's a good sign. Councilwoman Nancy Erickson has already seen the presentation and says that they have her full support. I totally support them if the officers want them and it appears that they do. Now moving forward, the department will have to decide on the best system for data storage, expected lifespan and cost. I know that they are an expensive system, but I believe in this day and age they're invaluable, both for the public and for the officer. The police department hopes to have a type of body camera picked out by May and have a beta group test some in June. In Bemidji, I'm Mel Meyer, Lakeland News. Well, welcome to the program. Thanks for having me. As we get started, let's talk a little bit first about the department itself. So how big are you? How many officers do we have? Well, we have currently 33 licensed officers and three civilians now. And what's an average call load a year? Give or take? Our annual call load has increased over the years. Last year I believe we finished the year around 27,800 calls for service. And you've been at 33 now for two years, right? The number of peace officers. So you've kind of slowly added over the years as well. Over, I would say over the last 10 years, although our calls for service have increased about 55 percent, our employee ratio has only increased by about 6 percent. So it's not quite keeping up, but we manage well. So your officers are busy? We're busy. I want to talk about cameras and recording and policing in general first before we move specifically to the body worn cameras. Cameras in policing isn't new. You have squad car cameras? We have. And you've had those for a number of years? We first implemented squad car video cameras back in around 2002. Okay. And they were initially just installed in marked squad cars. None of our investigators had them at the time. Since then, almost all of our squad cars, marked and unmarked, have a vehicle mounted recording system. Okay. So are there limitations to a dashboard or a squad car camera that a body worn camera could help address? Yes. When you look at the squad car based system, and those have changed as well. They went from a single camera and a VHS tape to now it's digital media. And within a car, we have three cameras. So we have a forward facing that captures a long range view. We have a forward facing that captures a wide angle. So at intersections, we can get approaching vehicles. And then we also have one in the backseat area so we can monitor and record actions by suspects or whoever's back there. Okay. And do those run every time the car is in operation or does the officer turn them on and off for when they're responding to calls? They have several different ways to trigger them to activate. One is as simple as manual activation. You just push a button and it starts. Okay. The probably the second most common is once you turn the lights on the emergency lights, all the cameras activate. There are inertia sensors. So if there's ever an accident, they automatically start recording. You know, we've set up triggers. If a car goes above a certain speed, they come on. There's also our officers wear a microphone, which isn't much smaller than that. But it's a microphone with a remote activation button. So if they're involved in something, whether it's in front of the car or a certain distance away from the car, they can press that. They can at least record the audio, but it starts recording at least whatever the car cameras can capture. But that enlies the limitation. For the actual video portion of it, you only get what's around the car or inside the car. Let's start moving to talking specifically about these body worn cameras. At what point did you in the department kind of first start talking about these, knowing that perhaps it was going to become an option? You know, we've actually been talking about it, I would say better than two years. It's always been in interest of mine in capturing better evidence. In my opinion, there's nothing better than for a potential jury to be able to see what the officer was seeing at the time, to be able to see what it looks like inside that home or that environment at the time that it happened. It's much different than the report. So we've been looking at it for quite some time, but things have changed dramatically in two years and it's starting to influence now how we're still looking at them. Was there a specific incident or a case that kind of prompted you to think about it or no, it was just in general transparency evidence? Really, it was just in general. It was just the idea that how can we get a better sense to the public of what this looks like. Now, of course, over the years and all the things that have happened across our nation, definitely is a tool that I think can increase transparency and get people to realize what this actually looks like, what this experience is for the officer. Often we see so many videos that are from someone's iPhone from across the street and it usually only happens after the incident has come to a head in typically cases, forces used. That's what you typically see. What I would like to see and I think people need to see is what happened before. Just backing up a little bit like our squad cars, they all have a pre-record event feature. They can record and most companies have this up to two minutes before I pushed that button. It might not be escalating to the point where I feel right now it needs to be recorded, but the system is doing it. Same thing within the vehicle. It's like the idea you can put a seatbelt on before you have a crash, well you can't, but in this instance you pressed record because it was recording before that impact sensor went off. So we get two minutes of driving conduct before whatever happened. And that's really helpful in a lot of cases. Even just as simple as driving fractions, running a red light, it happens in front of you without the camera, you see it, but there's some argument, did you see it, did you not? It's recorded, you know, so. Interesting. So would you say that the cameras protect the police or protect the public or both? I would say both. I think it offers an opportunity for transparency on both sides. And I'll say it's an independent set of eyes, you know, on any incident. Now, you know, and maybe we'll get into this later, but there are some limitations on what a camera can record and it can't record everything that's happening. It can only capture what's in its field of view. And sometimes things that influence an officer's behavior may be outside that field of view. Has there been any research done in terms of the departments that have been using them, whether like complaints with the public or complaints from other people, is there an effect on any of that? You know, I've seen some initial studies that have shown complaints on officers have gone down and use of force incidents have gone down. So it seems to be having an effect on both sides, if you will. And, you know, like for us, we've always done use of force reports. So any incident that we get involved in where we have to use anything beyond just open hand kind of controlling people, if there's a force of any type beyond that used, we do a, it's called a response to resistance report. That's a supplement to that case. So there's even more detail on what was used and why it was used and the supervisor approves it. We've always done that. And this using or implementing body worn cameras just gives one more tool to show maybe why that was. Not just what's written on paper, but the actual footage, the video of it. Interesting. We know that there's a number of departments that have embraced them that are using them now. Is it prevailing up in this area? Are there other departments who are using them? No, like we said, you know, the legislation passed about ten months ago roughly. And that was a huge obstacle. And I'm sure we'll get more into that. But mainly the implementation has occurred in the metro area. And we've seen like Burnsville long ago started it and other departments are picking it up. Some of that is maybe influenced by neighboring agencies and you get that kind of influence. But up north, I'm only familiar with our interest. I believe Leech Lake tribal police have obtained the equipment. I don't know if they've implemented them yet. And Duluth. But that's the only northern Minnesota agencies that I know of that implement them yet. Okay. A lot of people will be watching. I'm sure. You know, there's always got to be someone who goes first. I want to talk a little bit about the process because there really has been, I'm assuming deliberate intent to reach out to the public to kind of get their thoughts. Tell us about that process. How did it kind of begin and who dictates how you go forward with that? Well, as we waited for legislative direction, I'll back up a step. Some of the hesitation was based on, and my hesitation to implement this, was based on data privacy. And there were some questions because prior to the legislation in August of last year, all the video data captured would have been public after the cases dispositioned or closed. And that meant, you know, I went to a person's house for a burglary complaint. We would have our conversation. We'd walk through the house. Once that was determined either to be closed or, you know, we caught the bad guys and they were convicted, that becomes public data. And now anyone from the public could have went up and asked for that video. And now they have a blueprint or roadmap of your house that can see everything that's in it. You know, and some things just shouldn't be public. You know, we get response to medicals where, you know, someone fell down in the shower and we have to pick them up or help them get back on their feet. That shouldn't be public, you know, or, you know, an interview of a child who's been sexually assaulted or something. That shouldn't be public. They should never be public. But prior to the legislation, that would have been. So we absolutely had no interest in bringing this on board before that was clarified. The legislation in August helped to clarify that and it made body-worn camera, exclusively body-worn, not squad car. Squad car is still under public data. Body-worn camera is private, except to the people contained within the video. Now, that's a little tighter, but there are, that adds some issues. I do like it because it adds that private classification and it makes it, not everyone can just request it. However, if you're a subject within the video, you do have the ability to request it. You might not be the subject. You might be someone standing in the crowd and you still have the ability to request that video. So, but the reality of that happening in your house where it should be private, probably not an issue, but out on the street, that adds an added difficulty, a layer of difficulty to us because once we capture that crowd, if there's a juvenile, we have to redact that. Now we have to have someone go in and redact the juvenile because someone requested it. Well, they're entitled to the video, but they're not entitled to the juvenile. So it added, it is going to add a whole layer of administrative office staff time in redaction that we had not anticipated. But as far as the legislation goes, I think they were on the right step. And that's, I think that was the correct, a lot of departments were waiting for. Waiting for that clarification from down in St. Paul in terms of what they were going to do with the data. Correct. Okay. And so then that past, last August, I believe is when it went into effect. And so, shortly thereafter, you really kind of said, okay, we're going to move forward with this. Yep, with that clarification, we decided, you know what, let's really start looking at this now and figure out what vendors, and at the time, there were only just, there were only a handful of vendors. Now there are a lot of vendors. Because they're, I hate to say it, there's a lot of money involved in this. These are not inexpensive pieces of equipment. There's a lot of money. So there's, that continues to complicate the process. But at the time we said, you know what, let's move forward. This is important to us. Our officers want them. They've had enough experience with the dash cam videos that it's very positive. You know, initially, and I'll back up to the dash cam, when we implemented them, there were, I was a patrolman at the time, half of us that were like, yeah, that's exactly what we want. And there were some that said, you know what, I don't need people watching me do my job. I do it just fine. I don't do it wrong. But I don't need someone watching me. You know, and if you think about it, do you really, how would you feel at your job, someone over your back scrutinizing everything you do? I never really thought of it that way, but it's realistic. Now, I don't have anyone that says we don't want them. I have a staff that says, sometimes when are we getting them? Are they here yet? Because they see the benefit on both sides. But I think they see the benefit in the fact that I do a good job. I do exactly what I'm supposed to do. And I want people to see that. So we decided to start the process. And some of the process is dictated legislatively. You have to do certain steps. There was a very large group of a lot of interest groups that had an opinion on when they should be operated, when they shouldn't be operated, who should have access to the data. And that's really what created that legislation. And within that, there's a requirement for auditing and there's a requirement for what should be recorded, what shouldn't be recorded. And we're now having to navigate that a little bit to make sure that we're up. But mainly, the process was dictated legislatively, but I was glad to see and have the opportunity to find out what our public wanted, to see if anyone had any questions. Because I'm always welcoming to questions. If anyone wants to ask anything, more than willing to talk and be open about it. Because that's a major piece of this, is being open about it and what does the public want? It was interesting in the surveys that were done with the community. I think, in fact, I'll touch on one of them here. It says, do you agree that police body-worn cameras could help increase the community's trust in law enforcement? And it was an 85% response of yes. Did that surprise you at all? No, that's actually what I expected. What did you expect it to be? I think both sides agree that it will, or it has the potential to increase, perhaps trust on both sides. You know, the research is saying people are, on both sides, acting better. And I think that's what we'll see. Interesting. Or at least be able to show. So, you know, that online survey, that was our initial first step. And we opened that up and we released it through our social media. Well, as everyone realizes, social media is very broad and it's not just local city residents. And it was really just a litmus test to see what the initial feel was. And, you know, our first question was, are you a city resident? And I was really interested to see how many people weighing in actually were part of our community. Because that's not that I don't care about other voices, but I really want to know what our community says. And it was interesting to see how much, how small of a percentage that was compared to, because there are some very motivated voices nationally that pick up on things like that and they do share their opinion, positive or negative. And, you know, if you live on the west coast, maybe your opinion isn't quite as important as someone who lives right in my own community. Because that's who I serve. So that was really just a test, but it did very much give a nice peek into what we could expect. I want to talk about the actual cameras themselves and kind of the process for how they'd be working, because I know that's what people really want to know, is how are they going to be working. So these are examples of what they could be, correct? So show us a little bit in terms of the differences between these two. This one is mounts here, correct? This is through the company that we currently, we've used this vendor for our squad cars for about a decade. They've done very good. And this is their version of a body-worn camera. And what they've decided to do, which is a little different from other companies, is this is the computer unit, this is the data storage unit, and officers are able to most that have preliminarily worn this, just as a test phase, this was actually years ago when we first started looking at these. Within our ballistic vests, there's a small pouch. People, guys would put this into that pouch because we have so much things in other pockets, running out of places to put things. So this was nice. It was within the vest, and you didn't notice the weight of it. Then it was just the camera. And this is a smaller type camera than most others on the market because they don't have to try to incorporate the battery and the data storage. And this would go on to, most often on to your shirt is centered and it turns with your body. There's good and bad with that. It's very protected in that location, but in practical getting in and out of a car, the seatbelt comes across it and flicks it off, and there's all kinds of problems. When you're, hopefully never, but if you ever have to use your weapon, when you're holding it out, all the camera sees, and you can see footage existing now from departments that use it, you see the back of the hand that does no good to see what I see. So we also look at this type of camera, which is designed to fit on to like a glasses frame. And it would look wherever you look. When we implement these, this is the type that I will request for when I work the road because I want that camera mobile. The world doesn't just happen in front of anyone. It happens all around us. And the camera can only see so much. There's only a, this has a 130 degree field of view, which is about this. The wearable one is the same, but that at least has the ability to articulate with my head. And if something's happening, I'm gonna try to be looking at it. So the camera is more apt to catch it, mounted on something that, it's more apt to see what I'm seeing rather than what my chest is seeing. But with that, not everyone wears glasses. And not everyone's comfortable having something hanging off the side of their face all day. It's not comfortable. So there'll be some variation. It's gonna take some time to figure out what exactly we want to do. But those are the two types that we're currently looking at. Okay. So let's go through a scenario where the body cameras are here. They're in use. Everyone's got them in your department. So they go out to a call and officer goes out to a call and expects perhaps that it might, you know, get to be a bigger situation. So he turns it on. After the call is done, does he do the report before he sees the video or does he do it after he sees the video? You know, in most instances, even right now with dash cam videos, the officers don't review it. They go off, they're training, they go off their experience and they write their report as what they saw. Most often that's what happens. Sometimes you need some details as to, you know, what room or something you might have seen. If you need more details, the officers are allowed to go back in and look at that video. So the, if they're wearing body worn, there is a, and it's in our policy, which is in draft form right now, and it's visible on the city website, that does allow for instances that are not use-of-force related for officers to go in and review their video and use it to help supplement writing their report. There's, I guess, current conversation as to whether officers should be allowed to view that in a use-of-force incident. And that was not made clear in the legislation. There was some groups that very much were adamant wanted officers to be able to see it, and there's groups that didn't want officers to be able to view it before they made a report. And our draft policy allows the investigative agency, because if we had a use-of-force incident that involved use-of-deadly force, we would bring in an outside agency to investigate it. We wouldn't investigate ourselves. That's ridiculous. We would bring in an outside agency, and most likely would be the BCA. So our policy leaves viewing the video up to the investigative agency. And the current policy, the BCA, is not to allow. And I would say our department, myself included, agree with that policy. You know, the statute for use-of-deadly force is written very clearly that the use of force is based on the officers' observations at the time of the event. And these events occur very rapidly under high-stress situations. And it's important that the officers' perceptions are what's judged, not what a camera captures, because a camera might differ a bit. And that's a little bit difficult for some people to understand. But if you look at research that shows stress encounters and how vision changes and hearing changes, those occur to officers just the same. And what they perceive at the time might not be exactly the same as what's on the video. And we don't want that to change a statement. We want to know what happened, what they were thinking, not the camera, what they were thinking at the time they decided to use force. Okay, interesting. So where are you at now in the process? You're still looking into, I think, the costs, is that kind of where we're at? Yeah, we did some preliminary. We looked at this company and several others. And we've gone through the public meeting, the public notifications. They allowed for comment at a city council meeting. And we've taken care of all of those steps. We had budgetary numbers, which I'm sure have changed a little bit now. But we're encountering some issues a little bit with the cost of the auditing requirement, which is legislatively mandated. And there's no issues with that. That's fine to have an audit. But it doesn't make it clear, and initially we thought you could use another law enforcement agency to do the audit for you. So we would reciprocate, and there would be no cost transferred to taxpayers for this. However, now there's, I won't say an argument, but some conversation that, in fact, it shouldn't be, even though it's an independent agency, it shouldn't be a law enforcement agency. It should be a private auditing company. And the preliminary numbers that we're getting are far more than I ever thought they would be. So now that that's something we're going to have to work through before I think we're going to implement any further. We're going to have to figure out how to pay for that, because this is not cheap. And it's changing. Is the intention still to do a pilot program before you roll it out department-wide? Very much so. You know, there's so much technology involved in this, and there's so much technology. We'll go back to the call scenario. Now when the officer gets back to the car, not only do they have, well, more calls pending, but they have to remember to label this video. So it coincides with the records management system. So that video links up with this case, and it just continues to add more steps to the officer that already has a lot on their plate. Well, Mike, I want to thank you for coming on and talking to us about body cameras. This is something we'll all be watching, I'm sure, in the news and in the media as it comes into fruition. I want to encourage you, if you'd like to learn more about this and the policy that's being developed, you can visit the City of Bemidji website, which is here on the bottom of your screen. Thank you for tuning in tonight. Join us next time.