Kenny Lane, Rowan County, N.C.
♦ I’ve looked at the preliminary wording for HB 713 proposed by Rep. John Faircloth and am a little puzzled. The bill proposes an added subsection to NC 132 – 1.4 that effectively exempts audio and video recordings made by body cameras or in-car cameras from public information laws. Rep. Harry Warren states this helps prevent unwarranted claims of police misconduct. I’m unsure how. If departments are given the authority to release only those videos they deem appropriate I can’t see how the public would be anything other than concerned.
How would video availability affect incidents? Let’s examine a few recent cases:
The shooting in Ferguson, Missouri could certainly have been more understandable had video of the incident been available. Physical evidence from the autopsy later demonstrated Dorian Johnson was lying about Officer Darren Wilson shooting Brown while he was on his knees surrendering. An immediate release of video (had such been available) of this incident would have demonstrated Johnson’s lie. Would this be an incident a department released?
The incident in North Charleston, SC was filmed. While not the officer’s camera, the filmed footage showed officer Michael Slager firing eight rounds at a fleeing Walter Scott and then appearing to drop his something beside him. Slager radioed in that Scott had taken his TASER. Walter Scott was shot five times in the back. Had this been a department video, would this be one of the incidents a department decided NOT to release?
In the case of Eric Harris in Tulsa, OK a reserve officer, Robert Bates, shot Harris. Bates explained his intention was to use his TASER on him. The audio part of the body cam seemed to verify Bates had not meant to shoot Harris from his statements. Newspaper reports are claiming his firearms certification and training records had been falsified to credit him for training he never received. Counter-claims say he was trained. Would the department release this video? With the reports of his training being falsified, true or not, how would refusal to release this video have in any way “helped prevent frivolous claims of police brutality” ?
There will always be an occasional incident where evidence needs to be held from the public temporarily as early release may hinder the investigation (such as identifying evidence, like a wallet or ID, that the investigator wants to interview the suspect about without the suspect knowing it had been located) this is a small minority of cases. The temporary hold on releasing information is already available to law enforcement. Video can already be temporarily held although not permanently.
I’m unaware of anyone who’s trust would increase after failing to show an available video and then requesting the public “take their word for it” In a frivolous claim of brutality the release of the video demonstrating this claim is unfounded would be officer’s best friend. If the officer was wrong in his response, it’s his worst enemy. Would Darren Wilson have wanted a video of the incident which could have been released of his shooting in Ferguson? Would Michael Slager have liked for the public to have gotten his account of “the suspect took my TASER” and the department willfully withheld the video? HB 713 wouldn’t help a wrongfully accused officer; it would protect the guilty. I’m confused how Rep Faircloth sees it differently. I would like to hear his explanation of how a department determining which tapes the public can view prevents frivolous claims of brutality. I can see the opposite; it would work quite well for hiding legitimate complaints. An officer telling the truth about an incident would love the corroborating evidence.
