MM5mayor.JPG
(Dave Killen/Staff)
Mayor Charlie Hales understandably has championed the idea of outfitting Portland police officers with body cameras to help repair the community's fraying trust. Certainly, an objective recording of an officer's encounter with members of the public can provide transparency, dispel untruths and boost accountability for officers' behavior and actions.
It's too bad, then, that Hales is already torpedoing those goals in his zeal to land a new four-year contract with the police union that includes provisions for using body cameras. His office has declined to publicly share the policy that city negotiators have quietly brokered with the Portland Police Association. And the details that have leaked out reveal the city's willingness to bargain away the practices that make body cameras a useful tool for truth squadding police accounts to begin with. While city officials say the public will have a chance to weigh in before a policy is finalized, the message is clear: Police union concerns to protect their members trump the public's long-standing pleas for accountability.
As The Oregonian/OregonLive's Maxine Bernstein reported, the body-camera policy in the draft tentative agreement between the city and police union would permit officers in a wide range of situations to review their body-camera footage before writing a report or answering questions from investigators. Among those who could check their video first are officers who fire Tasers or use other non-deadly force against a citizen.
http://media.oregonlive.com/opinion_impact/photo/agenda-2013jpg-da8a3522a991b9c6.jpg
Editorial Agenda 2016
Get Oregon centered
As police accountability advocates have noted, allowing officers to view the footage prior to writing a report or giving an account hurts the quality of an investigation into an officer's conduct. While nothing can change what the footage shows, an officer can alter his or her account of what happened based on what is or is not captured by the camera. Even subconsciously, an officer's recollection can be contaminated by what's in the video.
That means administrative investigators looking into whether employees acted improperly don't get a true understanding of what prompted someone to act the way in which he or she did. Could there have been a violation of training, a shortcoming in police policy or a misunderstanding of proper protocol? Investigators are less able to answer those questions when they have to rely on statements shaped by outside influences.
Such a policy also takes away the opportunity to gauge an officer's credibility.
For example, consider the case of Thai Gurule, a 16-year-old Roosevelt High School student. Gurule was walking with his brother and a friend in North Portland when police officers detained the three. After exchanging words, the police officers kicked, punched and Tased the teen. In their police reports, they claimed that Gurule was throwing punches and even had one officer in a chokehold, making her fear that he "was trying to strangle" her.
However, the officers' dramatic reports faced one problem: Video footage captured by a nearby bank's surveillance camera and on bystanders' cell phones contradicted their claims that the teen was resisting arrest or doing any of what they said. A judge acquitted Gurule of the charges and called out one of the officers, Betsy Hornstein, as "not credible in several important instances." If the officers had been able to review video of the incident, would they have tailored their account in some other way that didn't reveal such credibility issues?
Oregonian editorials
reflect the collective opinion of The Oregonian/OregonLive editorial board, which operates independently of the newsroom.
are Helen Jung, Erik Lukens, Steve Moss and Len Reed.
To respond to this editorial:
Post your comment below, submit a
,
or write a
.
If you have questions about
the opinion section,
contact Erik Lukens, editorial and commentary editor,
at
Hales' spokeswoman, Sara Hottman, said the office could not comment on specifics of the policy, noting that negotiations are ongoing. But she said allowing officers to review such footage helps them "to write the most accurate reports possible."
It's almost as if the city has forgotten why the public is willing to cede its privacy and commit millions for the purchase and ongoing operation of body cameras in the first place. Here's a hint: Wanting police officers to be able to write more accurate reports has nothing to do with it.
Instead, the mayor should recall that the city is operating under an agreement with the federal government to settle claims that the police bureau engaged in a pattern or practice of excessive force, particularly against those with mental illness. He should think about the difficulty he and other leaders before him have had in trying to get rid of the so-called "48-hour rule," a contract concession that gives those in officer-involved shootings two days before having to answer questions from internal investigators about what happened. And he should think of Thai Gurule, and whether he would have been acquitted of the charges brought against him if officers had developed their reports after examining video footage first.
Certainly, people's memories in times of stress are fallible. Small inconsistencies are easily explained, and even expected. But helping police officers provide a supposedly more "accurate" report is not a compelling reason to violate the independence of a body camera recording.
Hottman notes that the city has held six public forums to solicit ideas and received other electronic comments before developing its policy. But that's exactly why it's insufficient. An open-ended question about what people want to see is very different situation from asking people about a specific proposal to let officers review footage.
The time is now for the public to weigh in on the provisions of the policy - not after the police union has signed off on it. Once agreement is reached, the city will be less willing to redo the body-camera policy and risk having to reopen negotiations on other matters. And the city doesn't have the final say anyway. Any disputes between the city and the union about what policy provisions should be adopted go to a mediator. The city's willingness to accept a lenient policy undermines its chances for success in pressing for a tougher one.
Recently, as Hales celebrated the City Council's commitment to devote funds for a body camera program in 2017-2018, he remarked on the power and promise of such technology.
"What body cameras do is, they keep the truth safe," Hales said.
But the secrecy since then begs the question: From whom is the city trying to keep it safe?
- The Oregonian/OregonLive editorial board