The Burlington citizen oversight Police Commission has greenlighted a body camera footage release policy for the city’s police force.
Burlington Mayor Miro Weinberger directed the commission in September to confirm a new protocol for the city. The city currently only allows body camera footage be provided under the Vermont Public Records Act, without further detail. The new policy dictates how, and under what circumstances, body camera footage should be provided to the public.
The body camera policy was not formally voted on by the commission. It’s first being sent to City Attorney Eileen Blackwood for review, and then must be approved by the commission before it is sent to Weinberger’s office.
In addition, Weinberger directed the commission to approve a policy that would allow police misconduct and disciplinary records to be released as public records. A new protocol for police records has also been sent to the city attorney for review.
The policies were changed in the wake of public demand for police misconduct records and protests this summer over three officers who were accused of excessive force.
The Vermont ACLU engaged in a two-year battle with the Burlington Police Department over access to a video recording of an alleged police beating of black teenagers in Roosevelt Park in 2017. Ultimately, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that the footage must be released for public inspection.
The city’s proposed body camera footage policy dictates that video is to be released within 30 days of an incident when it involves any of the following: Police use of force resulting in serious bodily injury or death; firearms, pepper spray, batons or other lethal force; or any incident which the chief of police, mayor or majority of the Police Commission believes the release of footage would address significant public concern.
The policy also allows the commission to review unredacted footage of body camera footage.
Publicly released footage must be redacted to protect individual privacy or a defendant’s right to a fair trial.
Interim Police Chief Jon Murad had expressed concerns to the commission about his department’s ability to meet redaction expectations in the new policy.
He said only one person in the department currently knows how to blur images and redact audio in police footage. Redaction software can be very expensive, he said.
“The rationale simply is that while releasing all of it would be optimal … we simply can’t,” Murad said. “We don’t have the resources.”
The police misconduct release policy dictates that low-, mid- and high-level citizen complaints made against police will be made public on the department’s website following an allegation.
The low- and mid-level complaints will be summarized and posted to the BPD’s website on a quarterly basis without identifying information.
A high-level complaint would be posted within 10 days of the allegation and include whether it was unfounded, dismissed or if it’s being investigated. It would also include whether the officer was put on administrative leave pending the investigation’s outcome.
Commission member Stephanie Seguino proposed to take disclosures a step further, recommending that police disciplinary records also be provided to the public if requested through a public records request.
Murad pushed back, saying that while he supports the release of documents pertaining to misconduct allegations to help “foster transparency” with the community, he warned that the disclosure of disciplinary records could hurt officer morale.
“I balance that with what’s fair to officers in regards to employment privacy and the fact that we don’t make any other profession do these same kinds of releases,” Murad said.
He also recommended the policy not be retroactive, so that a years-old disciplinary record wouldn’t haunt a current officer.
Seguino said police have a unique power in their communities and the public should be able to hold them accountable through document disclosures. More transparency could help officers rebuild trust with citizens, she said.
“There’s a visceral day-to-day contact between the police and the public. And that’s different than other public employees for whom we shield their personnel records,” Seguino said.
“I understand the chief’s concern that maybe, you know, this should be grandfathered,” she added. “But I think that’s outweighed by the significant concerns that people have around appropriate discipline.”
