Fort Collins police to double body camera program
Sgt. Dean Cunningham remembers taking command of the team of Fort Collins cops that patrols Old Town nearly five years ago, a time when bar brawls were more common and body-mounted cameras were barely on anyone’s radar.
During the first shift meeting with the District 1 officers, Cunningham told his team they were going to pilot the use of pen-sized body-mounted video recording devices, a newfangled technology at the the time. In the months that followed, Cunningham's camera captured alcohol-fueled fights and eased questions about who said what during investigations.
“It was just something that I thought was necessary,” said Cunningham, who still wears a camera.
Others thought so, too.
Fort Collins Police Services signed a five-year, $885,000 contract with Taser International last month that will double the number of body-mounted cameras worn by officers in Fort Collins. Today, 60 officers are equipped with the devices, but that number will swell in coming months when nearly every uniformed officer — about 120 cops — within the 208-sworn personnel agency will wear a camera by May 1.
Police release first video of fatal shooting
Fort Collins Police Services was among the early adopters of the technology. On Friday, the department released video of its first officer-involved shooting captured on the cameras.
"In this case, the video provided a perspective into the dangerous, rapidly-evolving realities that police officers encounter," Chief John Hutto wrote in a statement to the Coloradoan. "The camera program provides a mutual accountability that serves both officers and residents."
Though that thinking is increasingly prevalent, a Coloradoan analysis of police use of body-mounted recording devices in the state shows adoption remains inconsistent. While lauded for the transparency and accountability they provide in use-of-force investigations, police recording programs remain mired in a minefield of questions regarding cost, policy and privacy.
About 28 percent of Colorado departments have a body-mounted camera program, according to a 2015 survey of 170 Colorado law-enforcement agencies by state peace officer standards and training board within the Colorado Attorney General's Office. No database exists to track which of the approximately 250-law enforcement agencies in Colorado wear cameras.
In an effort to create such a resource, the Coloradoan contacted each of the state’s 22 judicial districts, spanning the state's 64 counties. Prosecutors in many counties can name which local departments submit body-mounted video with their written reports.
Why we shared a fatal shooting video
But in places where district attorneys work with dozens of agencies, the landscape is more complicated. Some departments enter pilot programs offered by companies like Taser and then balk at their cost or state that a lack of public outcry signals questions about the value of body-mounted cameras.
That’s what happened in Greeley last month.
After participating in a pilot program involving 10 officers, Police Chief Jerry Garner advised the Greeley City Council in December against approving departmentwide use of the cameras. Citing high costs, Garner said the cameras had value but needed to take a backseat — for now.
Garner's officers tended to agree. One said officers wanted the devices, three said they did not, and the remaining six were "lukewarm" on the subject, Garner said.
"Basically, they told me, 'We're not going to quit if you want us to wear cameras, Chief. But we're not all that excited.'"
Assuming complete rollout to 121 uniformed officers, Garner estimated costs would total $214,000 for cameras and support equipment for the first year and another $255,000 for the addition of three staffers. That's in addition, Garner said, to staff time to download and catalog captured video.
"Cameras don’t answer calls. Cops answer calls," Garner said. "I certainly want cameras, but I’ve got other priorities first. I’m needing cops on the street greater than I’m needing cameras."
Larimer County Sheriff Justin Smith has questioned the value of the cameras and is quick to point out that the best way to ensure a law-enforcement agency is above board is to hire good officers. Though he acknowledged the value of video evidence in investigating officer-involved shootings, and ultimately clearing officers of wrongdoing, he was hesitant about adopting a costly “mobile surveillance platform” within the community.
“I’m still in that watch-and-see mode,” he said Thursday.
Other agencies, including the federal government, are more bullish on the devices.
The U.S. Department of Justice late last year announced it would award more than $20 million across 106 law-enforcement agencies to expand or enhance body-mounted camera programs.
“As we strive to support local leaders and law enforcement officials in their work to protect their communities, we are mindful that effective public safety requires more than arrests and prosecutions,” Attorney General Loretta Lynch said in a September statement. “It also requires winning — and keeping — the trust and confidence of the citizens we serve."
As camera technology becomes more ubiquitous, so does legislation about which recordings are made publicly available.
Seventeen states have passed laws regarding public access to body-worn cameras, according to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Major news outlets, including The New York Times, recently published pieces about the nuances behind the tool and coinciding privacy concerns.
There does not appear to be any such legislative push underway in Colorado, where tight limits exist on what is and is not made public in criminal investigations, much of which is handled on a case-by-case basis, ultimately at the discretion of a local police chief.
Whereas the Colorado Open Records Act generally allows for public access to records of government agencies, the release of body-mounted camera video is governed by the Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act. The law gives agencies broad discretion in withholding video evidence and other records if disclosure would be "contrary to the public interest."
Arrest affidavits can be sealed in high-profile criminal cases or, more commonly, sensitive investigative information can be kept hidden from public view. Colorado open government advocates say agencies should err toward releasing video recordings gathered and kept during taxpayer-supported operations.
"Body cameras are powerful tools for accountability and transparency, and there should be a strong presumption of public access to the recordings," wrote Jeff Roberts, director of the Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition, in an email to the Coloradoan this week.
"Technology allows for the blurring of video portions or the distorting of audio portions, if necessary, to protect privacy interests," he said.
Fort Collins Police Services’ policy regarding cameras has remained largely unchanged over the years — the agency's entire policy manual is posted online, and the agency welcomes community feedback.
Essentially, officers can turn body-mounted cameras on throughout their shift, capturing both routine interactions and criminal incidents. The video uploads to Evidence.com, where it is labeled with case and evidence tag numbers. Officers then complete their written reports, indicate whether they uploaded video and file the reports with the DA's office. If prosecutors request the video, police burn the file onto a disc so it can become part of the case file.
That has resulted in what Larimer County DA Cliff Riedel described as a "crushing" amount of data at the DA’s office — about a terabyte a month. Agencies across the nation continue to work through those types of logistical challenges. New systems being explored withing the Colorado court system might help streamline sharing video between police and attorneys.
“Overall, so far, we think the cameras have been beneficial,” Riedel said, noting the logistical challenges and the time-consuming nature of investigating a case. Where attorneys used to review a few succinct reports for a low-level offense, it might take attorneys hours to review all the written and digital evidence.
Fort Collins police are also navigating privacy concerns related to a device that can record what's happening, even when nothing is happening.
Videos of "non-events" classified unnecessary as evidence will be saved for seven days. Video that captures an incident of some sort will be saved for 30 days. Video marked as case-related is saved indefinitely. It can only be deleted by an evidence technician after attorneys file the appropriate paperwork.
Cunningham, who recently returned to patrol after overseeing the police department's property and evidence division, continually receives calls from agencies across the country grappling with adopting a body-mounted camera policy.
“We’ve been leaders in this area within the law-enforcement community. We’re learning from our scars, and we’re talking to other agencies,” Cunningham said. “We’re trying to make sure we’re ambassadors for this program.”
Reporter Jason Pohl covers law enforcement for the Coloradoan. Follow him on Twitter: @pohl_jason.