The law classified most video data captured by law enforcement officers as private or nonpublic data. It was a move that both Rochester Police Chief Roger Peterson and Olmsted County Sheriff Kevin Torgerson supported.
The Rochester Police Department has had its patrol officers wearing body cameras since March. The department will have to review its policy for mobile video recorder use in light of the new state law, Peterson said.
"The major change is the data classification issue and of course that does override any local policy, which I think in this case is a good thing, a very good thing," Peterson said.
Rochester police officers, operating under the policy the department created with the Police Policy Oversight Commission, are currently responsible for deciding whether or not to use their cameras in certain situations. The state law removes that burden from officers.
"What we have is every officer on every call is trying to make that data privacy decision. That's not what they should be thinking about … that's not a good way to do business," Peterson said. "The change allows that camera to be on.
"If that data shouldn't be shared, it won't be. If the data should be shared, for whatever reason, it's available to be shared. We can collect more data, we can protect it a lot better and officers are not put in the position that they have to try to make that decision."
The new clarity in data classification might also clear the way for the Olmsted County Sheriff's Office to implement mobile video camera use for its officers. Torgerson had asked the Olmsted County Board of Commissioners to consider purchasing the equipment for his office in November but the board was hesitant to move forward without clear direction from the state.
"We've been watching it (lawmaking) very closely and hoping things would line up the way we were asking for," Torgerson said.
"That would, in part, be protecting victims so that in a situation where victims were on body camera or squad camera that their video doesn't automatically show up on YouTube or somewhere because the public has access to it," Torgerson added.
The state's decision to restrict body camera video access to certain persons and in certain situations provided the protection Torgerson had hoped for. It also returns body cameras to the top of his priority list, he said.
Several statewide organizations, including the NAACP of Minnesota and the Dakotas and the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, had asked Dayton not to sign the legislation for fear that the higher class of privacy protection would lead to limited accountability and transparency from law enforcement agencies.
W.C. Jordan, president of the Minnesota and Dakotas NAACP and a member of Rochester's Police Policy Oversight Commission, said this week he still felt the state law failed to provide adequate transparency.
"I understand both sides of the issue. Do I agree with the policy the way that it's written? No, I don't," Jordan said. "This particular bill was written basically by police officers, for police officers and pretty much to protect police officers."
It is a continuing situation, Jordan said. The Rochester Police Department and Police Policy Oversight Commission will meet to discuss how the new data classification will change the local body camera policy.
The state's new law takes effect in August.
©2016 the Post-Bulletin. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
