By RayJaun Stelly, The Seattle Medium
The King County’s Office of Law Enforcement Oversight (OLEO) is not on board with new polices for the King County Sheriff’s Office related to the use of body-worn cameras and the video footage obtained. According to OLEO director Tamer Abouzeid, the policy in place does not properly safeguard against the potential to manipulate the fact-finding efforts of investigations into the conduct and actions of officers during engagements with citizens.
One of the issues at hand is when deputies are allowed to view their own bodycam footage. In incidents involving “serious force”, cases where a member of the community has alleged an injury, or cases where a deputy has been informed that a member of the community has filed or is planning to file a complaint, the newly adopted policy requires the deputy to submit an initial statement regarding the incident. However, the deputy is also allowed to view the recordings from their bodycam and submit an additional written statement if they choose to.
As it relates to ‘non-force’ incidents, the policy allows deputies to view their own recordings and the recordings of other law enforcement officers involved in the incident “in the course of preparing their incident report or other documents.”
In a letter to the King County Council, Abouzeid says that OLEO disagrees with both of the policies and is encouraging the council to adopt alternative language in order to provide better transparency and maintain the integrity of investigations into incidents involving law enforcement, citing that “deputies must not be allowed to view recordings until they have been interviewed by the appropriate personnel.”
In his request for consideration by the council, Abouzeid made the following recommendations to remedy the concerns of his office:
• For serious force incidents – a deputy must not watch recordings until after they have been interviewed by the appropriate investigative personnel; in these matters, a prepared written statement is not enough, and an interview cannot test a deputy’s independent recollection if they have already watched a recording. At the conclusion of the interview, an investigator should show the deputy the recordings and ask follow-up questions as well as give the deputy an opportunity to make any additional statements.
• For all other incidents – OLEO agrees that a report or statement is enough, but such a statement must still be completed before a deputy may watch recordings. After the statement is documented, a deputy may watch a recording and append or amend their statement through the completion of a separate supplemental report. This is the only practical way to achieve the desired stated policy of “separately identify[ing] what is documented from their independent recollection and what is being documented because of viewing the recordings.
The other issues raised by Abouzeid is the discretion that officers are allowed to determine whether or not to record incidents with bodycams and the timeframe for officers to replace bodycams that are not functioning properly.
According to Abouzeid, the current policy says that “a deputy only needs to document the malfunction and submit the camera for repair or replacement by the end of their work week.”
Abouzeid believes that as soon as a deputy realizes their camera is not functioning and they document it, they should pick up another camera and use it if one is available.
Discretion has been an on-going issue with body cameras, solely because some people are skeptical when it comes to deputies having a broad level of discretion as to when and when not to record certain situations. There are reasons why certain things shouldn’t be recorded whether it be cultural or religious objections, or for example a person not being fully clothed. But there is concern that a deputy could use that discretion to avoid documenting what can be perceived as an abuse of power.
Given the circumstances, it raises the question of what can be done to improve the policies in place and keep deputies on the right path? The answer to this question, according to Abouzeid, is annual refresher training to eliminate the gaps in misuse of equipment and misunderstandings of policies within the Sheriff’s office.
“OLEO recommends inserting language necessitating annual refresher training, instead of “as directed by the department,” with the latter leaving room for significant gaps in training and subsequent misuse of equipment or misunderstanding of policy,” Abouzeid expressed.
OLEO would also like the Sheriff’s Office to adopt a video-release policy, which will require the release of videos of critical incidents within 72 hours. This policy is currently being discussed and has been adopted in multiple jurisdictions in the country like Dallas, Texas.
In a letter to Sheriff Cole-Tindall, Abouzeid stated, “This timeline provides the community with swift access to information that often has grave impacts on specific individuals, families, and neighborhoods while allowing internal briefings to take place and an opportunity, prior to release, to notify and show the video to family members of any persons killed or injured during the incident. The timeline also allows investigators to interview involved and witness officers before they watch any recordings, which is an essential best practice in any investigation.”
“The 72-hour timeline should be strictly followed with limited rare exceptions, such as when the family of a person injured or killed by KCSO has not had an opportunity to view the video or when an involved officer is not able to timely provide a statement or interview due to a medical emergency—even then, the delay must be reasonable and definite,” wrote Abouzeid.
In conclusion, Abouzeid said that “the public has an interest in receiving accurate information in a timely manner, and [King County Sheriff’s Office] has an opportunity to gain trust by delivering such information soon after a critical incident has occurred.”
