Duluth Case Shows Police Body Camera Footage Is New Legal Battleground

By Jessica Glenza, The Guardian

02 January 15

hen a man in Duluth, Minnesota, barricaded himself in a garage at his home and threatened to kill himself with a knife, police officers shot him twice. The incident, which happened in August, was captured on police body cameras.

Months later, city officials who want the body camera video kept secret are in a battle with advocates of police accountability that many believe will be fought out in the Minnesota legislature.

The man who was shot by police, 34-year-old Joe Zontelli, survived. The two officers involved were cleared of wrongdoing. But the incident made news in the midwest city of 86,000, and after an investigation was completed by the St Louis County attorney Mark S Rubin, reporters expected the video to be released. It was not.

“The state crime lab kind of takes over the investigation and we just kind of waited out the results,” said Tom Olsen, a reporter for the Duluth News Tribune who filed a public records request for the police body camera videos. He said that under normal circumstances, reporters would have received their information requests after an investigation was complete and a press conference held.

The county prosecutor reviewed body camera footage, but authorities didn’t release the videos. Gunnar Johnson, the Duluth city attorney, instead used a legal maneuver to try to temporarily classify the video – and future videos from other cases

Duluth requested the state clarify what body camera footage is public and what should be kept private, through an unusual request to Minnesota’s information policy analysis division. The office denied Duluth’s request, in what will be the final word on the issue unless the legislature picks it up this spring.

Johnson said his office was now “working” with the decision, “with the support of other municipalities”.

“It’s a difference between a piece of paper and a videotape,” he said. “[Body camera footage] can span for, you know, an hour, two hours, there can be multiple cameras and, administratively, it’s a whole different world.”

The city requested that blanket secrecy be applied to body camera footage taken in schools, hospitals and “private places”. The city also wanted footage from mental health crises, suspected juvenile crimes, and response to domestic and sexual assault to be classified as private. Summaries of many of the same law enforcement activities are publicly available through police reports.

Privacy experts and law enforcement alike issued warnings about situations like that in Duluth. Transparency programs are politically popular, but in practice, many governments seek veto power over what is public.

Given that Duluth police officers entered Zontelli’s home, followed him to the garage and saw blood beneath the barricaded door while he threatened his own life, it is understandable that releasing body camera video of the incident might be seen as invasive. Typically, a home is considered a private place and health issues a private matter.

But when officers broke down the door, saw Zontelli had a knife, shot him twice and then claimed they had feared for their lives, some say the line between public and private vanished. Advocates say any officer-involved shooting is a matter of public interest.

“One of the reasons for the body cam is to have the availability to see if law enforcement is doing their job,” said Rich Neumeister, a long-time privacy and freedom of information activist in Minnesota. “When I look at it in balancing the public interest weighs out, because this is where [residents] are shot by officers. There’s no ifs, ands or buts. It’s fact.”

City police disagree. “I’m a huge proponent of cameras,” the Duluth police chief, Gordon Ramsay, told the Duluth News Tribune. “But we need to figure out how to balance the need for transparency while respecting the privacy expectations of our citizenry.”

In June, Duluth became the first major police department in Minnesota to roll out body-worn cameras. But as the cameras are pushed by politicians – in the aftermath of this year’s civil unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, President Barack Obama proposed $263m in federal funding to put 50,000 more cameras on the streets – Duluth is unlikely to be the only department facing policy questions.

Leading privacy and anti-surveillance advocates at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) are cautiously optimistic about the deployment of body cameras, but cite the lack of policy on the subject as worrisome. The organization recently asked 30 leading departments for their body-worn camera policies.

“A large percentage of them simply don’t have them,” said Chris Rickerd, policy counsel for the ACLU. “The idea of rushing out something that is so important for accountability if the right policies are in place without these complicated, thorny issues thought through … is really irresponsible.”

Olsen provided a copy of Duluth’s body camera policy, after Johnson told the Guardian a public records request would need to be filed to obtain a copy, a process that typically takes weeks.

The policy requires officers to turn the cameras on during “crimes in progress” and “use of force”. But the policy does not answer more detailed questions about privacy, such as whether to record when interviewing children or whether residents can opt out of recording.

“That’s a good question,” Johnson said.

The state’s response to Duluth’s request was cut and dried – public records law is there, follow it. But the agency’s director said she understood that following the law was not.

“Duluth didn’t have to request this temporary classification,” said Stacie Christensen, director of the Minnesota information policy analysis division, which handled the request. “I think the city attorney was speaking to the new technology and just the fact that the law hasn’t kept up with technological advances.”

“We certainly understand the difficulties in trying to redact a videotape, that’s something that will never be easy,” said Christensen. “When you actually have to deal with a request, and deal with what is public and what is not public, that is certainly where it gets complicated.”

However unnerving the situation is for officials in Duluth, it may soon come to a head. Olsen said he senses the city may be “preparing right now to release that particular video”.

The Good Ship CIA Sails On

By Mark Mazzetti, The New York Times

28 December 14

ver a lunch in Washington in 1976, James J. Angleton, for years the ruthless chief of counterintelligence at the C.I.A., likened the agency to a medieval city occupied by an invading army.

“Only, we have been occupied by Congress,” he told a young congressional investigator. “With our files rifled, our officials humiliated, and our agents exposed.”

The spymaster had cause for worry. He had endured a public grilling about his role in domestic spying operations by a select committee headed by Senator Frank Church, a Democrat from Idaho, that spent years looking into intelligence abuses. And the Central Intelligence Agency, used to doing what it wanted while keeping Congress mostly in the dark, was in the midst of convulsions that would fundamentally remake its mission.

READ MORE