There is an ongoing debate in Alaska, specifically Anchorage, regarding the release of body-worn camera video in the aftermath of an officer-involved shooting. According to one news article, both Alaska Attorney General Treg Taylor and Deputy Attorney General John Skidmore believe that it is a violation of the constitutional rights of an individual (i.e. officers) to release video before an investigation is completed. On the other side of the debate is the newly appointed Chief of Police, Sean Case, along with newly elected Mayor Suzanne LaFrance, who believe that the process leading to release can be streamlined. Chief Case proposes access to the family within 14 days and to the pubic within 45 days. Chief Case cites what other agencies across the country are doing regarding release of video, either due to state laws or at the discretion of the agency chief executive. Deputy AG Skidmore disagreed and stated he is only aware of the laws in Alaska and in his opinion, any time a state releases evidence and footage early it is a “bad idea”.
A second news article discusses legislators proposing a bill that would mandate a release within 30 days. The AG’s Office will probably lose this debate with the legislature given the precedence of numerous other states’ laws and individual agencies’ release policies. Chief Case is on the correct side of this debate. Almost all body-worn camera policies across the U.S. start with an introduction stating that one of the purposes of the cameras is to provide transparency and accountability to the public. It’s hard to do that when you withhold video for an inordinate amount of time. In support of the AG’s position is the fact that many officer involved shooting investigations in Alaska are completed within 4-8 months. Not an unreasonable amount of time unless you are the family of the deceased or there is rioting in the streets. However, I suspect any possible criminal conduct by involved officers is determined within less than a week. The remainder of the time is the completion of the overall investigative products by the investigating agency.
AG Taylor’s and Deputy AG Skidmore’s position of defending the constitutionality of non-release is certainly not new. It’s happened before in other states. Ultimately, the legislatures step in, as is the case in Alaska, and settle the debate. Just the other day, it was reported that Chief Case is moving forward with a policy revision allowing some level of review despite the position of the AG.
Comments