Disclaimer
The translation toggle will NOT apply to the content in the PDF viewer.
Body-Worn Cameras and Dashboard Cameras: Policy Review and Recommendations
The Office of Police Oversight is making recommendations on Austin Police Department (APD) policies related to body-worn cameras (BWC) and dashboard cameras (DMAV) in response to the Austin City Council resolutions passed in June 2020.
The report “Body Worn Camera and Digital Mobile Audio Video: Policy Review and Recommendations” examines Austin Police Department’s (APD) current policy for body-worn camera and in-car cameras and how current policies compare to national best practices of policing. OPO’s research revealed that APD’s policies do not align with national best practices. Further, the report proposes changes to improve safety for both the community and police officers.
Some concerns about these policies that OPO’s report addresses include:
Reliance on policies from Lexipol leads to vague guidelines and removes community from the policymaking process
APD relies on a private corporation called Lexipol to write many of its policies. Research has shown that Lexipol does not seek local community input when writing policies.
The current purpose statements governing body-worn cameras and dashboard cameras do not align with the City of Austin’s Reimagining Public Safety initiative
Research shows that body-worn cameras and dashboard cameras have the potential to help achieve the goals of reducing racial profiling, decreasing unnecessary police violence, and improving community-police relationships when officers use them to record their interactions.
APD policy needs to be revised to align with recent state legislation and provide more clarity where state law is lacking
APD’s policy related to body-worn camera deactivation has not been updated to align with the House Bill 929, also known as the Botham Jean Act, which amended sections of the Texas Occupations Code governing the use of body-worn cameras by peace officers
The current concepts and definitions related to body-worn cameras and dashboard cameras are unclear
The General Orders permit officers to deactivate dashboard and body-worn camera audio for “administrative reasons,” but the situations that constitute “administrative reasons” do not appear administrative in nature and do not provide guidance for supervisors in authorizing the deactivation.
The current General Orders allow too much officer discretion in activating and deactivating body-worn cameras
Lack of clear guidance results in inconsistent interpretations and application of the policy.
Current General Orders do not require officers to document their use of body-worn and dashboard cameras in an incident report or case file
The current General Orders do not require officers to document whether they used a body-worn camera during an incident. Additionally, the General Orders do not appear to comply with a Texas law [Texas Occupations Code Section 1701.657(c)] requiring officers to document a reason for not recording with their body-worn cameras when recording was required.
The title “Advisement & Consent” for General Order 303.3.2 does not reflect its content
The current policy does not discuss consent and does not provide guidance on when or how officers should advise someone that they’re being recorded.
The current General Orders do not require supervisors to conduct inspections of dashboard camera recordings
Austin Police Department supervisors are required to conduct inspections of body-worn cameras. The current General Orders do not require supervisors to conduct such inspections of dashboard cameras.
The current General Orders do not support consistency or transparency in enforcement and discipline
APD has applied the current Discipline Matrix inconsistently and routinely classifies violations of body-worn camera and dashboard camera policies as Supervisor Referral-Minor Policy Violations (SR-MPVs), which permit APD to close these cases without discipline.
OPO will be using a three-phase approach to conduct the rewrite of APD’s General Orders, including a preliminary analysis of APD’s current policies, a community engagement campaign to seek public input about these policies and OPO’s recommendations, and a final analysis discussing the input received and sharing the findings with the City Manager and APD. This document demonstrates the first phase of this approach.
PDF Content
Descargo de responsabilidad
El botón de traducción NO se aplicará al contenido del visor de PDF.
Cámaras corporales y cámaras instaladas en las patrullas: Revisión de políticas y recomendaciones
La Oficina de Fiscalización de la Policía está haciendo recomendaciones sobre las políticas del Departamento de Policía de Austin (APD) relacionadas con las cámaras corporación (BWC) y las cámaras instaladas en las patrullas (DMAV) en respuesta a las resoluciones del Concejo Municipal de Austin aprobadas en Junio de 2020.
El reporte "Cámaras corporales y videos digitales móviles: Revisión de políticas y recomendaciones" examina la política actual del Departamento de Policía de Austin (APD) para las cámaras corporales y las cámaras instaladas en las patrullas y cómo se comparan las políticas actuales con las mejores prácticas nacionales sobre labor policial. La investigación de OPO reveló que las políticas de APD no están alineadas con las mejores prácticas nacionales. Además, el reporte propone cambios para mejorar la seguridad tanto para la comunidad como los oficiales de policía.
Algunas preocupaciones sobre estas políticas que OPO trata en su reporte incluyen:
depender de las políticas de Lexipol lleva a pautas ambiguas y elimina a la comunidad del proceso de creación de políticas.
APD depende de una corporación privada llamada Lexipol para redactar muchas de sus políticas. La investigación demuestra que Lexipol no busca las opiniones y comentarios de la comunidad al redactar las políticas.
Las declaraciones actuales de objetivo que rigen las cámaras corporales y las cámaras instaladas en las patrullas no están alineadas con la iniciativa Reimaginando la Seguridad Pública de la Ciudad de Austin.
La investigación indica que las cámaras corporales y las cámaras instaladas en las patrullas tienen el potencial de ayudar a alcanzar las metas de reducir el uso de perfiles raciales, reducir la violencia policial innecesaria y mejorar las relaciones entre la comunidad y la policía cuando los oficiales las usan para grabar sus interacciones.
La política de APD debe revisarse para alinearla con la reciente legislación estatal y proveer más claridad en las leyes estatales cuando sea necesario.
La política de APD relacionada con la desactivación de las cámaras corporales no ha sido actualizada para alinearse con la Ley de la Cámara de Representantes 929, también conocida como la Ley Botham Jean, que enmendó las secciones del Código de Ocupaciones de Texas que rigen el uso de cámaras corporales por parte de los oficiales de paz.
Los conceptos y definiciones actuales sobre las cámaras corporales y las cámaras instaladas en las patrullas no están claros.
Las Órdenes Generales les permiten a los oficiales desactivar el audio de las cámaras instaladas en las patrullas y las cámaras corporales por “razones administrativas”, pero las situaciones que constituyen “razones administrativas” no aparentan ser de naturaleza administrativa ni proveen dirección a los supervisores para autorizar su desactivación.
Las Órdenes Generales actuales permiten demasiada discreción para activar y desactivar las cámaras corporales.
La falta de dirección clara produce interpretaciones y la aplicación inconsistente de la política.
Las Órdenes Generales actuales no requieren que los oficiales documenten su uso de las cámaras instaladas en las patrullas o cámaras corporales en un informe de incidente o expediente de caso.
Las Órdenes Generales actuales no requieren que los oficiales documenten si han usado una cámara corporal durante un incidente. Además, las Órdenes Generales no parecen cumplir con una ley de Texas [Código Ocupacional de Texas, Sección 1701.657(c)] que exige que los oficiales documenten una razón para no grabar con sus cámaras corporales cuando se requería que lo hicieran.
El título “Notificación y Consentimiento” para la Orden General 303.3.2 no refleja su contenido.
La política actual no explica consentimiento y no provee dirección sobre cuándo o cómo los oficiales deben notificarle a alguien que está siendo grabado.
Las Órdenes Generales actuales no requieren que los supervisores inspeccionen las grabaciones de las cámaras instaladas en las patrullas.
Las Órdenes Generales actuales no apoyan la consistencia ni transparencia en el cumplimiento y disciplina.
APD ha aplicado de manera inconsistente la Matriz de Disciplina actual y clasifica a manera de rutina las violaciones a las políticas de las cámaras corporales e instaladas en las patrullas como Referido Menor por Violaciones a Políticas (SR-MPV, en inglés), lo cual permite a APD cerrar estos casos sin acción disciplinaria.
OPO usará un enfoque de tres fases para la nueva redacción de las Órdenes Generales de APD, incluyendo un análisis preliminar sobre las políticas actuales de APD, una campaña de participación comunitaria para solicitar los comentarios del público sobre estas políticas y las recomendaciones de OPO, y un análisis final que explique los comentarios recibidos y comparta los hallazgos con el Administrador Municipal y APD. Este documento demuestra la primera fase de este enfoque.
Contenido del documento
Body-Worn Cameras and Dashboard Cameras: Policy Review and Recommendations
The Office of Police Oversight is making recommendations on Austin Police Department (APD) policies related to body-worn cameras (BWC) and dashboard cameras (DMAV) in response to the Austin City Council resolutions passed in June 2020.
The report “Body Worn Camera and Digital Mobile Audio Video: Policy Review and Recommendations” examines Austin Police Department’s (APD) current policy for body-worn camera and in-car cameras and how current policies compare to national best practices of policing. OPO’s research revealed that APD’s policies do not align with national best practices. Further, the report proposes changes to improve safety for both the community and police officers.
Some concerns about these policies that OPO’s report addresses include:
Reliance on policies from Lexipol leads to vague guidelines and removes community from the policymaking process
APD relies on a private corporation called Lexipol to write many of its policies. Research has shown that Lexipol does not seek local community input when writing policies.
The current purpose statements governing body-worn cameras and dashboard cameras do not align with the City of Austin’s Reimagining Public Safety initiative
Research shows that body-worn cameras and dashboard cameras have the potential to help achieve the goals of reducing racial profiling, decreasing unnecessary police violence, and improving community-police relationships when officers use them to record their interactions.
APD policy needs to be revised to align with recent state legislation and provide more clarity where state law is lacking
APD’s policy related to body-worn camera deactivation has not been updated to align with the House Bill 929, also known as the Botham Jean Act, which amended sections of the Texas Occupations Code governing the use of body-worn cameras by peace officers
The current concepts and definitions related to body-worn cameras and dashboard cameras are unclear
The General Orders permit officers to deactivate dashboard and body-worn camera audio for “administrative reasons,” but the situations that constitute “administrative reasons” do not appear administrative in nature and do not provide guidance for supervisors in authorizing the deactivation.
The current General Orders allow too much officer discretion in activating and deactivating body-worn cameras
Lack of clear guidance results in inconsistent interpretations and application of the policy.
Current General Orders do not require officers to document their use of body-worn and dashboard cameras in an incident report or case file
The current General Orders do not require officers to document whether they used a body-worn camera during an incident. Additionally, the General Orders do not appear to comply with a Texas law [Texas Occupations Code Section 1701.657(c)] requiring officers to document a reason for not recording with their body-worn cameras when recording was required.
The title “Advisement & Consent” for General Order 303.3.2 does not reflect its content
The current policy does not discuss consent and does not provide guidance on when or how officers should advise someone that they’re being recorded.
The current General Orders do not require supervisors to conduct inspections of dashboard camera recordings
Austin Police Department supervisors are required to conduct inspections of body-worn cameras. The current General Orders do not require supervisors to conduct such inspections of dashboard cameras.
The current General Orders do not support consistency or transparency in enforcement and discipline
APD has applied the current Discipline Matrix inconsistently and routinely classifies violations of body-worn camera and dashboard camera policies as Supervisor Referral-Minor Policy Violations (SR-MPVs), which permit APD to close these cases without discipline.
OPO will be using a three-phase approach to conduct the rewrite of APD’s General Orders, including a preliminary analysis of APD’s current policies, a community engagement campaign to seek public input about these policies and OPO’s recommendations, and a final analysis discussing the input received and sharing the findings with the City Manager and APD. This document demonstrates the first phase of this approach.