Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-07-06 PACKET 07.A. Cottage J Grove ��er� Pride and Qro�P�rity Me�t Clt�/ COUI'1CII CONSENTAGENDA Acfion Request Form �'A' Meeting Date 7/6/2016 Department Administration Title of Request City Council Meeting Minutes - June 15, 2016 Special Meeting Staff Recommendation Approve the June 15, 2016 City Council Special Meeting Minutes. ATTACH MENTS: Description Type Upload Date Draft Minutes Backup Material 6/27/2016 Cottage J Grove �here Pride and Pr�sperity Meet MINUTES COTTAGE GROVE CITY COUNCIL June 15, 2016 12800 RAVINE PARKWAY SOUTH COTTAGE GROVE, MN 55016 SPECIAL MEETING - 6:00 P.M. ST. CROIX CONFERENCE ROOM 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Bailey called the Special Meeting to order on June 15, 2016, at 6:00 p.m. on June 16, 2016. 2. ROLL CALL The following were present: Mayor Myron Bailey, Council Member Steve Dennis, Council Member Justin Olsen, Council Member Jen Peterson, and Council Member Dave Thiede. Also present were Charlene Stevens, City Administrator; Joe Fischbach HR Manager/City Clerk; Craig Woolery, Public Safety Director; Pete Koerner, Public Safety Captain; Greg Rinzel, Public Safety Captain; Korine Land, City Attorney-LeVander, Gillen & Miller, PA. 3. AGENDA ITEM A. Workshop Session — Open to Public: Police Body Cameras Police Department Captain Greg Rinzel stated he wanted to give information on body cameras, what their thoughts were, and what the future holds. Captain Rinzel stated the reasons police wanted to wear body cameras were trust, documentation, and accountability to the community. He stated they were fortunate not to have had any issues where the community wanted all of them to wear body cameras, as they have a very good relationship with the community; however, they want to be in line with what other communities are already doing or looking at doing. Cottage Grove squad cameras were first used in approximately 2009; those cameras are currently being upgraded from standard definition to high definition, which really improves clarity. They looked at the size of the server they'd need for 42 body cameras, which was 22 terabytes. Captain Rinzel stated all of the Interview Rooms would be on the same server, as would be any digital evidence (e.g., photographs). Body cameras have their own server and would not be intertwined with other digital video or evidence. He was looking for the body camera to be just another camera within the system from the CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE • 12800 Ravine Parkway • Cottage Grove, Minnesota 55016 www.cottage-grove.org • 651-458-2800 • Fax 651-458-2897 • Equal Opportunity Employer City Council Meeting Minutes June 15, 2016 Page 2 squad; the squad video, the back seat video, and the body-worn camera, all with one audio. The current company being used, L3, just came out with the audio sync, so the body camera is the audio recording for the patrol car. There are other companies who have a seamless system, specifically, WatchGuard. Captain Rinzel stated they wanted to see what the State was going to do with Data Practices Laws regarding data retention and requests. The State has ruled that body cam video is private; no one can get it except the person who is subject to the video (e.g., on an arrest, the arrested person can later obtain the video). There are some instances in which the video becomes public: 1-Officer discharging a firearm in the course of duty; 2-Use of Force resulting in substantial bodily harm; 3-The person in the video wants it; however, if there are more people in the video and they don't want it public, there has to be a way to redact or blur the image(s) of that person(s) or any undercover Officer out of the video; 4-Any time the documentation is part of a discipline, it also becomes public. 5-If a Judge decides the video should be released, it would then become public. Director Woolery stated probably the biggest sticking point was the Officer's ability to review the video before they do their reports. Some people felt it was important that the Officer not amend their report to match a video. Currently, Officers have the ability to review the videos before they do their reports. It's a useful tool and he felt the legislature really came through; the Statute was really silent on the part of Officers being able to preview the video. Captain Rinzel stated the State allowed the Departments to write their own policies and procedures regarding Officers viewing the video. Captain Rinzel said there have been a number of critical incidents where squad video has been crucial in showing what occurred during an incident; Cottage Grove has not allowed Officers to view the video in a force incident prior to being interviewed by the Minnesota BCA. Squad videos are currently retained by the Cottage Grove Police Department for a minimum of 90 days; he felt body camera videos would probably be retained for the same length of time. Prior to using body cameras, per State Statute, the Police Department would have to approach the City Council and there would have to be a public meeting on body cameras. In addition, there has to be a public meeting on the policies and procedures regarding the usage of body cameras. Also, biannual reports completed by someone from outside of the Police Department (e.g., the City Clerk) were needed to audit the policies and procedures on squad cameras and body-worn cameras and report if the State Statute requirements were being followed. An external audit by someone outside the City is also a possibility. Captain Rinzel spoke about anticipated costs. Just for the redaction process necessary, that would most likely require the Property Technician to become a full time employee with benefits, which would be approximately an additional $30,000 in salary costs. The cameras are currently priced at $500 each, which includes the back end City Council Meeting Minutes June 15, 2016 Page 3 portion, so 42 cameras would cost approximately $21 ,000. A maintenance agreement would be the same as for the squad cameras, so $3,000 to maintain the back end service agreement with L3. There may also be installation fees for the software. So, the total cost would be less than $100,000 per year, every year going forward. Captain Rinzel answered various questions from Council Members regarding options of leasing the cameras vs. buying, waiting for newer, improved technology, the pros and cons of having one camera per Officer versus having one camera assigned to a squad; and being cautious regarding the privacy and technology issues so it can be managed properly. Captain Rinzel explained the useful life of any piece of equipment shared amongst a group is significantly less than one individual using it. In addition, if one were to break, you'd not just be affecting one Officer but any others who use that squad/body camera. Director Woolery asked the Council regarding when they felt the body cameras could be deployed and wanted to get their input. Council Member Olsen felt it's not an immediate situation so thought we could see what other Departments are doing and conclude what the right way to do it is and then take that step. Attorney Land stated she thought this law was evolving and was surprised to see it as protective of government as it was; she felt this law would be amended in the future so thought they should wait and see. Mayor Bailey stated he was very supportive of the squad cameras, but he didn't think they should jump in too quickly on this. He asked (with five hours of video available on a camera) what would trigger the body camera. Captain Rinzel stated the squad cameras are tripped by a number of automatic triggers (speed, sensor, squad lights, etc.), which would coincide with the body camera being synced to the squad. Whenever the lights came on, the body camera would turn on. Director Woolery stated Captain Koerner manages the Police Department's data, and we've been very open with our data releases. Most times, we presuming we're giving data, the same with digital images, videos, unless there's a specific law that says we can't. Director Woolery stated the Officers want the body cameras, but they're also aware of their squad cameras so they position their cars to help get a good field. Their microphones will also pick up audio a certain distance from the squad. A gun being pulled (or any type of weapon) as a trigger for the body cameras was discussed. Improvements in technology changes for the look-back period were also discussed. Mayor Bailey asked that Captain Rinzel keep the Council abreast of the changing technology and the prices in the future. Concerns on the parts of some advocates for Officer safety were that the video could be hacked. Captain Rinzel stated the workspace is controlled and no one is able to get into it to hack it. When an Officer pulls into the garage or sally port, it downloads the video right into the server room so the information never leaves that server room. Captain Rinzel felt the cost had to be right, and the City would be saving money by not going ahead with body cameras right now. City Council Meeting Minutes June 15, 2016 Page 4 4. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Bailey adjourned the Special Meeting at 6:38 p.m. Minutes prepared by Judy Graf and reviewed by Joe Fischbach, HR Manager City Clerk.