Laserfiche WebLink
RELEVANT LINKS: <br />League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 7/18/2016 <br />Use of Body-Worn Cameras Page 4 <br /> Practical and economic considerations, as well as philosophical ones, come <br />to bear on deciding which option to choose and how much (i.e., when) to <br />record. Once video data is recorded, it must be administered and retained in <br />accordance with legal requirements. Agencies should expect that data <br />storage costs and the time it takes to administer data will increase <br />commensurately with the amount of data they choose to collect and store. <br />Desires for accountability and transparency may weigh in favor of <br />mandatory, broad, and encompassing recording requirements. But <br />considerations of cost and practicality may point toward less mandatory <br />recording and more reliance on officer judgment. <br /> Deciding which approach is best involves weighing these competing factors <br />in the context of the prevailing social, political, and economic considerations <br />within each community. This is a determination particularly suited to elected <br />officials acting on input from law enforcement professionals. Agencies <br />should consult with their city councils or county boards to develop a <br />community-specific approach. <br /> V. Data administration issues <br />2016 Minnesota Laws ch. <br />171, section 5, to be codified <br />as Minn. Stat. § 13.825. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Body-worn cameras, LMC <br />Model Policy. <br />Part of the new legislation treats data collected through the use of BWCs <br />differently than most other forms of data. While most government data is <br />presumptively public, BWC data is presumptively private. A specific <br />provision, applicable only to BWC data, delineates who is a subject of the <br />data. The new laws also establish unique access rights to BWC data. The <br />model policy contains a multi-page section under the heading of <br />“Administering access to BWC data” to address these issues. There are <br />ambiguities in the new law, and agencies are encouraged to consult with <br />their city attorneys or legal advisors for guidance. <br /> A. Labeling data for retention purposes <br /> Administering BWC data under both the Minnesota Government Data <br />Practices Act and the Records Retention Schedule is complicated. In very <br />general terms, the Records Retention Schedule indicates how long entities <br />need to keep data, and the Data Practices Act describes who is to have <br />access. But BWC data is unlike other kinds of law enforcement data because <br />retention is governed both by the Data Practices Act and the city’s or <br />county’s records retention schedule.