Laserfiche WebLink
RELEVANT LINKS: <br />League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 7/18/2016 <br />Use of Body-Worn Cameras Page 5 <br /> <br /> <br />2016 Minnesota Laws ch. <br />171, section 5, to be codified <br />as Minn. Stat. § 13.825, subd. <br />3(a). <br /> <br />2016 Minnesota Laws ch. <br />171, section 5, to be codified <br />as Minn. Stat. § 13.825, subd. <br />3(b). <br />Under the 2016 Data Practices amendments, all BWC data must be <br />maintained for a period of 90 days and then be destroyed according to the <br />agency’s retention schedule. Some specific kinds of BWC data must be <br />maintained for one year and then be destroyed under the records retention <br />schedule, such as data documenting duty-related firearms discharges, certain <br />uses of force, and cases in which a formal complaint is made against an <br />officer. But the expiration of these minimum retention periods under Data <br />Practices does not necessarily mean that the data can or must be destroyed. <br /> <br />General Records Retention <br />Schedule for Minnesota <br />Cities. <br /> <br />General Records Retention <br />Schedule for Minnesota <br />Counties. <br />Rather, the General Records Retention Schedule for Minnesota Cities (and <br />the concordant General Records Retention Schedule for Counties) basically <br />“kicks in” once the statutory retention periods have passed. The model <br />policy includes a series of suggested labels for BWC data files, and <br />envisions that officers will assign those labels to data files at the time of <br />capture or transfer into storage. The labels have been developed to help <br />agencies match up data files with the correct retention periods. For instance, <br />if an officer has a recording from a DUI or disorderly conduct arrest, the <br />model provides for labeling that file as “Evidence—Criminal.” This label <br />correlates to the category of “Arrest & Charge,” found in the General <br />Records Retention Schedule for Minnesota Cities. The retention schedule <br />directs that this data should be maintained until the disposition of the <br />criminal case, which may take longer than the statutory 90-day retention <br />period. By labeling this data at the time it is captured or moved to storage, <br />the agency is informing itself from the outset that this data has evidentiary <br />value in a criminal case, and should be retained accordingly. <br /> Agencies that choose not to deal with labeling data files at the time of <br />capture or storage are likely deferring, rather than avoiding, the work <br />involved in determining the correct retention period. Various BWC systems <br />may offer different options for labeling data files, and agencies may find it <br />useful to keep their own systems in mind when developing their policy. <br /> B. Data access issues and flagging <br /> The model policy also provides for a system of flagging BWC files to <br />indicate the likely presence of information about individuals whose <br />identities may be legally protected from disclosure to others. Examples of <br />such individuals include undercover officers, victims of criminal sexual <br />conduct, and vulnerable adults who are victims of maltreatment. Whether or <br />not agencies use the flagging process, the categories of protected identities <br />listed in the policy may serve as a useful checklist when responding to <br />requests for access to BWC data. The policy includes the more commonly <br />occurring protected identities, but is not intended to be all-inclusive.