Loading...
PSC agenda packet 5-25-17 Council Public Safety Committee 2nd Floor Conference Room City Hall May 25, 2017 3:00 p.m. Members: Staff: Others: Councilmember Mendez (chair) City Manager Cliff Moore Councilmember Coffey Police Chief Dominic Rizzi Councilmember D. Gutierrez Fire Chief Bob Stewart Councilmember Lover (alternate) City Prosecutor Cynthia Martinez Brad Coughenour Scott Schafer Agenda 1. Approval of April 27, 2017 minutes 2. New Business a. Faith-based community coalition 3. Old Business a. Update on arterial cameras - Martinez b. Update on body cameras – Rizzi/Martinez c. Emphasis patrol update - Rizzi d. Domestic violence – Martinez 4. Other Business 5. Information items 6. Recap of future agenda items 7. Audience Participation 8. Adjournment Council Public Safety Committee April 27, 2017 MINUTES Members: Staff: Councilmember Carmen Mendez (chair) City Manager Cliff Moore Councilmember Kathy Coffey Chief Dominic Rizzi, Police Councilmember Dulce Gutierrez Capt. Jeff Schneider, Police Lt. Chance Belton, Police Tom Schneider, Fire Prosecutor Cynthia Martinez, Legal Terri Croft, Police Others: Andrea Altmayer Tony Coursey Lupita Carrillo – Safe Yakima Valley The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. 1. Approval of minutes of March 23, 2017 It was MOVED by Gutierrez to approve the minutes of the March 23, 2017 meeting as presented. Motion was SECONDED by Coffey. Motion PASSED unanimously. New Business 2.a. Emphasis patrols Coffey stated that she would like to see emphasis patrols to calm citizens and that she trusted the police to direct the patrols. She felt it was the responsibility of Council to provide the financial resources for the police department to conduct the patrols. Rizzi advised he felt he could conduct some targeted emphasis while still staying within his current budget, at this point. The department has identified a few enforcement options, one of which was put into place a few weeks ago. The federal agencies partnering with the police department are looking at resources to put pressure on violent offenders. Coffey stated that she wanted the emphasis patrols to stay on the Council agenda, and that she didn’t want the police department to feel restricted by budget to do what was necessary. She advised that the department has the support of the Council. Rizzi advised that he wanted any emphasis patrols to have the best, most positive results and not to simply put more officers out without results. Gutierrez stated she would like to see the emphasis be combined with prevention efforts. She was glad to see the department was able to stay within their budget and increase emphasis patrols. Mendez expressed the support of the committee for the department to continue their strategies and her desire to see emphasis patrols incorporate community outreach and policing. Belton advised one of the strategies the department was using was directing officers to focus on making contact with the convenience stores. This is making a positive impact with the store owners and employees. Coffey had spoken with Ben Soria and recommended regrouping the coalition of faith-based groups. Faith-based groups will be added to the next Public Safety Committee agenda. Gutierrez requested that Youth Development be added to the agenda for the next Council- Yakima School District meeting. 2.b. Body Camera update Rizzi asked if this issue was related to the announcement of the Axon program. The committee advised it was. Rizzi stated that Axon’s new program does not change any of the information that was previously presented in the body camera report. Axon’s program provides for deferred payment, which would increase their business, but would still require full payment at the end of a year. There was no change in pricing, and Axon was approximately $200,000 more than Coban. Mendez asked if there was any legislation in the state that would provide for funding. Moore advised there was no such legislation or funding. Community member Andrea Altmayer spoke in favor of getting body cameras and felt there is funding available in the community. Rizzi reviewed some of the costs associated with implementing and operating a body camera program. One of the unknown variables is the staffing costs for public disclosure. Although the current legislation places restrictions on requests for body camera recordings, it’s still unknown what that cost would be, and the cost would be expected to increase if the legislation is revoked. 2.c. Kronenberg report Schneider reported that he met with Lea Kronenberg at the beginning of April. As a result of her meetings and visits in Yakima, she has changed her position. She now sees the limitations on funding, and the need for intervention in addition to police action. After her visit, she has changed her follow up project to a survey on access to social services. Coffey inquired if she would be in contact with city representatives, and Schneider advised that option was left open to her. Gutierrez stated she felt the humanization of the situation was important to understanding the issues. She felt this report gives the City the opportunity to take away the positive notes from it. 2.d. Homicide update Schneider reported there have been 6 homicides to date. There had been 8 to this point in 2016, then none until November. Of the 2017 homicides, investigations indicate 2 are gang related, 1 is drug related, 1 was during a robbery, and 2 have an unknown motive. The detective division continues to work on all 6 cases. Gutierrez comments that it is difficult to determine how any of these might have been prevented, and she understands law enforcement is working hard to address the issues. Coffey stressed the importance of community involvement, and for citizens to follow the “see something, say something” philosophy. 2.e. Mini mart robbery update Schneider reported there have been 15 commercial armed robberies in 2017. There have been arrests made in two of those cases. There has not been one since April 6, which has been the longest gap between incidents this year. There is a decreasing trend in the robberies. Usually the trend is to see more armed robberies in the colder months, with a drop off after Christmas. We did not see the drop off this year. It’s suspected that there are only a small number of perpetrators of these crimes, and we expect to see the robberies drop off once they are incarcerated. Gutierrez asked if arterial cameras might be a good tool to address robberies and other crimes. Schneider advised they are a good investigative and deterrent tool. There is a significant cost to them and there are privacy issues with a city-owned system. Coffey asked for more information regarding costs and implementation, and felt that some of the service clubs might be interested in sponsoring such a program. Rizzi advised that the private sector video is especially helpful as there are not disclosure issues with it, the private citizens own the video. 2.f. Response to David Morales correspondence Martinez advised that the city has received two correspondence items from David Morales detailing a long list of issues and quoting the Washington Attorney General’s guidebook. Legal has researched the issues he has raised regarding holding individuals on ICE detainers or administrative warrants. The City does not hold individuals on detainers but does hold on administrative warrants (warrants signed by an administrative official but not a judge). Legal feels the best practice would be to have those orders signed by a judge. They recommend moving toward adopting a policy and suggest several steps to undertake to develop a policy, such as meeting with Yakima County officials, then meeting with ICE and US Attorney representatives. Additionally, there has been no reply to Mr. Morales regarding the issues he brought forward. Martinez requested direction if she should formulate a response. Gutierrez advised she supported the staff recommendations to take steps to develop a policy. Coffey asked if developing a policy would put the city in jeopardy of being considered a sanctuary city and bring the spotlight onto undocumented citizens. Martinez advised that earlier this week the US Conference of Mayors issued a report that defined sanctuary cities. The mayors had met with Homeland Security and the meeting resulted in a clarification of the definition of sanctuary city as willful noncompliance with 8 USC Code 1373 of Immigration and Nationalities Act, which provides no jurisdiction or official shall prevent someone from sharing information with ICE. The city has no such policy and the proposed policy would not change that status. Coffey reiterated that her concern was with not having a spotlight placed on undocumented residents and subjected to retaliation. Martinez advised this would be an internal policy change that would best protect the city from legal action and limit liability. Coffey asked what the procedure would be for proceeding with a policy change. Gutierrez stated that it was her understanding that it did not require Council deliberation or approval, but appreciated that the information was being brought to the committee. Moore stated he felt it was important to conduct meetings with ICE and the US Attorney’s representatives to preserve the working relationship. He stated that this would be a police department policy, which does not require Council action. However, since this policy change was part of the ordinance which Council rejected, he did not want it to appear there was any attempt to subvert the rejection of the ordinance. He wanted to make sure that Council members were aware of those conversations with ICE and US Attorney’s representatives and the direction towards policy development and adoption. Gutierrez expressed that she didn’t think that this particular clause was the reason the ordinance was voted down and the council members who voted against might be interested in knowing the information. Coffey asked if the issue could be addressed by the City Manager in his individual meetings with the council members. He advised he could. Coffey asked if Rizzi was comfortable with this policy change and process. He advised he was. Moore clarified that the committee was directing Martinez and Rizzi to have preliminary conversations with ICE and US Attorney representatives, and advised he would add the item to his weekly meetings with the council members. Martinez was directed to draft a generic response that the issues he addressed were being reviewed. 3. Old Business None 4. Other Business None 5. Information items The YPAL February report was included in the packet for information 6. Recap of future agenda items Arterial camera information if ready Faith based community coalition Emphasis patrol update Domestic violence – discuss direction of addressing social issues Follow up on policy on judicial warrants 7. Audience Participation Tony Coursey thanked the police department for the support of the mini mart businesses. Asked for clarification on reporting policies and council redistricting. Mr. Coursey was advised his questions would be addressed after the meeting. Luz Gutierrez spoke regarding the police requesting residents to call in with information, who they should be calling. She also stated the need to recruit Hispanic and/or bilingual officers and asked who screens the officer applicants. Ms. Gutierrez was advised her questions would be responded to after the meeting as well. Adjournment It was MOVED by Coffey and SECONDED by Gutierrez to adjourn the meeting. Meeting was adjourned at 4:05 p.m. Approved: CITY OF COLVILLE VIDEO SURVEILLANCE POLICY For Closed Circuit Television Monitoring and Recording of Public Areas for Safety and Security Purposes Policy Date: May 26, 2009 PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to govern the use of the City’s closed circuit television (CCTV) cameras and overt electronic recording. This policy applies to all use of the City’s CCTV monitoring and/or recording. This policy is established to set parameters restricting the non-court ordered use of CCTV in public places and to enhance public safety and security in a manner consistent with accepted rights of privacy. SCOPE/BACKGROUND The City of Colville recognizes that improvements and changes in technology can greatly enhance public safety and law enforcement efforts. The City is implementing this method of crime deterrence by strategic placement of closed-circuit television cameras (CCTV) in the City of Colville. Past U.S. Supreme Court and lower court decisions strongly suggest that this type of monitoring is a valid exercise of a government’s police powers. Under current interpretations of the First and Fourth Amendments, CCTV represents a valid use of the state’s power to protect its citizens. It does not intrude upon and individual’s sphere of privacy, but rather records events occurring in public space for which individuals do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. This policy applies to systems that enable continuous or periodic routine video monitoring on a sustained basis. Legitimate uses of this technology are covered by this policy and applicable state and federal law. DEFINITIONS 1. “Extracting” means copying images from the hard drive or Internet site to some other media (CD ROM, video tape, etc.). 2. “Monitoring” means real-time viewing or viewing footage stored on a hard drive. 3. “Personnel” means authorized police officers or non-sworn police personnel. 4. “Recording” means capturing images on a computer disk or drive, Internet storage site, CD-ROM, or videotape 24 hours a day, seven days a week, yearlong. GENERAL PRINCIPLES The City is committed to enhancing the quality of life in Colville by integrating professional police practices with available technology. A critical component of security and safety through technology is CCTV in public areas. The principle objectives of CCTV monitoring and/or recording in public areas include: 1. Promote a safe environment by preventing/deterring acts of theft, vandalism, harassment, and/or assault. 2. Assist in identification of individuals involved in criminal activity on City owned or managed property. 3. Assist in the safe daily operation of City parks and related facilities. 4. Assist law enforcement agencies in investigating criminal activity. To assure there is no violation of a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy, CCTV cameras shall be focused on public areas and the images shall not be used or disseminated improperly. Safeguards will ensure that the technology is not abused. The City shall comply with all local, federal and state case law applicable to the use of surveillance cameras in public space. CCTV monitoring and/or recording will be conducted in a professional, ethical, and legal manner. Personnel using the CCTV camera system will be appropriately trained and supervised in the responsible use of this system. Violations of this policy and procedures may result in disciplinary action and may subject those involved to criminal and/or civil liability under applicable state and federal law. Information obtained through video monitoring and/or recording will be used exclusively for safety, security, and other legitimate purposes. Information obtained through monitoring and/or recording will only be released in accordance with this policy or as required by law. [See RCW 42.56 and RCW 10.97]. CCTV monitoring and/or recording of public areas will be conducted in a manner consistent with all City policies, including the Sexual Harassment Policy and other relevant policies. Except for police investigations involving person(s) whose description is known, this policy prohibits monitoring and/or recording based solely on characteristics and classifications (e.g., race, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, disability, etc.). CCTV monitoring of public areas, dwellings, and businesses in the City of Colville is limited to uses that do not violate the reasonable expectation of privacy as defined by law. To maintain an informed community, the City will list on its web page information describing the purpose and location of CCTV cameras and the policy for its use. Additionally, any individual, civic groups, classes, etc. may contact the police department to schedule a tour/demonstration of the CCTV monitoring point located in the police department. All recording or monitoring of public areas for security and safety purposes by City authorized cameras is limited exclusively to practices that will not violate the standards of a reasonable expectation of privacy as defined by law. RESPONSIBILITIES City of Colville Police Department (CPD): The CPD is the department authorized and responsible to oversee and coordinate the use of public cameras in the City. The CPD has primary responsibility for ensuring adherence to this policy and for disseminating the policy to persons requesting information on the policy and procedures. The CPD is responsible for following new developments in the relevant laws and in security industry practices to ensure that CCTV monitoring and/or recording in the City is consistent with high standards and protections. The Chief of CPD has the responsibility to authorize all CCTV monitoring for safety and security purposes in the City. The CPD is responsible for reviewing request(s) for installation and or placement of security cameras, developing a recommendation on the request(s), and forwarding that recommendation to the City Council. The CPD will assist in aiming and focusing the cameras during the installation phase and will view and manage data from the cameras. INSTALLATION APPROVAL Placement at other City facilities or buildings, such as City Hall, other City properties, public parks, open space areas, public streets or other public locations, requires approval by the City Council. When seeking approval, Department Heads will address the following issues and concerns in supporting their request: 1. Objectives for implementing the system. 2. Use of equipment, including: a. Location of cameras. b. Location of equipment. c. Personnel authorized to operate the system. d. Times when monitoring will be in effect (and staffed, if applicable). 3. Other deterrence or detection measures that were considered, and why video monitoring is the best solution. 4. Any specific, verifiable reports of incidents of crime or significant safety concerns that have occurred in the location to be placed under video monitoring. 5. Possible effects of the proposed video monitoring system on personal privacy, if any, and how they will be mitigated. 6. Appropriate consultation with stakeholders, including the public or reasons why this is not necessary. 7. Signage strategy advising the public that video monitoring is occurring. 8. Approach to installing and maintaining the system. 9. Fiscal impact and availability of funding. PROCEDURES A. Training/Oversight 1. All personnel operating the CCTV system will be trained in the technical, legal, and ethical parameters of appropriate camera use. a. Personnel will receive a copy of this policy and provide written acknowledgement that they have read and understood its contents. b. Personnel will receive update training on this policy as needed. In circumstances in which CCTV cameras are monitored, all personnel involved in monitoring and/or recording of public areas will perform their duties in accordance with the law and this policy. 2. The Chief of Police or his/her designee will ensure that responsible and proper camera monitoring/recording practices by personnel are followed by conducting periodic audits of the CCTV camera system. B. OPERATING PROCEDURES Nothing in this policy is intended to limit the reasonable and legal use of the CCTV cameras during exigent circumstances involving matters of public and/or officer safety. 1. The CCTV cameras will be monitored by police department personnel. The Chief of Police will assign a designee to periodically review video systems to insure they are functioning properly and recording correctly using the proper date/time stamp. 2. An officer will be dispatched to any area in which a crime, offense, motor vehicle accident, public safety risk, traffic problem, or other incident which necessitates police intervention. 3. CCTV cameras shall be used to observe locations that are in public view and where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Any view provided by a CCTV camera shall be no greater than what is available from the public vantage point. 4. Personnel shall not monitor/record individuals based on characteristics of race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, or classification such as national origin, etc. protected by state and federal laws. Personnel will monitor/record based on suspicious behavior, not individual characteristics. EXCEPTION: Police investigations involving person(s) whose description is known. 5. Personnel will not continuously view people displaying affection in public areas, unless such activity is criminal in nature. 6. The monitoring equipment will be configured to prevent personnel from tampering or duplicating recorded information without authorization. 7. Personnel shall not disseminate information learned from monitoring CCTV public cameras unless such release complies with the law, this policy of other information release laws or policies. 8. Camera positions and views of residential housing shall be limited. Any view given to housing will be no greater than what is available with unaided vision. Furthermore the view of a residential housing facility must not violate the standard of “reasonable expectation of privacy.” C. LOCATION AND DIRECTION OF VIDEO MONITORING EQUIPMENT Permanent, fixed-mounted cameras will not be placed in areas where a reasonable expectation of privacy is standard, such as inside restrooms. 1. Cameras located internally will not be directed to look through windows to areas outside the building, unless necessary to protect external assets, provide for the personal safety of individuals or deter criminal activity from occurring. 2. Cameras will not be directed to look into adjacent, non-City owned buildings. 3. Placement of cameras will also take into consideration physical limitations such as availability of power, cell reception and reasonable mounting facilities. D. NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES 1. Clearly written signs will be prominently displayed at the perimeter of video monitoring areas advising the public that video monitoring is occurring. 2. The Parks Department will post signage at appropriate locations. Signage will state: THIS AREA IS SUBJECT TO VIDEO MONITORING BY THE CITY OF COLVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT E. RETENTION, EXTRACTION AND STORAGE PROCEDURES Recorded video records will be stored until the record is superseded by being overwritten with new records, unless retained as part of a criminal investigation or court proceedings (criminal or civil), or other bona fide use as approved by the Chief of Police. Images obtained through video camera monitoring/recording must be retained for a length of time deemed appropriate for the lawful purpose of monitoring, but not to exceed 30 days, unless such images need to be retained longer for the final resolution of a case. Video recorded images will be stored in a secure location with access by authorized personnel only. Only trained Staff authorized by the Chief of Police shall be authorized to extract video from footage from the Internet, computer disk, or drive. Any video footage extracted for investigation purposes shall be stored in a manner that will exclude access by unauthorized personnel. Video footage, which is evidence, will be processed and stored in the evidence room with access by authorized personnel only. Records will be securely and permanently disposed of in a manner appropriate to their storage media. EXCLUSIONS This policy does not apply to the use of surveillance, or to the conduct of surveillance monitoring or recording by a law enforcement agency engaged in a legitimate criminal investigation. This policy does not apply to the use of hand-held video cameras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±1RQH63(&,$/35(6(17$7,21±1RQH%86,1(66 ,7(06'LVFXVVLRQRI&LW\¶V8VHRI3ROLFH&DPHUDV &KLHIRI3ROLFH6\GQH\-DFNVRQGHVFULEHGWKHVFRSHDQGEDFNJURXQGH[SODLQLQJRQHRIWKHJRDOVRIWKH:RRGLQYLOOH3ROLFH'HSDUWPHQWLVWRUHGXFHWKHFULPHUDWH9LGHRFDPHUDWHFKQRORJ\LVRQHDYDLODEOHUHVRXUFHWRDGGWRWKH3ROLFH'HSDUWPHQWDVD³IRUFHPXOWLSOLHU´7RGD\¶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¶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¶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¶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¶VSRVWVXUJHU\DSSRLQWPHQWZKHWKHUIXUWKHUVXUJHU\LVQHFHVVDU\6KHPD\DOVREHORFDWLQJRXWVLGH:RRGLQYLOOH6KHZLOOUHVLJQLIIXUWKHUVXUJHU\LVQHFHVVDU\RUVKHPRYHVRXWRI:RRGLQYLOOHSRWHQWLDOO\LQ$XJXVWRU6HSWHPEHU 38%/,&&200(17 ±1RQH83&20,1*$*(1'$723,&6D &RQWLQXHG3ROLFH&DPHUD'LVFXVVLRQE %LNH&OXE3UHVHQWDWLRQ $'-28510(17&RPPLVVLRQHU/RQHPRYHGWRDGMRXUQWKHPHHWLQJ&RPPLVVLRQHU&OLQWRQVHFRQGHGWKHPRWLRQ 9RWH$OOYRWHGLQIDYRURIWKHPRWLRQDQGWKHPRWLRQFDUULHG  7KHPHHWLQJZDVDGMRXUQHGDWSP 5HVSHFWIXOO\VXEPLWWHG /LQGD)DYD6WDII/LDLVRQ WOODINVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT PUBLIC VIDEO SYSTEM POLICY (PVS) Reviewed/Recommended: Richard A. Leahy, City Manager and Sydney Jackson, Chief of Police, August 6, 2013 Approved by Woodinville City Council August 6, 2013   I. Application. The policy applies to the use of the city’s Public Video System (PVS) deployed on public streets or city-owned parkland property. The PVS are video cameras that can continuously or periodically capture areas of and activities on public streets and parks that are open and visible to the public. This policy does not apply to the following: security surveillance systems installed to protect City-operating facilities or property, such as City Hall or the Public Works Facility; systems or equipment used to lawfully conduct law enforcement video surveillance or investigations; court- approved investigative activities or surveillance; or active use of the PVS when specifically authorized by the Chief of Police in the conduct of an on-going investigation. This policy establishes parameters for the use of the PVS in public places to enhance public safety and security in a manner consistent with accepted rights of privacy. This policy applies to all City of Woodinville employees and/or contractors or their agents who have access to the PVS or its data. II. Purpose, Scope, and Background. The purpose of the PVS is to deter, prevent, or reduce crime in Woodinville by providing supplemental investigative leads, evidence, and enforcement assistance to the Police Department. The City will deploy the PVS at strategic locations determined by the Chief of Police in consultation with the Public Works Department. The PVS is also intended for the Police Department and Public Works Department to review, analyze, investigate, and determine causes of motor vehicle, pedestrian, and bicyclist accidents. Routinely videotaping public areas visible and open to the public represent a valid use of the City’s power to protect its citizens. Done properly, their use does not intrude upon an individual’s sphere of privacy, but rather records events occurring in public space for which individuals do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Legitimate uses of this technology are covered by this policy and applicable state and federal law. This policy is intended to balance the individual’s right to personal privacy with the public’s right to use available information collected in public areas where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy; and where, if present, any member of the general public or law enforcement could view or observe the recorded activity. III. Definitions. 1. Extracting- To generate a single video clip from a series of captured images in order to store it on the server beyond the standard time frame. 2. Monitoring- Real time viewing or viewing footage stored on the server. Page 1   3. Personnel- Authorized police officers, non-sworn police personnel, or designated city employees or consultants. 4. Recording- The process of each camera capturing images and archiving those on the server for a period of 30 days. 5. Retention/Retain- The process of downloading and burning the extracted video footage onto a CD or DVD (for larger files) for long-term storage. IV. General Principles. The City is committed to enhancing the quality of life in Woodinville by integrating professional police practices with available technology. A potentially beneficial tool is the strategic deployment and use of video cameras in public areas. Along with this technology comes a responsibility – this type of secure camera system requires those tasked with monitoring and/or recording do so in a professional, legal, and ethical manner. The principle objectives of camera monitoring and/or recording in public areas include: Enhance public safety; Prevent, deter, reduce crime and public disorder; Reduce the fear of crime; Identify criminal activity and suspects; Identify and gather evidence; Document police actions to safeguard citizen and police officer rights; Reduce the cost and impact of crime to the community; Improve the allocation and deployment of law enforcement assets; Enhance traffic safety and traffic related investigations; and Expedite and improve responses to emergencies. Any deviation from these principles for inappropriate reasons (e.g., camera monitoring which violates a reasonable expectation of privacy or monitoring solely based upon race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability or any classification that is protected by law) would undermine the acceptability of these resources for critical safety goals and is, therefore, prohibited. V. Practices. Use of the video cameras shall comply with all local, federal and case law applicable to the use of surveillance cameras in a public space. Related policy, state, and federal law include, but are not limited to: KCSO Code of Conduct and Code of Ethics, KCSO policy on Sexual Harassment, RCW 9.73.090, RCW 9A.44.115 and the Fourth Amendment. Violations of this policy may result in disciplinary action and may subject those involved to criminal and/or civil liability under applicable state and federal laws. Page 2   1. Responsibilities: The Woodinville Police Department is authorized and responsible to oversee and coordinate the use of the PVS as well as to ensure adherence to this policy. A. Privacy: Monitoring and/or recording of public areas and businesses in the City of Woodinville is limited to uses that do not violate the reasonable expectation of privacy as defined by law. The video cameras shall be used to observe locations that are in public view and where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Views observed with the cameras shall be no greater than what would be available from areas open to the public. B. Public Outreach: To maintain an informed community, the City of Woodinville will list on its web page information about the PVS and the general locations of the cameras; and install signs on public streets to inform the public that a video recording program is in use. Additionally, any individual, civic group, class, etc. can contact the Police Department to schedule a tour/demonstration of the camera monitoring point located inside the Woodinville Police area within City Hall. 2. Training / Oversight: Only Police Department members and designated City employees that have been trained in the technical, legal and ethical parameters regarding appropriate camera use shall operate the video camera system. A. Personnel will receive a copy of this policy and provide written acknowledgement they have read and understood its contents. B. Personnel will receive update training on this policy as needed. C. All computer generated operations shall be electronically logged by ID and password for tracking purposes. Every action taken by the logged-on computer operator shall be electronically recorded for recall for audits. D. The Chief of Police or his/her designee will ensure that responsible and proper camera monitoring/recording practices by personnel are followed by conducting periodic audits of the video camera system. 3. Operating Procedures: The video cameras will not be continuously monitored by department members or authorized police staff when not related to a police investigation. The cameras shall only record images, not sound, and shall not be utilized for non-criminal investigations, traffic and/or civil infractions. Nothing in this policy is intended to limit the reasonable and legal use of the video cameras for legitimate police investigations or during exigent circumstances involving matters of public and/or officer safety. Page 3   A. The PVS will be monitored by police department personnel. The Chief of Police will assign a designee to periodically review video systems to ensure they are functioning properly and recording correctly using the proper date/time stamp. B. Video cameras shall be used to observe locations that are in public view and where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Any view provided by a video camera shall be no greater than what is available from the public vantage point. C. Personnel shall not monitor/record individuals based on characteristics of race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, or classification such as national origin, etc. protected by state and federal laws. Personnel will monitor/record based on suspicious behavior, not individual characteristics. EXCEPTION: Police investigations involving person(s) whose description is known. D. Personnel will not continuously watch recordings of people displaying affection in public areas, unless such activity is criminal in nature. E. The monitoring equipment will be configured to prevent personnel from tampering or duplicating recorded information without authorization. F. Personnel shall not disseminate information learned from monitoring PVS cameras unless such release complies with the law, this policy, or other information release laws or policies. G. Information learned from monitoring the PVS may only be shared as is professionally appropriate within the Woodinville Police Department, with other bona fide police agencies, or with designated City employees when the need arises. 4. Location of Video Monitoring Equipment: Permanent, fixed-mounted cameras will not be placed in areas where a reasonable expectation of privacy is standard, such as inside restrooms or private places. A. Cameras will not be directed to look into adjacent, non-city owned buildings, except as authorized by these policies and Washington State Law. B. Placement of cameras will also take into consideration physical limitations such as availability of power, cell reception and reasonable mounting facilities. C. Cameras will not be specifically directed to look through windows and doors of dwellings/residences. Cameras directed toward areas that are open and visible to the public shall be checked to ensure that any angle that captures part of what appears to be a residence captures no more than what is visible to the public from outside the residence. Page 4   D. The Woodinville Police Chief shall determine where the PVS shall be deployed and may consider requests for deployment from the City Council, City Manager, Departments and the public. 5. Notification Procedures: Clearly written signs will be prominently displayed at the perimeter of video monitoring areas advising the public that video monitoring is occurring. Signage will state: THIS AREA IS SUBJECT TO VIDEO MONITORING BY THE WOODINVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT 6. Retention, Extraction and Storage Procedures: The Chief of Police will be responsible for determining the designated default camera view locations and deleting extracts. A. Retention: Recorded video images will be stored for a maximum of thirty (30) days. Images will be erased, deleted, or otherwise permanently eliminated within 30 days unless the video footage is being retained as part of a police investigation, court proceeding (criminal or civil), internal investigation, traffic study, public disclosure request, criminal or civil process, or other use as approved by the Chief of Police. A list of all video footage retained beyond 30 days shall be maintained in a log identifying the purpose for extended retention. B. Extraction: If video footage of evidentiary value is located, the investigating officer will extract the footage and retain it by downloading it onto a CD or DVD. The CD or DVD shall be booked into Property/Evidence as evidence under the corresponding case number. Only trained staff authorized by the chief of Police shall be authorized to extract video footage. C. Documentation: When a significant incident, crime, or investigation occurs, the investigating officer must view the camera(s) that potentially captured the incident and document in the case report the outcome of that review, when the review occurred, and which camera(s) was viewed. D. Storage: Any video footage extracted and retained as part of a police investigation, court proceeding (criminal or civil), internal investigation, public disclosure request or criminal or civil process, or as approved by the Chief of Police, shall be handled in accordance with approved procedure particular to the type of investigation or request. The CD or DVD will be maintained in Property/Evidence, as required, and any request for viewing will follow practices for releasing evidence. 1. According to the Washington State Common Records Retention Schedule (Core) “Videos of incidents resulting in legal action should be retained with other documentation pertaining to that incident and are subject to those retention schedules”. Any arrest captured on the system shall be extracted and booked as evidence. Page 5   7. Public Records Requests: Records generated through or as a result of the operation of the PVS shall be the property of the City of Woodinville and shall be retained and disclosed in accordance with these policies, the policies of the City of Woodinville, and the Laws of the State of Washington. Requests for Public Records resulting from operation of the PVS shall be handled by the City of Woodinville. Records retained by the Police Department shall become the property of the King County Sheriff’s Office. Any requests for such documents shall be handled by the King County Sheriff’s Office. 8. Reporting: The Chief of Police shall prepare a monthly report of any instances when the PVS has been actively viewed or when video recordings generated by the PVS have been viewed or duplicated. At a minimum, the monthly report will include: the reason why the PVS was actively viewed or why a recording was viewed/duplicated; identification of the individuals who viewed the PVS; and the location(s) viewed. The Chief of Police shall timely submit this monthly report to the City Manager. VI. Amendment, Alteration, or Revision of Policies and Practices Amendment, alteration, or revision of these policies and practices may be made as follows: Minor Amendments: These are changes that are procedural in nature that will make operation of the PVS more efficient or effective and which are consistent with the objective of these policies and do not reduce an individual’s expectation of personal privacy in public places. These types of amendments may be approved by the City Manager. Major Amendments: These are changes that extend the use of the PVS beyond the original limits. These types of amendments must be approved by the Woodinville City Council. Page 6 Home /Local /News /Surveillance cameras could show up around Woodinville 19 Mar 2013 06:03 | Written by lliot Suhr, University of Washington Department of Communication News Laboratory | SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS COULD SHOW UP AROUND WOODINVILLE The Woodinville City Council has budgeted $55,000 for a new surveillance camera project and hopes to use them to help prevent crime and aid in investigations by the police department. The City of Woodinville is currently requesting public input until the end of March 2013 when the results will be presented to the City Council. “We’re looking at it from a crime prevention and investigation standpoint,” said Alexandra Sheeks, assistant to the Woodinville City manager. “We really wanted to understand people’s feedback about them. As you saw in Seattle, they installed surveillance cameras without anyone knowing about it and there was considerable backlash about that,” said Sheeks. By surveying the public before the cameras are implemented, the city hopes to learn what people think and also avoid possible backlash. Earlier this year, the installation of 30 surveillance cameras along Seattle’s shoreline became controversial. Members of the public and civil liberties advocates like ACLU have criticized the implementation of cameras in Seattle — some of which are in residential areas. “Research has shown that video surveillance does not stop or deter crime and is a waste of resources that could be spent on more effective alternatives that reduce crime and protect our privacy, such as community policing,” said Jennifer Shaw, legislative director of ACLU Washington. Another major concern was privacy. In a statement released by ACLU of Washington, Shaw listed steps to ensure the protection of privacy in the use of surveillance cameras. Some of the steps included evaluating the effectiveness of cameras in lowering crime rates, preventing misuse of footage by deleting unnecessary footage, and ensuring accountability by auditing those monitoring surveillance feeds. “Surveillance cameras are often referred to as force multipliers. It allows us more access to more eyes in places we can’t be; it makes us more effective than we can be on our own,” said Woodinville Police Chief Sydney Jackson. The City of Woodinville has not yet planned how many or exactly where cameras will be installed. Surveillance cameras will only be placed on public roads and parks. They would not be used to issue traffic citations. “We would like to use the cameras for investigative purposes. We would use cameras after the fact if we knew a crime had been committed in a particular area,” said Jackson. “We don’t have the staff to sit down and monitor video surveillance by the hour.” “For example, if there’s a bank robbery, we could use the cameras to get a picture of the criminal’s license place,” said Sheeks. According to Jackson, the City of Woodinville employs 11 dedicated police officers through a contract with the King County Sheriff’s Office. In 2011, the City of Seattle had 1,338 sworn officers covering a population of over 600,000 people — a ratio of about one officer for every 450 residents. In comparison, the City of Woodinville has about one officer to every 1,000 people — nearly double the number of residents per officer. “We’re a small department so we need all the help we can get,” said Sheeks. To voice your opinions to the Woodinville City Council on the proposed installation of surveillance cameras, take the survey at https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/3JRYGBZ or visit the City of Woodinville’s website at http://www.ci.woodinville.wa.us/. SHARE THIS POST Tweet ATTACHMENT 1    City of Seattle   Body Worn Video Redaction Cost Study  Narrative  February 2017   Background  SPD has implemented a Body Worn Video (BWV) program. Officers will wear body cameras and will  capture recordings that are public records subject to the Washington Public Records Act, Chapt. 42.56  RCW (PRA). The PRA allows a law enforcement agency responding to requests for BWV recordings to  charge certain requestors the reasonable costs of redacting videos prior to disclosure. The purpose of  this cost study is to determine those reasonable costs. Allowable redaction costs are in addition to  copying costs that agencies are legally allowed to charge requestors.  Introduction  With the exception of the following requestors, the PRA allows an agency to charge a requestor the  reasonable costs of redacting, altering, distorting, pixelating, suppressing, or otherwise obscuring any  portion of the body worn camera recording prior to disclosure:   A person directly involved in an incident recorded by the requested body worn camera  recording;    An attorney representing a person directly involved in an incident recorded by the requested  body worn camera recording;    A person or his or her attorney who requests a body worn camera recording relevant to a  criminal case involving that person;    The executive director from either the Washington state commission on African‐American  affairs, Asian Pacific American affairs, or Hispanic affairs; or   If relevant to a cause of action, an attorney who represents a person regarding a potential or  existing civil cause of action involving the denial of civil rights under the federal or state  Constitution, or a violation of a United States department of justice settlement.  An agency that charges redaction costs must use redaction technology that provides the least costly  commercially available method of redacting body worn camera recordings, to the extent possible and  reasonable.   The purpose of this cost study is to determine the reasonable cost of redacting BWV recordings in order  to provide a requestor the estimated cost of redacting particular BWV recordings and, to provide  requestors a choice of redaction types in order to reduce costs to those requestors.  ATTACHMENT 1    Principles   We charge for redactions based on the parameters provided in the PRA   We charge staff time directly applicable to redacting videos   We charge staff time (salary + benefits) for no more than the lowest‐paid employee assigned  responsibility for redacting video    We have highly‐skilled Video Specialists who apply their expertise to redact video in an efficient  and skillful manner   We use redaction technology that most effectively and efficiently meets the administrative and  operational needs of the Department   We do not charge requestors any costs related to the redaction technology   The City incurs substantial costs for video management, processing, storage, and redaction  technology    In addition to allowed redaction costs, we charge requestors the actual cost of copies of BWV  recordings as provided in the PRA  Types of Redactions   Targeted Video Redaction of Person or Object with or without Targeted Audio Redaction: This  blurs or blacks out the face or identifying features of an individual or object and removes  exempt audio content    Targeted Audio Redaction Alone: This removes exempt portions of the audio    Targeted Blackout of Screen or Targeted Screen Blur with or without Audio Removal: This  completely blacks out targeted segment(s) of video. It may also remove all audio from the  segment(s) as called for   Complete Screen Blur and Audio Removal: This blurs the entire screen for the entire duration of  the video and removes all audio for the entire duration of the video   The types of video redactions are illustrated in the next section   Video Redaction Type Illustrations  Targeted Video Redaction1            Targeted Blackout of Screen              Screen Blur 2                                                                                        1 The size of the dot or shape obscuring an individual or object may vary to ensure that exempt identifying details  are sufficiently obscured.  2 Screen Blur may be targeted for a specific length of time within a video or for the entire duration of the video at  the option of the requestor. Screen blur here is illustrated at 60% blur. The level of blurring may vary to ensure  that exempt identifying details are sufficiently obscured  ATTACHMENT 1    Redaction Process  The cost of redacting video using current technology reflects actual staff time derived from the workflow  necessary to apply redactions as detailed in the SPD Redaction Process Workflow, attached to this Cost  Study.  Time Studies  Stopwatch style time studies were conducted to determine the amount of time it takes to redact BWV  recordings including how long it takes to fully blur and remove audio from an entire video, eliminate one  minute of video, redact one minute of simple audio, redact one minute of complex audio, redact one  minute of simple video, and redact one minute of complex video.   Time Study Results:  Redaction Type Actual Time Redaction Time  Targeted Video Redaction with or  without Targeted Audio Redaction  1 Minute per individual or  object redacted  10 Minutes per individual or  object redacted  Targeted Audio Redaction Alone  1 Minute  5 Minutes  Targeted Blackout of Screen,  Targeted Screen Blur with or  without Audio Removal  1 Minute  4.5 Minutes  Complete Screen Blur and Audio  Removal  Per Video  1 Minute  Video Specialist Weighted Salaries  The weighted salaries for Video Specialists within SPD range from $.61 per minute to $.89 per minute.  The PRA allows agencies to charge the actual cost of redacting BWV recordings including the cost of  redaction technology provided it is the least costly commercially available method. The Video Specialists  weighted salary amounts do not include the cost of redaction technology and the City does not intend to  charge requestors technology costs at this time. The City intends to charge requestors at the rate of $.60  per minute of Video Specialist time to redact body worn videos. This rate is below the actual cost  incurred by the City for redacting video.  Estimating Redaction Costs  Based on the results of the cost study, SPD Public Disclosure Unit staff will calculate estimated redaction  costs at the following rates:  Redaction Method Estimated Cost Per  Minute to Redact  Minutes to Redact Per  Minute of Raw Footage  Estimated Cost of Redaction  Per Minute of Raw Footage  Targeted Video  Redaction with or  without Targeted  Audio Redaction  $0.60 per  individual or object  redacted  10 per individual or  object redacted  $6.00 per individual or  object redacted  Targeted Audio  Redaction Alone  $0.60  5  $3.00  ATTACHMENT 1    Targeted Blackout of  Screen, Targeted  Screen Blur with or  without Audio  Removal  $0.60  4.5  $2.70  Complete Screen Blur  and Audio Removal  $0.60  N/A  $0.60/video    SPD Will Charge Redaction Costs Based on Actual Redaction Time  The City will charge requestors redaction costs reflecting the actual time it takes to redact a particular  video calculated at the rate of $0.60 per minute.                                                                     ATTACHMENT 1    ATTACHMENT   SPD Redaction Process Workflow for Body Worn Video Redaction  1. Receive Initial Video Request   a. Locate video in Evidence.com using one or more of the following fields: case number,  officer ID, and date/time    b. Conduct additional research in RMS/CAD to locate additional video not tagged by  officer, if needed.   c. If one video is identified, then a direct download from Evidence.com can be conducted.  d. If multiple videos are identified, then a bulk download is requested (Evidence.com is a  cloud‐based system)    e. If targeted video and/or audio redaction is required proceed to either Step 2 or Step 3  depending on whether redaction will be done jointly by PDO and Video Specialist or by  Video Specialist working independently  f. If complete screen blur and audio removal is required, proceed to step 4   2. Coordinated PDO/Video Specialist Redaction Process   a. Unzip video files and place videos temporarily on local machine  b. Receive Evidence.com download link via email and download videos.   c. Upload videos to GOVQA for PDO to identify redactable content.   d. Video Specialist deletes video files from local machine.  e. PDO watches and listens to video identifying content that requires redaction, detailing  relevant time codes.   f. PDO sends redaction request to Video Unit  g. Video Unit receives request in GOVQA or Video Unit Electronic Ordering Form (one  redaction request will usually contain multiple video files that need redacting).   h. Review redaction instruction spreadsheet with video timecodes, description of  identifying information, and type of redaction (blur, audio only, etc.)     i. Print hard copy of request.  j. Locate videos in GOVQA.  k. Download to local workstation.   l. Import files to Adobe Premiere.   m. Conduct audio/video redactions as indicated in spreadsheet provided by the PDO.  3. Video Specialist Only Redaction Process  a. Unzip video files and place videos temporarily on local machine.  ATTACHMENT 1    b. Receive Evidence.com download link via email and download videos.  c. Download to local workstation.   d. Import files to Adobe Premiere Video Specialist watches and listens to video identifying  content that requires redaction.  4. Video Specialist applies redactions  a. If Complete Screen Blur and Audio Removal is required, Video Specialist applies blur to  entire video and removes all audio as appropriate.  b. If Targeted Blackout of screen or audio redaction is required, Video Specialist will apply  blackout and remove audio at appropriate points in video.  c. If Targeted Screen Blur or audio redaction is required, Video Specialist will apply screen  blur and remove audio at appropriate points in video.  d. If the Targeted Video Redaction is required, Video Specialist must selectively  blur/obscure video FRAME BY FRAME to ensure the exempt content is removed   i. Camera movement, lighting conditions, environment, proximity of  individuals/objects to camera, number of individuals/objects to be redacted,  and other qualitative factors will contribute to the complexity of the redaction.  e. Multiple passes of the video will be required to track individuals and/or ensure that all  exempt video and audio content has been redacted throughout video.   f. Video Specialist conducts quality assurance by replaying video in real time 1:1 or slower  2:1 and event 3:1 to refine redaction and ensure redaction accuracy.    g. Export videos from Adobe Premiere.   5. Redaction Distribution   a. Upload /Transfer redacted files to GOVQA.   b. Notification is generated after video redaction is complete and is sent to PDO that  redaction is complete.   c. PDO receives the video files and reviews videos for accuracy.  d.  If additional redactions are identified, then request is re‐submitted to Video Specialist.    e. If no additional redactions are required, then Video Specialist logs request as  completed.