HomeMy WebLinkAboutPSC 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.
(336&
&,7<2):22',19,//((0(5*(1&<35(3$5('1(66 $1'38%/,&6$)(7<&200,66,216SHFLDO0HHWLQJ
0RQGD\SP)HEUXDU\&LW\+DOO&RXQFLO&KDPEHUV
&$//7225'(57KHPHHWLQJZDVFDOOHGWRRUGHUDWSPE\&KDLU%UDG\
52//&$//35(6(17&KDLU0DFH%UDG\9LFH&KDLU0DUF5RMDV DQG&RPPLVVLRQHUV 'HQQLV/RQH DQG/LOOLH &OLQWRQ
$%6(17&RPPLVVLRQHUV $QJHOR.UDNRII DQG-DQLQH%URZQ H[RIILFLR
$OVRSUHVHQWZHUH([HFXWLYH$VVLVWDQW'HSXW\&LW\&OHUN/LQGD)DYD0DQDJHPHQW$QDO\VW=DFK6FKPLW]3ROLFH&KLHI6\GQH\-DFNVRQDQG&RXQFLO/LDLVRQWRWKH(336&&RXQFLOPHPEHU/HV5XEVWHOOR
)/$*6$/87(&KDLU%UDG\OHGWKHIODJVDOXWH
$33529$/2)$*(1'$,1&217(17$1'25'(59LFH&KDLU5RMDV PRYHGWRDSSURYHWKHDJHQGD&RPPLVVLRQHU/RQHVHFRQGHGWKHPRWLRQ
9RWH$OOYRWHGLQIDYRURIWKHPRWLRQDQGWKHPRWLRQFDUULHG
38%/,&&200(17±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\¶VWHFKQRORJ\LVIDVWHUOHVVH[SHQVLYHZLGHUUHDFKLQJDQGKDV JUHDWHUIXQFWLRQDOLW\LQKDUGZDUHDQGVRIWZDUHDQDO\WLFV6KHGHVFULEHGXVHRIYLGHRFDPHUDVDW5RWDU\3DUN$6DIHW\*UDQWSURYLGHGIRUWKHSXUFKDVHRIDUHSODFHPHQWFDPHUDDW5RWDU\3DUN6KHH[SODLQHGDOLYHGHPRQVWUDWLRQZDVSURYLGHGWRWKH&RXQFLOXVLQJDFDPHUDPRXQWHGRXWVLGH&RXQFLO&KDPEHUV
&KLHI-DFNVRQUHYLHZHGWKHSULQFLSOHREMHFWLYHVRIYLGHRPRQLWRULQJLQSXEOLFDUHDV3URPRWHDVDIHHQYLURQPHQWE\GHWHUULQJDFWVRIWKHIWYDQGDOLVPKDUDVVPHQWDQGDVVDXOW
(336&
$VVLVWLQWKHLGHQWLILFDWLRQRILQGLYLGXDOVLQYROYHGLQFULPLQDODFWLYLW\$VVLVWLQWKHVDIHGDLO\RSHUDWLRQRI&LW\SDUNVDQGIDFLOLWLHV$VVLVWODZHQIRUFHPHQWDJHQFLHVLQLQYHVWLJDWLQJFULPLQDODFWLYLW\
6KHDOVRUHYLHZHGSUHOLPLQDU\JXLGHOLQHVDQGJHQHUDOSULQFLSOHVRIXVH7RHQVXUHWKHUHLVQRYLRODWLRQRIDSHUVRQ¶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
&KLHI-DFNVRQH[SODLQHGYLGHRWHFKQRORJ\ZLOOQRWEHXVHGIRU*HQHUDOVXUYHLOODQFHRIWKH SXEOLF7RLVVXHQRWLFHVRILQIUDFWLRQIRUWUDIILFRUFLYLOYLRODWLRQV3URILOLQJRILQGLYLGXDOV6XUYHLOODQFHRIDUHDV ZLWKDQH[SHFWDWLRQRISULYDF\
&KLHI-DFNVRQUHOD\HGUHFRPPHQGDWLRQVPDGHWRWKH&LW\&RXQFLO%ULQJWKHLVVXHWRWKH(PHUJHQF\3UHSDUHGQHVVDQG3XEOLF6DIHW\&RPPLWWHHIRUGLVFXVVLRQDQGUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV3XEOLF2SLQLRQ6XUYH\&RPPXQLW\PHHWLQJV3XEOLFKHDULQJVDW&LW\&RXQFLOPHHWLQJV
'LVFXVVLRQIROORZHGUHJDUGLQJWKHYHQGRUWKDWPDGHWKHSUHVHQWDWLRQWRWKH&RXQFLO/HYHUDJH,QIRUPDWLRQ6\VWHPVDXWRPDWHGOLFHQVHSODWHUHDGHUVFRPPXQLW\SDUWQHUVKLSVZLWKEXVLQHVVHVHTXLSPHQWFRVWVSRWHQWLDOFDPHUDORFDWLRQVIXWXUHDELOLW\WRDOORZSROLFHDFFHVVWRDEXVLQHVV¶VHFXULW\FDPHUDVZLWKDFDOOUHYLHZRIGDWDIROORZLQJDFULPHIL[HGYHUVXV]RRPFDPHUDVSRWHQWLDOYDQGDOLVPVLJQVDVDGHWHUUHQWZKHWKHUFDPHUDVDFWXDOO\OHDGWRDUHGXFWLRQLQFULPHUDWHVDELOLW\WRJUD\RXWZLQGRZVVHFXULW\RIGDWDUHFRUGVUHWHQWLRQDQGSXEOLFUHFRUGVUHTXHVWV
(336&
EXGJHWIRUFDPHUDVDXWRPDWHGOLFHQVHUHDGHULPSRUWDQFHRIGHPRQVWUDWLQJWRSXEOLFWKDWDUHDVFDQEHJUD\HGRXWDQGSRWHQWLDOIRUDVRODUHQHUJ\VRXUFH
$FWLRQ&RPPLVVLRQHUVLQWHUHVWHGLQPRYLQJIRUZDUG5HFRPPHQGHGGHWHUPLQLQJKLJKFULPHDUHDVDQGFDPHUDORFDWLRQV DQGSRVVLEO\EXVLQHVVHVLQWHUHVWHGLQSDUWQHULQJ EHIRUHSUHVHQWLQJWRSXEOLF7KLVLWHPZDVUHTXHVWHGWR EHVFKHGXOHGRQWKHQH[W(336&DJHQGDIRUIXUWKHUGLVFXVVLRQ
0LQXWHV
6HSWHPEHU9LFH&KDLU5RMDV PRYHGWRDSSURYHWKHPLQXWHVRI6HSWHPEHU&RPPLVVLRQHU&OLQWRQ VHFRQGHGWKHPRWLRQ
9RWH$OOYRWHGLQIDYRURIWKHPRWLRQDQGWKHPRWLRQFDUULHG
'HFHPEHU9LFH&KDLU5RMDV PRYHGWRDSSURYHWKHPLQXWHVRI'HFHPEHU&RPPLVVLRQHU&OLQWRQ VHFRQGHGWKHPRWLRQ
9RWH$OOYRWHGLQIDYRURIWKHPRWLRQDQGWKHPRWLRQFDUULHG
$SSRLQWPHQWRI&KDLUDQG9LFH&KDLU
&KDLU&RPPLVVLRQHU/RQHQRPLQDWHG0DUF 5RMDV DV&KDLU&RPPLVVLRQHU5RMDVGHFOLQHGGXHWRKLVZRUNVFKHGXOH
&RPPLVVLRQHU5RMDVQRPLQDWHG0DFH %UDG\DV&KDLU&RPPLVVLRQHU&OLQWRQVHFRQGHGWKHQRPLQDWLRQ
9RWH$OOYRWHGLQIDYRURIWKHQRPLQDWLRQDQGWKHQRPLQDWLRQ FDUULHG
9LFH&KDLU&RPPLVVLRQHU&OLQWRQQRPLQDWHG0DUF5RMDVDV 9LFH&KDLU&RPPLVVLRQHU/RQHVHFRQGHGWKHQRPLQDWLRQ
9RWH$OOYRWHGLQIDYRURIWKHQRPLQDWLRQDQGWKHQRPLQDWLRQ FDUULHG
5HTXHVWWR&RXQFLOIRU5HPRYDORI$EVHQW&RPPLVVLRQHU
6WDIISURYLGHGDGUDIWOHWWHUIURPWKH(336&WRWKH&LW\&RXQFLOUHTXHVWLQJIRUPDOUHPRYDORI&RPPLVVLRQHU.UDNRIILQDFFRUGDQFH ZLWKWKH(336&¶VE\ODZV
9LFH&KDLU5RMDVPRYHGWRDFFHSWWKHOHWWHUDVZULWWHQ&RPPLVVLRQHU&OLQWRQVHFRQGHGWKHPRWLRQ
9RWH$OOYRWHGLQIDYRURIWKHPRWLRQDQGWKHPRWLRQFDUULHG
(336&
&RXQFLO/LDLVRQWRWKH(336&&RXQFLOPHPEHU/HV5XEVWHOORDGYLVHG UHYLHZRIDOOERDUGVDQGFRPPLVVLRQV LVDQDJHQGDLWHPIRUWKH&RXQFLOUHWUHDWLQ0DUFK
5(3257)520(0(5*(1&<0$1$*(5&RPPLVVLRQHU&OLQWRQPRYHGWRFDQFHOWKH)HEUXDU\PHHWLQJ9LFH&KDLU5RMDVVHFRQGHGWKHPRWLRQ
9RWH$OOYRWHGLQIDYRURIWKHPRWLRQDQGWKHPRWLRQFDUULHG
0U6FKPLW]UHSRUWHGRQHDSSOLFDWLRQKDVEHHQUHFHLYHGIRUWKH&RPPLVVLRQYDFDQF\WKHGHDGOLQHIRUDSSOLFDWLRQVLV0DUFK&RXQFLOZLOOLQWHUYLHZFDQGLGDWHVRQ0DUFK
0U6FKPLW]UHSRUWHGWKHUHLVDIL[HGFDPHUDIRFXVHG RQWKH3ROLFHVXEVWDWLRQGRRUWRHQDEOHVWDIIWRVHHZKRLVULQJLQJWKHEHOO
5(32576 )520&200,66,210(0%(56&RPPLVVLRQHU&OLQWRQUHSRUWHGVKHZLOOOHDUQDWQH[WZHHN¶VSRVWVXUJHU\DSSRLQWPHQWZKHWKHUIXUWKHUVXUJHU\LVQHFHVVDU\6KHPD\DOVREHORFDWLQJRXWVLGH:RRGLQYLOOH6KHZLOOUHVLJQLIIXUWKHUVXUJHU\LVQHFHVVDU\RUVKHPRYHVRXWRI:RRGLQYLOOHSRWHQWLDOO\LQ$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.