For the record, my name is Henry Santana, at large city counselor, and I am the chair of the Boston City Council Committee on Public Safety and Criminal Justice.

Today is April seventh, twenty twenty-six, and the exact time is two PM.

It is also being live streamed at Boston.gov slash city dash council dash TV and broadcasted on Finny Channel Eight, RCN Channel Eighty Two, and files channel nine six four.gov and will be made part of the record and available to all counselors.

Public testimony will be taken at the end of this hearing.

Individuals will be called on in the order in which they signed up, and we'll have two minutes to testify.gov for the link, and your name will be added to the list.

Today's hearing is on docket number zero six three eight.

Order for a hearing to examine the Boston police department's protocols for releasing both police body cameras and dashboard camera footage.

Today I am joined by my colleagues in order of arrival, Councillor Murphy, Counselor Flynn, Councilor Fitzgerald, Councilor Culpepper, Councilor Roosie Louis Gen, and Councillor Brian Warrell.

We've also received two letters of absence, one from our city council president, councilor Braden, and District 8 City Councillor, Councillor Durkin.

I'm not going to go turn it over to my colleagues just for a brief opening statements before we go into our first panel.

And we're going to start with the lead sponsors and then we'll go in order of arrival.

So, Councillor Culpepper, you have the floor.

Good afternoon, and thank you, Chair Santana, and to my co-sponsor, Counselor Warrell, my colleagues and panelists and members of the public for being here today.

Before we begin, I want to address something directly.

This hearing was called to examine the Boston Police Department's protocol for releasing body camera and dashboard camera footage, an issue that goes directly to transparency, accountability, and public trust in our city.

So I have to say that it's disappointing that the police leadership is not here today.

Because the core of the hearing are questions that the public is asking over and over.

Questions that deserve answers, not just from legal counsel with all due respect, but from the leadership responsible for setting policy, making decisions, and building trust with our communities.

Now I want to be clear, we respect the role of counsel.

I've been one over 40 years, counselor, and we, with all due respect, and we appreciate your presence here today.

But this hearing was intended to be a conversation about policy, practice, and trust, not just legal positioning.

And so the absence of the leadership from the Boston Police Department raises a broader concern.

If we cannot have these conversations openly in public and with the people responsible for decision making, then it becomes harder to build the very trust that body cameras were meant to strengthen.

With that said, we are still going to do the work.

Boston has made the investment in body warned cameras, and we have done so for the right reasons to strengthen accountability, to build trust, and to create a clear record of interactions between officers and the public.

We have a system that is strong when it comes to recording fullet footage, but far less clear when it comes to releasing it.

Under state law decisions about whether fuller footage is released are largely made on a case-by-case basis.

Under Boston Police Department Rule 405, that authority is centralized within the department with release ultimately requiring the commissioner or his designee approval.

At the same time, there is no defined timeline for release of footage after critical incidents.

There is no public-facing framework that explains how those decisions are made.

And there is no guaranteed access for elected officials or those with oversight.

So what we are left with is a system where transparency often depends on discretion rather than clear policy, and that matters.

And so today, even in the absence of department leadership, we will continue to press for answers.

We will continue to press for clarity and a path forward.

And as we've seen, when the footage is delayed or withheld, especially in moments of crisis, it creates confusion, frustration, and a loss of trust in the very institutions we are working to strengthen.

Because at the end of the day, this is about ensuring that the systems we put in place to promote accountability actually deliver on that promise.

I look forward to hearing from our panelists, especially General Counsel, and working together to ensure that Boston's approach to body footage camera reflects the transparency, accountability, and fairness that our residents deserve.

To quote the Boston Editorial Globe today, who published an article about body camera policies and transparency, the article said the council ought to make sure that police aren't applying the investigatory exemption any more broadly than is really necessary.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Councilor Culpepper.

Counselor Warrell, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair.

And just want to thank everyone who's here today.

Uh earlier this year, after the community-led uh meeting that several councillors attended, uh which was led by uh one of our strong advocates in this space, Jamal Crawford and other advocates, we heard directly from the community about the need to strengthen the Office of Police Accountability and Transparency.

Uh that then led to Council F Counselor Flynn and I to fly file a hearing order back in February to review OPAC to discuss its goals and continue pushing this conversation around transparency and accountability.

Uh so it bears repeating that the point of all of this is transparency and accountability.

When a serious incident occurs involving an officer of the city, it affects more than just the individuals directly involved.

It has implications for public safety, the public trust, and for the sense of security people feel in their communities.

I want to highlight section 2.2 from the Boston Police Commissioner Special Order on Rule 405, the body war and camera, uh, which I will refer to as BWC policy.

Uh section 2.2 outlines rules for camera activation and incidents of use and states that when wearing a BWC officers shall record all in-person law enforcement related encounters with civilians, which includes the following.

Any civilian contact officer reasonably believes should be recorded to enhance policing transparency, increase police trust, public trust, and police community relations, or preserve factual representations of offer officer civilian interactions.

I'm highlighting this because this is exactly in line with why we are here today to see clarity and transparency in the process that govern when and how embody and dash camera footage is released.

This is these are not just ideas, they are written in BPD's code.

We have an office of police accountability and transparency.

We are not using them for the jobs we tax them with.

There has been precedents where briefings and viewings of these videos were viewed.

As the process currently stands, OPAT and O and other oversight bodies are brought in incredibly too late into the game.

We have seen other cities across the country establish clear timelines which help promote transparency and public accountability.

So I'm looking forward to the conversation to make sure that we are establishing those timelines to make sure that we are strengthening public accountability and transparency here in the city.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor.

Now we're going to go in order of arrival.

Um, Counselor Murphy, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair.

Um thank you, Dave, for being here.

Body cameras are supposed to be one of the strongest tools we have for transparency and accountability.

Many would argue they are the best tool we have, and I've heard directly from many police officers who agree.

These policies are meant to protect the public, protect our offices, and provide a clear objective record of what actually happened.

But I want to be honest about something.

There have been times when I have personally requested body cam footage and reports from the police, fire, and EMS after incidents, and have not received them.

So that raises a very simple question.

Who makes that call and why?

Why is footage shared in some cases but not others?

Is that decision being driven by law and procedure, or is it influenced by pressure, timing, or public reaction?

Because from the outside, without clear and consistent standards, it can start to feel selective.

And that to me is the problem.

I am fully supportive of transparency and I believe in it strongly.

But transparency only works if it is consistent.

It cannot depend on the situation, it cannot depend on the case, and it certainly cannot depend on politics.

If we're going to rely on body cameras as a tool to build public trust, then the public needs to understand when footage will be released, who makes that decision, and what standards are being applied across the board.

That is what I'm looking for clarity today.

I want to thank you, Councillor Culpeper, for uplifting the question.

Where is police leadership?

But I have another question also.

I want to address something I'm hearing repeatedly, which is that the decision to release body camera footage is the district attorney's call.

And in that if that is the case, then we need to be very clear about that.

And we need to hear directly from the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office.

Because right now, what we have is a lack of clarity about who is actually responsible for those decisions.

Is it the Boston Police Department?

Is it the law department?

Or is it the district attorney?

Or does it depend on each case?

And if the district attorney is making that decision, then why isn't their office here today, or at least represented here to answer those questions?

We cannot have a system where decisions of this magnitude are being made, but no one is clearly accountable to the public or to us on the council.

Because when responsibility is unclear, trust breaks down.

So I'm looking for a clear answer today.

Who is in charge of making that call and what are the consistent standards being used?

So thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Councillor Murphy.

I also just want to acknowledge we've been joined by Councillor Weber.

Um Councillor Flynn, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, and want to say thank you to Reverend Cole Pepper and Council Orrell for bringing us forward.

I also want to thank legal counsel from the Boston Police Department for being here for the important work that you do as well.

My position on this issue is I believe the Boston police and district attorney, there should be a standard, a written standard of when this information is released to the public.

And be consistent with that policy, and don't be selective.

And be transparent, be accountable, and have a policy that works for everybody, for the police, for the district attorney, for the public, uh, for the police officers as well.

But I I think having no policy only opens up and invites questions if we're being selective or not, in terms of when video is released to the public or if certain people can't see it.

What I would advocate for is one policy where everyone agrees on everyone accepts it when video is released, and keep that policy and release it and abide by that policy, regardless of what the what the situation is, whether it's a positive situation or a negative situation.

But I think when we are selective when giving out and showing the video, um it does break down transparency, it does break down accountability.

And I think though that's what's important in this debate.

Um working to have a hearing with OPAD.

I visited OPAT and had a discussion with Evandro uh Cavello, who is the chair of the executive director of the board over there, and we got into the details of exactly what that office is accountable for.

But I do think we need to ensure that we are transparent, we are accountable to the public, and we have one standard that everyone abide by abides by and respects.

Uh Mr.

Chair, thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Flynn.

Counselor Fitzgerald, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh I look forward to reviewing the existing policy, discussing any needed or proposed updates to the policy, and getting a better understanding to how this policy and its consistent expectations proceed into the future.

I think we understand that uh every interaction is unique and sometimes uh not any one policy can cover everything, and so there is sometimes need for flexibility, uh, but look forward to an expected consistency into the future.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Fitzgerald.

Counselor Jen, you have the floor.

Thank you, and thank you to my colleagues for bringing this matter forward.

I want to think um, you know, I think we may be at a place where we expect uh body worn cameras as a given, but there are still jurisdictions in our state that have not adopted uh body camera usage.

Um I want to thank the advocates who made it possible for uh for there to be uh body cameras here among our Boston police.

I think it is important as either as a tool to either corroborate or to uh call into question police reports that are uh sometimes factual, sometimes uh going against what is shown on the on the camera.

Um and so I think it it was an incredible push by advocates to make it a requirement here in uh the city of Boston.

If you review, and I and I stated this, I think when this was first brought here before the council and uh at the community meeting that happened um a few weeks ago um after um uh after the incident that has called this all into question that jurisdictions vary across the country with respect to uh release of footage.

Uh some require some states require the release of uh body uh worn uh uh camera footage within 24 or 48 hours uh of of an incident occurring or within a public record request and and other areas like here, um, the task force that was put together, there is some discretion at the state level.

I think what we're doing today is calling into question that discretion, whether it's one that we want to uphold, and I think rightfully so members of the public have asked well why and in an incident to make certain demographics, certain people look bad.

Do we release camera footage if there's a party or something that goes wrong?

But when it looks like when it's to protect uh some people, uh that camera footage isn't released immediately.

And so I think having some sort of understanding as to how that discretion is used, both by the district attorney and uh the Boston Police Department would be good to understand because when it's uh applied in a way that feels unfair or discriminatory, you get such a reaction.

So I look forward to hearing um from the police department about what the standard is uh during investigations, uh what has happened in the past and how we can uh improve the policy that we use uh right now.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Jen.

I also want to recognize we've been joined by Councillor Coletta Zapata, Councillor Weber.

You have the floor.

Uh thank you very much, and thank you to the filers for uh you know getting us here to have this really important conversation.

Um, you know, the policy uh uh uh the body camera policies and the release of footage is designed to uh you know increase transparency and accountability in law enforcement.

Uh you know, I think now is a good time uh to to look at our policies to make sure that our rules are actually furthering those goals.

I do think you know, in in light of recent events, I'm not sure our our rules necessarily address this kind of scenario where the district attorney has brought criminal charges fairly swiftly.

I think most of these rules are set in place where there is inaction and we're looking for uh action from our uh you know from a district attorney or or other leaders.

So I'm interested to talk about how you know current events are gonna shape our policy in the future, and uh just glad to be here.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Weber, Councillor Kalera Tapata, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, I don't really have any opening remarks as really forward to getting into the conversation.

Um I will just say it's um it's it's interesting to see how this uh issue has evolved back in 2018.

I remember when then just Shigana Duo, before even Chief, was here advocating for body cameras, and we had the then police commissioner here, and the room was packed with advocates and really pushing for um for this and to have this as a tool for accountability and transparency.

So I appreciate the filers and you know the um the general conversation that we will have.

I also have questions similar to Councillor Weber, and uh again look forward to the conversation.

Thank you, Councillor Calera Zapata.

Um, and for myself, as chair of the committee on public safety and criminal justice, I take seriously our responsibility to ensure that the public understands how decisions are made, especially when it comes to transparency and policing.

Um the protocols, government the release of Boston police body worn and dashboard camera footage are often complex, shaped by legal requirements, active investigations, and internal procedures.

Um complexity cannot be a barrier to public trust.

Today's hearing is about bringing clarity to those processes.

It's about asking the right questions, identifying where the gaps exist, and making sure our residents have access to clear, timely, and understandable information.

I'm committed to working with all stakeholders who strengthen transparency and accountability and to ensure that our policies reflect the trust that Boston residents expect and reserve.

Um and with that, I will now like to introduce today's panelists.

Um we will have three different panels today.

Um in the first panel, we were here from Dave Um Frederick, General Counsel of the Boston Police Department.

Um the second panel will feature Ivondro Carvajal, executive director of the Office of Police Accountability and Transparency.

And lastly, for our third panel, we were here from um University Professor Dr.

Christopher Schneider.

Um so um I would like to give the opportunity to Dave Frederick from the general counsel with the Boston Police Department to provide open remarks.

Thank you so much for being with us here today.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for having me here today.

Um if you can just actually speak closer to the mic so we can all thank you.

Thank you for having me here today.

I want to address that as the legal advisor to the Boston Police Department.

I'm fortunate enough to work for Michael Cox, and I share his mission of community policing in transparency.

Everything that I advise him on furthers that goal, including the release of body camera.

What we do is we look at each case as they come in.

We add approximately 800 requests for body camera in 2025.

We released almost 500 of those requests.

Some we couldn't release for certain reasons that we'll address here today.

Um I've been the legal advisor for seven years at the Boston Police Department.

I was there in a room with Jamal Crawford when we were talking about putting body cameras on Boston police officers.

I was part of that conversation.

I was an advocate to put cameras on the officers in Boston.

I think the City of Boston is far above the curve on other cities and towns in Massachusetts.

I've also, prior to being the legal advisor for the Boston Police Department, I was in the Supper County District Attorney's Office for 17 years.

I worked on the cases of death investigations.

So I've had a unique perspective to look at things from that perspective and from the perspective of the position that I'm in now.

Everything that we do is governed by the law.

That's why I'm here today as a representative of the leadership of the Boston Police Department.

Rule 405 defers and defaults back to the public records law of Massachusetts.

Everything we do is subject to that law.

There is another law in Massachusetts, Massachusetts General Law Section 3, Chapter 38, Section 4, which controls death investigations.

Council, we had a chance to talk about it a little bit before this.

We may differ on exactly what that statute means, but the incident, the unfortunate incident that brings us all here today, is a death investigation.

As in all death investigations, the Suffolk County in Boston, the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office is the one who directs and controls that investigation.

This particular case, he came out and he said in public that this case is going to go before a grand jury, and that no body camera video is going to be released prior to that.

We need to abide by that.

Under one of the exemptions, under the public records law, we need to abide by that.

So I hope I can answer some of the questions that everybody has here today, and anything I can't answer, I'll do my best to follow up on after this hearing.

Awesome.

Thank you so much for your opening remarks and again for being here.

We're not going to go to counselors' questions, um, starting with the lead sponsors, and then we're gonna go to um in order of arrival.

Um, given that we have um so many of my colleagues here, um, I am gonna do five minutes per counselor, um, and then we will um if you need to do a second round, um we will do so.

Um, with that, um I'm gonna pass it over to Councillor Culpepper.

Um you have five minutes, thank you.

Thank you, Chair Santana.

Good to see you again, Council.

And I wanna well let's go right to 405.

Under 405, the police commissioner has his own authority to make a decision on whether or not to allow the public or oversight officials to review body cam footage.

Is that correct?

In most circumstances, yes, sir.

And so when you look at 384, where it says that the district attorney or his law enforcement representative shall direct and control the investigation of the death and shall coordinate the investigation with the medical examiner and the police department in the jurisdiction whose where the death occurred.

That gives the commissioner independent approval to review or release body camera.

Am I correct?

In a death investigation, sir, no, sir, you're not correct.

Well, it says that the district attorney oversees the death professor grace in cooperation with.

It didn't say that he directs the commissioner.

So if it says in cooperation with, that means they work together.

Am I correct?

We always work together with them.

And at times you disagree, isn't that correct?

At times we may disagree.

And if they disagreed, if the district attorney said, Well, we're not going to release it, but the commissioner said we will release it.

The commissioner has that authority, isn't that correct?

Under 384.

No, sir.

But he has it under 405.

But where it says that the commissioner can approve the release of the body camera footage.

With all due respect.

Under four, no, under 405.

With all the respect to rule 405, which I helped draft, it's a rule for the Boston Police Department.

It's a good one.

But my question is not trying to do that.

My question is the commissioner under 405 has the authority to approve the release of body camera footage.

Am I correct?

You are correct, yes, sir.

And under 405, there are certain procedures for even the public to request for release of the body camera footage.

Am I correct?

Yes.

And in this case, the commissioner has decided that the body camera footage won't be released.

Am I correct?

The district attorney has decided the body camera will not be replaced.

But here's my question.

Here's my question.

The commissioner has decided, because we just agreed that he has his own area of authority to approve or disapprove the release of body camera.

My question is in this case, did he decide not to approve the release of this body camera footage?

We didn't agree that he has the discretion in this case to decide that.

No, we agreed that under 405, he has the authority to approve or disapprove the release of body camera footage.

We agree on that, right?

Rule 405 gives the committee.

We agree on that, right?

We agree on that, but it will always be trumped by a death investigation and a Massachusetts statute will always trump a Boston police.

But even under that Massachusetts statute, it doesn't say that he has to follow the direction of the district attorney.

What it says is in cooperation with.

So the police commissioner has his own say about whether or not even in a death investigation, that body camera footage gets released.

And let me just say this.

In the past, I've sat with the commissioner Gross, right, and other ministers, right?

We sat, we reviewed body camera, right?

At police headquarters, right?

Counsel?

Yes.

Yes.

He made a decision to approve us reviewing it.

Am I right, Counsel?

Council?

Yes or no?

I don't know.

If you don't know, I wasn't there.

Okay, I was there, and I'm telling you, I was there.

But in order for me to have been there, the commissioner have had to make the decision to approve the review of the body cam footage.

Isn't that correct?

On a death investigation, I would say no, no, no.

No, no, no.

It was a deaf, it was Angela West.

So we sat with the commissioner during the death investigation and reviewed the body footage.

That's the case where the police officers get shot in the face?

Yes.

And we we right and the commissioner approved that, isn't that correct?

I I I wasn't there at the time, sir.

I don't know, but I but I'm telling you, I was there.

So if I was there with the with the cooperation or the consent of the district attorney at the time.

No, no, we're not assuming.

I don't want you to assume.

I want you to answer based on the question about something that I wasn't at.

So I I'd have to assume.

Can I?

You can finish.

Council, here's my final question.

In order for the Boston City Council to see that body cam footage, what procedures would we have to follow or protocol?

You would have to file a 17F or public records request, and at this juncture in time, that would be denied based on the status of the death investigation that's being run by the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office.

Can I follow one question?

I'll find a one yes, so there's there's no real protocol for the police commissioner to follow in order to release body cam footage.

The protocol is governed by the Massachusetts public records law and other statutes.

But there's no Boston Police Department protocol like there is under 405 for everyone else that wants, even the public that wants to review the body cam footage.

There's no policy or procedure even under 405.

It is rule 405 directs you to make a public records.

So my question is if that's the case, what's the policy procedure that this city council would have to go through in order to review the body cam footage?

The same exact procedure that's dictated.

What is it?

Can you tell us what it is?

To file a rule a 17F, which you'd get the same thing that somebody would get on a public records request.

But we could file a subpoena, couldn't we?

You could.

And then we would deliver that to council, wouldn't we?

You you could.

Okay.

Thank you, Council.

Thank you, um, Councillor Culpepper.

Um, Council Warall, you have the floor.

Uh thank you, Chair.

And I know a lot of rules uh have been thrown around.

If you could just walk through the policy, um, where it can be found um for the public to review, but can you just walk through us with the policy on body camera one footage and when it when it is released?

Rule 405 is the rule uh for body worn cameras in the Boston Police Department.

Um it there's a section in Rule 405 that talks about getting access to body one camera.

And for members of the public, they would need to file a public records request.

As I said in my opening statement, we had over 800 requests for body worn camera last year in 2025.

We fulfilled approximately 500 of those.

Other ones were denied for certain exemptions that would exist under the public records law.

Um the ones that possibly were withdrawn.

Um so it's rule 405 is where the public would look to see how to get that, but more importantly, it's the public records law, chapter 66 of the Massachusetts general laws on how to do a public records request or a subpoena or a 17F for the council.

And uh you said that uh X like 300 uh of the requests or 500 of the requests have been well, 500 have been released, sounds like 300 have been denied.

I don't know the exact numbers, sir, but I think that's what the ballpark.

And for what reasons have those other footage been denied?

Up the top of my head.

Yeah, yeah, I mean, I guess like categorically, I don't want to assume why they were denied, so um the most of them would be that the the exemptions under the public records law that we deal with mostly, especially when you're talking about body camera, is going to be exemption after the investigative exemption.

So anything that's pending, if this isn't just with death investigations, clearly, if it's not a death investigation, there's going the discretion is on the part of the police department.

The district attorney does not control if it's not a death investigation.

But if there's a pending criminal case that's ongoing, then the rules of criminal procedure, rule 14, rule 17, are going to dictate when and how that evidence gets turned over in the criminal matter.

Again, the public records request has to take a back seat to the criminal process.

The criminal process is what we have faith in the criminal process on every single case, doesn't matter who the defendant is and who the victims are, the criminal process takes precedent over a public records request.

So that would be exemption F.

There's also exemption A, which is statutory or by implication statutory.

Umestic violence, sexual assault.

If they are body worn cameras related to domestic violence and sexual assault, those would not be turned over.

Um if they depict juveniles, uh, there's a possibility that those wouldn't be turned over.

So there's a lot of different exemptions, it's not just exemption F.

Um, exemption A, exemption C privacy.

Um, there may be a body one camera that depicts somebody in a state that their privacy would outweigh the public's right to see that body camera.

Um, much more discretionary, the exemption C.

Um, and I think there's last count.

I think there's 24 separate exemptions under um the Massachusetts public records law, but those are the three that come into play most often A, C, and F.

C and F.

Uh, thank you that.

Um, and then you spoke about uh your experience um your work experience over at the DA's office.

Um how does that perspective shape your advice uh to BPD on whether body cam footage should be released, particularly in cases where there may be tension between transparency and protecting an investigation?

Um the investigation is always going to be paramount and take control.

Um we didn't, I didn't deal with public records when I was in the DA's office.

Um there was a different unit that did that, but the the integrity of the investigation always has to take precedence.

Um when you're looking at whether or not criminal charges are going to issue, there is then going to be due process concerns for the defendant in that criminal case, and you know, a you know an early release of that evidence that could jeopardize the case in some way, whether it's gonna taint what a witness says before the police have a chance to speak to them or before they testify in the grand jury, always has to take precedence over the release of public records release.

And then my last question, I see my time dunling down.

Uh you mentioned that uh here um in the city of Boston, uh our you know, body worn camera uh policy is uh you know leading in the commonwealth.

Um I think we're ahead of the curve as far as getting body one cameras.

Oh, getting body worn cameras.

Okay, so when it comes to creating the timeline on uh you know releasing that footage, um, are are there any cities um in terms of like timeline that you would point to uh that we as a box past the city council should take up to see if we can at least use as a template?

I'm not aware of it.

Not aware of any other city that has transparency timelines around body war camera footage.

I'm not okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor War.

Um, I want to just acknowledge that we've been joined by counselor button.

Um Counselor Murphy, you have the floor.

Thank you.

Um Rule 405 governs that body one cameras are used um for legitimate law enforcement purposes, and in the case we're referring to it was being used, and there is footage that shows it, but when you look at um chapter 38, section four, it goes into like the DAO and the medical medical examiner if there's a death or a question um questionable action.

So my question is were other videos taken at the scene by the medical examiner, the DA's office, or is the only video from that incident the body worn camera from the officer?

I I don't know what else was taken at the scene.

I personally, even as a general counsel to the Boston Please, but I have not seen the video myself.

So I don't know what else was taken at the scene.

And when we talk about the rules, and I know we have a lot of exemptions, there's been um about public records here in the city, but would only body ward and camera fall under that, or is the same request can be made for any other videos that may have been taken from other agencies at the city of the party?

Anything that's in the custody and control of the Boston Police Department would fall under the public records law.

Would video from the medical examiner be part fall under what the police have access to?

If it's in our file, it would.

If we don't have a copy of it, it would not.

But they would be subject to the public records law as well.

Who has seen the video?

I I don't know.

I I has anyone seen it other than the DA.

Well, the I assume he saw it.

I I I don't want to assume what I you know, but um as far as at the Boston Police Department, I can tell you I think the only people that have access to the video is the the fitted the firearm discharge investigation team that went and investigated the case and the bureau chief of the Bureau of Investigative Services, and I believe the deputy chief of that bureau as well.

So um a very very small number of people even have access to that camera that footage at this moment.

And is it true that the camera footage is saved for 30 days and then disposed of?

No, absolutely not.

That once that that is saved in a case, um or any camera footage, not not a case of the there's a retention schedule in rule 405 depth investigations, it's saved indefinitely indefinitely, especially um on a depth investigation, it'll get moved into a case.

So and once it's put in a case, unless it's manually deleted, it will be there forever until the system.

Could you explain how it's moved out of?

Because I assume all body cam footage is kind of stored in a place where lots of people have access to kind of like police records.

Yes, the um, and then if it is deemed, it seems in this case that no one really should be looking at it.

Where does it go?

I I I believe it's laid out in rule 405, but the the commander of the video evidence unit is tasked with moving that into a case and then securing it or referred to as locking down the video so that nobody else would have access to it.

And is a copy made for the DA's office in the grand jury?

How does that work?

Um it they are set up as a partner agency, um, and so only whoever gets access to it um through that with the video evidence unit would have access at the DA's office.

I can't speak to who in the DA's office would have access to it.

And who are city counselors or other elected officials treated differently when requests are made for body cam footage or police EMS first responder reports?

With all due respect, no.

No.

We're treated just like the public.

Yes.

And we do have the rule, even though many times they're not answered to use the 17F rule you've referenced.

Do you think a public records request is a better or more efficient way?

What would you how would you compare the two legally?

No, I think a 17F would get your records faster than a general public records.

Okay.

I have no more questions for you, but thank you.

Thank you, Counselor Murphy.

Counselor Flynn, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, and thank you to legal counsel for being here and for being um straightforward with us in answering the questions the best you can.

So I want to say thank you.

Was was similar to what counselor Councillor Murphy mentioned or asked, but a city counselor asking for the video is basically the same as the public asking for the video.

Is that for the video in this particular case, yes?

Yeah, okay.

I recognize that the council has a role to do for this for the people of Boston, and of course, any time we get a request from the city council, we want to try to fulfill that as quickly as possible.

But for this particular video, you would stand in no no different position.

Now with the with the policy for the Boston police for releasing the body body one camera video, um is that subject to change, or do you have to strictly follow the guidelines and you can't um you can't make any exceptions?

We it's a statute, so we can't change, we can't trump what the statute says.

So we follow the statute.

Was it how long was the statute?

Um when was the statute written?

That's a tough one.

Um I want to say maybe the 1970s.

Oh, okay, it goes back a while.

Okay.

So even though some city counselors are elected officials or clergy have seen the body camera it previously, um that's that's not the law.

Um body camera on other cases, not this case.

Yeah, on yeah, not on this case.

Um I I I would say that was I don't I don't know, I can't answer that question.

I'm sorry.

That's okay.

That's okay.

Um the the only reason I'm asking that question, and and I don't want to I don't want to put you on the spot, but the only reason I'm asking it is if if we do have the policy, um do we have to follow the policy, or can we make um exceptions to the policy depending on case by case?

That's putting me on the spot.

Um you know something on legal counsel.

I'm I'm fine if you want to get back to me.

If you want to get back to me, back to you on the um so what would a 17F request do?

Um if if a city counselor wanted a request, and I'm not requesting it, but if a city counselor requested it, would it go to legal counsel at the Boston police or would it go to legal counsel at City Hall?

Um it it makes its way to us very quickly.

I'm not sure exactly the mechanics of it, you know.

If it gets filed with intergovernmental relations, it comes to us pretty quickly.

Okay.

And um, Mr.

Chair, I'm I'm fine.

That's that's it for me.

Um thank you, legal counsel.

Thank you, Councillor Flynn.

Counselor Fitzgerald, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Chair.

Um how does it in a homicide trial, any homicide trial?

How does the public records law interact with the discovery and criminal case evidence?

Uh the there's rules of criminal procedure that dictate how uh discovery is gonna work.

Uh it's Rule 14, the rules of criminal procedure.

There's also a rule 17 for records from outside agencies.

Um I think the police are considered to be part of the prosecution team uh with the district attorney's office.

So we're bound by any orders of the court for production of discovery.

Um but it's mandated by the rules of criminal procedure and whatever orders the judge that's overseeing that case, um, orders on that case would be what needs to be turned over, when and how so it who does actually, and this is again this is a more general question in all cases.

Who does actually have access to a video at this point?

The video that we're that we're here for today.

That no, just in any who who would have access to a video, like or or I guess maybe a different way to phrase that question is tell me about some of the factors that might go into deciding if footage is released or not.

On any case.

Like what are the factors that sort of to say, but I can talk about it better in a non-death, a non-death investigation, because if it's a death investigation, it is going to be run through chapter 384 with the district attorney's office.

A non-death investigation, there's still always a consideration that any time the police are called somewhere and there's body worn camera footage, if that's going to result in a criminal charge against the person, then the rules of criminal procedure and any orders on that case are going to potentially trump the release of the body camera footage.

But if the detective on the case says no, that releasing that footage will not affect the ability to do effective law enforcement, then we would release the video subject to any redactions that we think are appropriate, and it would get released.

So there's a big difference between a death investigation and non-death investigation.

And when you talked about the 800 some odd requests and you release 500 of them, I would assume then that that 500 is mostly a non-death investigation, and that's why they were released.

I would assume the um the and I may be inflating that 500 number a little bit.

No, it did but in general, right?

The ones that you have released, regardless of I can almost guarantee that.

Well, I can't I we actually have released one of a death investigation.

It was actually um it was an accident, but it was a death investigation.

Um and that that got released.

So other than that, it's going to be always directed by the district attorney's office on whether or not any evidence on that case can be released.

And I know maybe you could talk a little bit more.

You said you had some experience, but in dealing with this type of instance, my understanding is you've been on both sides of it, and so uh what unique uh perspective do you get from that in understanding the laws you have to enforce, but also having been on the other side of where the cameras are in play.

I did not have the luxury of having body camera when I was doing these types of cases in the district attorney's office.

Understood.

Um it's a incredibly important tool for the DA's office when they review cases like this.

It's an incredibly important tool for the community to see.

We appreciate that.

We understand the importance of that and the importance of the public being able to see what the police officers are doing out there.

But as I said, when I was doing these, it would have been very helpful to have body worn camera footage to help make your decision on you know whether or not there was a shooting that was justifiable or not.

Thank you.

Uh Chair, that's all I have for questions.

Uh General Counsel, thank you very much for your time on the panel.

Thank you, Council Fitzgerald.

Council Jury Jaden, you have the floor.

Thank you.

Um, and thank you for your response to uh some of the questions.

Impaneling a grand jury is uh takes a it's a large effort.

Um it's something that should be often held in in secret uh ensure the integrity of the process, uh often permanently held in secret.

Um in every situation in which we're impaneling a grand jury, is body worn camera footage withheld ideally, yes.

Do you know that as a fact?

I I don't.

Can you know that as a fact and report back?

Because I in terms of what is what where are the lines for discretion, and where is a line for like what is our policy as a department?

Um I think it's an important distinction for members of this body and for members of the public to understand if in every situation where if we're staying, and uh I'm it's never a criminal attorney myself, um, but if we're saying that we and I and I understand I understand that grand jury and uh trying to get integrated in jury indictment, there are a lot of procedures that you want to follow to ensure um as much as possible that the that in the impanelment process that potential jurors aren't biased, you want to sort of prevent that from happening as much as possible.

I'm assuming that is one of the reasons the decision is being made to withhold the footage.

What would be better off if there was a statement that we could say to the public that the district attorney could state to the public that the police department can say to the public in every situation which in which we're trying to unpanel a grand jury, given the heightened circumstance, we will never or we do not we we have a practice of not turning over body worn camera footage.

Are we able to say that?

Yes.

That I just want to clarify.

There's a grand jury doesn't get impaneled for a specific case.

Right.

Grand jury gets impaneled.

Paneled over a period of time of a long period of time, yes.

Yeah.

And so I I think if if I may, and I if if if we know that a case is going to be presented to the grand jury, and we get a public records request on that, that will be denied every single time.

And it has been denied every single time.

If if we know it's going into a grand jury, absolutely.

So when you mentioned that there have been body worn cameras, there have been uh public records request for body-worn cameras that have been denied among all of the body worn camera footage that has been denied.

Every request that has come in where a grand jury has been impaneled as a result of an ongoing investigation, uh footage has never been released because there's been an impalement of a grand jury.

If we know what's going in front of a grand jury, then yes, I can't.

Whether it involves an officer-involved death or not, whatever it may involve.

Absolutely.

Doesn't matter who the potential who the defendant is in that case, police officer, non-police officer, the sanctity of that investigation trumps everything else.

And so because the safety of that investigation trumps everything else, footage body worn camera footage in the in the time period that we've had it is always withheld until the grand jury has either indicted or not indicted.

Yes.

If you don't know with certainty the answer to that require to that question, I would through the chair like to ask that question.

Because I think at the end of the day, that is one of the bigger questions here.

The question is one of I'm a lawyer.

How do you use the discretion?

Like, even in do even in the use of discretion, there can be guardrails and there can be rules about when that discretion is used, right?

And so if you're saying that there is at least some consistency when there's a grand jury that's and panel to review a matter that at least offers the public some sort of like, oh well, well, they're not discriminating here, or because they're trying to protect anyone here, it's not like they're trying to change some policy.

Although the policy overall may be there might be a lot of built-in discretion, at least in this particular circumstance, we treat these cases similarly.

Yeah, so the answer is yes, and that's an easy one.

If we know this is going in front of a grand jury, it's going to be not denied every single time.

The answer to that is yes.

We're in a difficult situation sometimes because as you know, grand jury proceedings are secret.

So I can't come out and say, hey, requester, this is going into a grand jury, so I'm not giving it to you.

We have to use exemption F, that it would oh shoot.

I have I don't have much time.

I have another question though.

Okay.

Um, I guess I can wait for a second round.

You know, finish finish what you're saying.

No, but we we're not allowed to say that something's in a grand jury.

DA Hayden did us a favor on this one by coming out and saying, I'm putting this in a grand jury, and I don't nothing's gonna be released before this goes into the grand jury.

So once he said that, we're allowed to say once it's said in open court by the DA and an arraignment, we're allowed to talk about it.

Thank you.

I have a follow-up question to that, and then I have another question about 6.1 under Rule 405, but I will respect the clock and wait for my second round.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Councillor Luigi.

Um counselor Weber, you have the floor.

Uh okay.

Um, and I guess so.

When we're talking about the grand jury, you know, the the I think there's a couple things that I feel like are slightly, you know, or out of the norm here where we have an arraignment before the grand jury, uh, or somebody who's brought to court.

Is that can you is that something that happened that happens frequently?

Quite frequently.

Yeah.

Um so but where you have that arraignment, you're sort of you're obviously going to the grand jury because you can't go forward with the charge without that.

Is that how that works?

Um charges you can go forward if you want to keep them in district court, but if you want to bring it to superior court, you've got to present it to them.

Okay, and the difference is the seriousness of the charge.

So uh it's the difference really is the penalty that you can get, not so much the charge, but hand in hand more than penalty.

Okay.

Um and uh I guess uh the the other thing is have you are you aware of a situation like this where we're talking about or anyone is talking about body camp footage and release of body camp footage after a police officer has been arraigned again?

I am a lawyer but never a criminal lawyer, so I'm rusty on my criminal procedure.

Um I'm not this is an issue of first impression for me, a police officer being charged with a crime at this stage.

Yeah, I mean I I did it in Memphis, Tennessee a couple years ago, Tyree Nichols, I think uh was beaten by police officers beaten to death, and I think the judge ordered that the body cam footage not be released, and then it was released after charges, but even there it wasn't um it was a federal civil rights uh charges.

There wasn't a like a manslaughter uh charge.

Uh but uh that was that was sort of the closest I could come.

So you you agree that this is not how this usually plays out as far as the somebody being charged in that yeah, no, I I think just in general that when we debate whether body cam footage needs to need to be released in a situation, it's not usually after the the criminal charges have been.

We get body one camera request the day after somebody gets arrested almost on a daily basis, and we have to deny it because it's an investigative exemption when you say somebody arrested, you are you talking about when a police officer is arrested for the actions that they they took while wearing the body camera.

Not enough, no.

Okay, but we treat those the same as this.

We do not trend we do not release that body camera because the integrity of the criminal investigation has to take precedence over that.

Okay, and then um I think you you mentioned it's uh chapter four section seven, you know, twenty-six, which has the exemptions to the public records uh law.

I think in section A says pursuant to a statute that prohibits it, there is a statute that prohibits uh or uh release of of uh evidence of sexual assault.

Um is there some is there a section on uh you know like a murder or you know, death or that would restrict it specifically in this instance, or are you thinking it relies on Section F, which is a different exemption?

I I think it primarily relies on exemption A, but it also is A by statute or implication thereof, is that we would say that Chapter 38, Section 4 is the statute that says the DA's office controls that investigation.

If the DA says it can't be released, we would say that under A, it's not gonna be released.

Um sorry, so there is a in one of the statutes is pursuant to the district attorney's that's instructions.

Statute General Act 38, Section 4.

Okay.

Um, so that's that's another one.

Uh I guess um is there a difference for for I guess for the police department or the DA or here between an investigation and a prosecution.

Do when we read investigation in the rules, does that include a criminal prosecution?

I I don't read those as being the same, and I think there's an important distinction, but uh are these the way these rules are drawn up, is there a line?

I I don't think they're the same, no.

Um do they overlap a little bit?

Absolutely.

But they're not I would not be those.

Yeah, I mean I if there is a prosecution that if there's an indictment or you know, even if there's not an indictment, I mean what what would the police commissioner's actions be?

Is there gonna be an investigation if there is a criminal trial?

Well, if the if there's no investigation, if there's no prosecution, then that certainly takes the DA's office and the due process concerns out of it, and it would come back now to you know, for instance, if you were talking about I say talking about um witnesses, identification of witnesses, um, those would be because we want people to come forward.

We want people to assist with law enforcement.

So there'd still be an ongoing F exemption for that, but for the body camera in general, it's once it's been determined that there is no criminal prosecution that's gonna happen, once any internal investigation was completed, then that body camber would certainly be released subject to any redactions.

Yeah, so I'd uh okay.

I think that answers my question.

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you, Counselor Weber.

Um you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um thank you, counsel for being here.

I'm here honestly to learn a lot about the process and all the question that I had a lot of my colleagues have asked them.

So respectfully, Mr.

Chair, I I want to yield the rest of my time to you so that we can continue with the conversation.

Thank you, Council Papen.

Um I'm not gonna go to a second round of questions.

I also just want to be mindful.

I I don't know, Council Claro Sapata had to step out.

Um that she does return.

I will go back to her for her questions if we're still during this panel, but uh we will now go back to the lead sponsor, Consular Copeper.

Um I will put five minutes on the on the clock.

You have the floor.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh Counsel.

You talked about one case where body cam was released during a death investigation.

And you didn't know whether or not that grand jury was going to be in panel, did you?

I I think we did.

I think it was determined that no charges were gonna issue.

It was a it was a bicep.

There was a but there was one case where you know of that the body cam was released during a death investigation.

It was on a it wasn't body cam, it was actually street camera.

There wasn't body camera.

I apologize.

But it was released during the death investigation.

It wasn't the there was no investigation anymore.

The investigation.

And you were with the district attorney's office when district conley, district attorney Dan Connolly released body cam footage during an investigation to specific community members, weren't you?

I I was, yes.

And you also agreed under 384 that there's a provision that gives a district attorney oversight over death investigations.

We agreed to that, right?

Yes, sir.

And then it says, and in cooperation with the Boston Police Department, correct?

With his law enforcement design.

Right.

Or his or but it doesn't say that the district attorney has the authority to direct the Boston police, it says and in cooperation with.

Right.

And so and in cooperation with doesn't give him the authority to direct the Boston Police Commissioner.

Am I correct?

If you say in cooperation with, right?

If if I say, Council, let's cooperate to walk down the street, right?

And you say, Council, I don't want to walk down the street with you, right?

I don't have the authority to then walk down the street, do I?

If we're doing it in cooperation.

That one's lost on me.

Well, let me back up.

Let me it doesn't say that the district attorney has the authority to direct the police commissioner, does it?

I I interpret that standard.

No, no, no, it doesn't council.

The question is the law does not say that the district attorney has the authority to direct the police commissioner, does it?

It does not say those words, correct?

And it says in cooperation with.

Hey.

Am I right?

I have it.

Can I pull it out?

I'll read it to you.

I've got it right here.

You want to read it to me or you want me to read it to you?

I mean, I see the district attorney or his law enforcement representative shall direct and control the investigation.

We agree on that, right?

Yes.

Keep on.

Don't stop there.

Keep reading.

And then with the office of the chief medical examiner and the police department within whose jurisdiction.

You skip the cooperation part though.

I uh the medical examiner shall be responsible for making arrangements.

The district attorney or his law enforcement representative shall direct and control the investigation of the death and shall coordinate the investigation with the office of the chief medical examiner and the police and the and the police department and coordinate.

Now, here's my question, uh counselor, with regard to the the statute.

You interpreted that the district attorney has how much time do I have?

Has authority over the in-death investigation, right?

That's your interpretation.

Yes, sir.

And I interpret it that he doesn't have the authority to direct the police commissioner.

Isn't that correct?

Yes.

And so like minds can have different interpretations on the law.

Isn't that correct?

Um yes.

And that's what courts are for to make a decision about which attorney is correct.

That's what courts are.

That's what courts are for.

So when you look at uh the restriction in 384, there's no restriction in the law that restricts the commissioner from releasing the body cam footage.

That's not how I read it, sorry.

But but but it under 384, Council.

Let me move to something else real quick.

So the officer has the right to review the body cam footage under certain situations after a police involved shooting.

Not in a death investigation.

In and in death.

Well, let me just can I read this to you?

So we can see we can agree on this.

What are we reading?

I'm reading from 405.

You've been quoting it all afternoon.

So let me just read this one.

Officer access to footage.

What section are you reading from?

62.

6.2.

Okay.

Officer access to footage following an officer involved death.

Officer involved shooting or the use of deadly force.

Are you with me?

Yes.

Let's go down to the third paragraph.

At a time determined by the supervisor in charge of the investigation, officers who were involved in the incident.

You with me?

Discharge their weapon.

And or witness it into them may view their own video before giving a statement.

Isn't that correct?

Yes.

So the officer can go back and look at the footage if he makes a request.

Isn't that correct?

Not in a death investigation.

No, it's but that's what this says, though.

This is at a time determined by the supervisor in charge of the investigation.

Officers who were involved in the incident, discharge their weapon and or witness the incident.

In this case, he discharged his weapon, didn't he?

Because it says access to footage followed and officer involved death, officer involved shooting.

Right?

I mean, I'm looking right at it.

We're looking at the same thing, right?

40562, right, Council?

I'm looking at 40562.

Okay, and go down to the third paragraph.

Well, you gotta read the first paragraph.

We're talking about three different scenarios.

You're talking about counsel.

I'm I'm the one asking the questions today, right?

Let me get your chair.

We're talking about three different scenarios.

My time is up.

Let me just let me just finish his question, Council.

Gotta remember, counsel.

I'm a lot more comfortable.

At the officer's request, the officer's attorney may be present when the officer views the video.

And so the officer has the right to review body cam footage where he was involved in a shooting, right?

According to 62405.

Right?

Not for a death investigation, though.

But but this council, read 6-2.

That's talking about.

What does it say?

No, council.

No, I want to read 6-2, Council.

What does it say?

Officer access to footage following an officer involved death, comma.

Officer involved shooting, comma.

Right?

And so other use of deadly footage.

So we were, and this is my last question.

We're in we're talking about an officer involved shooting, right?

Where there's a death, yes.

Right.

We are.

There was a death in this case, right?

Correct.

Right.

And it says that the officer can then go back and review his body cam footage, right?

That is not the policy.

But but that's what it says, though.

I'm just, counsel, you gotta agree with me that that's under 405.

I'm not making this up.

It's under 405 if it's naughty death.

If it's an officer involved shooting or other use of deadly force where there's no death.

But you just said to go back and look at their footage, just like they can if they're writing a police report on anything else.

Okay.

That wasn't my question.

Here's my question.

But it's it also allows his attorney to be present when the officer views the video.

Isn't that what it says?

Absolutely.

And so there is instances where others get a chance to see the body cam footage that didn't make the request.

I missed that, I'm sorry.

Pursuant to 405 62.

There are instances where an officer makes a request to see the video.

He's allowed to see the video, right?

And his attorney can see the video with him.

In a non-death investigation, yes, sir.

Counsel.

Thank you.

You're welcome, sir.

Thank you, Council Cole Pepper.

Um Council Murphy.

Thank you.

Are the police reports and EMS were there also?

I would assume.

Did they show up on scene?

Are those reports shared public, or are those also like the body cam footage not being shared?

Um but for the same reasons you're not sharing the video, yes.

Okay, all right, and that would be the only reason why, because if someone requests a police report if you would if it were going to be if it were not going to be turned over, it would be for the same reasons as why the body worn camera is not being turned over.

It would be the same.

Okay, that was it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Counselor Murphy.

Um Council Gen, you have the floor.

Thank you, Councillor Santana.

Um in section 6.2, it states that following officer involved death, officer involved shooting or other use of deadly force, officers and supervisors at the scene shall not view any video before the homicide unit or fire on discharge investigation team views the footage.

So it doesn't say outright that in an officer um in an officer involved death or officer involved is shooting that the officer does not get to review the footage.

Is that correct?

Under 6.2?

Under 6.1, it clearly states that the situations under which an officer has access to the footage.

6.2, and I think the language in 6.1 makes it clear that there are further restrictions on access to footage if it is an officer involved death or shooting.

That's pursuant to 6.2.

But 6.2 doesn't state altogether that there is a ban when there's an officer-involved death or shooting on the officer reviewing that footage.

And and I think it's further clarified under Rule 405, uh, where it says we uh it says that um at a time determined by the supervisor in charge of the investigation, officers who were involved in the incident discharge their weapon, um uh the officer at his request and with the attorney present can review the video.

So that that is all correct.

That is all correct for a non-death investigation, yes.

And then it so then what is the process in a death investigation pursuant to 6.2 the death investigation?

If the officer is going to be interviewed, uh they will not be able to see their video before they're interviewed.

In this in this circumstance, in the uh tragic and fatal incident that is as spurred this moment, was the officer able to review the footage before giving a statement or a report before they were interviewed by I wasn't there, but I can almost get I can guarantee that they did not watch the video.

That they did not watch the video that okay.

Um I take it to mean when I look at 6.1, when I look at 6.2, when I look at rule 405, that it's not a again, not an altogether ban as to whether the officer can review that footage, but the circumstances under which you can't actually review the officer can review the footage are a lot more are more restricted than they are in the 6.1, which gives them sort of more liberties to be able to review footage that they're involved in.

Correct.

And if you when you refer back to rule 303, which lays out how the fitted the role of the fitted team in an officer involved shooting, and again, I just want to make sure it's officer involved shooting.

There's a protocol that we follow.

Once there's a death involved, it now goes over into the district attorney's silo and they're correcting that investigation.

I think I have a larger problem with this issue, because I think a lot of the reasons why b body worn camera um the advocacy around it, especially from the public, was because there are as often these situations where police reports aren't being corroborated by what is happening in body worn camera footage.

So why develop a policy that allows an officer to review footage to corroborate to like correct the record in a sense, which I think goes against the grain of the idea of transparency and accountability, um and the very reason why you have body worn cameras when you you know so my my issue is actually with the overall policy that allows for review, what what what is behind that?

What what who does that benefit?

Because I don't know if that's to the public's benefit.

I don't know.

I agree, those are my questions.

Thank you.

Thank you, Counselor Louis Gen.

Counselor Weber, you have the floor.

Yeah, just uh I I agree with Counselor Louis Jen about the concerns about this where where we allow the person involved in the incident to review the video before they make the statement.

So it sounds like you're just uh not to so you're not sure what the policy reasons are for for doing that?

Is that to hear that right?

I'm not no.

Okay.

I mean, it uh it is somebody who was involved in in the incident, but um I mean I think we'd want to get their recollections down and their reasoning before they could sit down and they have an attorney when they're viewing the footage before they issue a statement in a death.

They do not view it in a death investigation.

Okay, so in you okay, so in a death investigation, they're interviewed uh by the homicide unit, but I I before they uh before they they're before they've seen the footage.

Correct.

Okay.

Um and then at some point do they issue a statement after that interview?

Um, or is that create their statement?

Usually it creates their statement.

They don't I mean that's the that's their interview.

Um okay.

Uh and I mean, I guess just generally, do you think our the rules we have and the procedures in place, whether it's in the uh police department rules or in the state public records law accounts for a situation like this where we again are talking about body cam footage after uh a police officer is involved in it in a death uh has been uh charged by the district attorney?

Um I I think that the system we have under the laws does it, whether it's the public records law, rules of criminal procedure, and uh the process rights involved in a criminal case, okay.

Well, uh thank you.

I don't want to take any time to see Counselor Culpepper, I think as follow-up or counselor.

Thank you, Councillor Weber.

We're gonna go to council or you have the floor.

Uh thank you, Chair.

Um you said that in active criminal investigations, um, BPD will not release uh body cam footage um when it's an officer involved shooting that's resulted in a death.

Um but in the past, from my understanding is that the commissioner has brought in uh members, you know, residents, leaders, elected officials into you know headquarters to review um footage.

Was was this in violation of the law, or is this question now being applied differently?

No, no, no criminal charges issued in those cases.

So it's active investigation or criminal charges?

Well that I heard active investigation.

I mean, if if criminal if criminal charges issue, or if it's going into a grand jury, all of that stuff, the what the DA's office says, if it's a death investigation, that's gonna control if it if you mean none of those briefings in the past, because I guess what I'm hearing from my colleague is there were active criminal investigations and a death was involved in the viewing of that passed.

I would be shocked if any police officer was charged in any of those shootings.

Okay, so so the the barriers the police officer being charged.

In in this case, that's that's one of the very yeah, that is the variance in this case.

Okay.

Um when you say releasing the footage would harm the integrity of the criminal um investigation.

Uh what specific law or exemption are you relying on, and what concrete harm do you believe would result from the release of any body worn call uh warrant footage?

I I'm not part of the investigation.

I can't speculate on what part of the investigation would happen if it were released at this moment.

Okay.

Because that was that was like a term that you kept on using was the sit the integrity of the case.

Well, the exemption F, I don't have it right in front of me of the public exemption.

F talks about effective law enforcement.

A lot of times the term integrity of the investigation, if it affects the ability alarm enforcement to do their job, we will use exemption F to deny a public record request.

Um in this case, we have F, we have A, we have a DA who came out, my DA came out on TV and said, I'm putting this into the grand jury.

Grand jury opens up a whole new set of laws, the secrecy of the grand jury, what you're supposed to know and not know, but the fact that he's saying he does not want this released, they are running this investigation, they are putting it into the grand jury.

We we will have individuals from BPD will probably testify in the grand jury as well, but the district attorney's office controls that.

It's not the BPD grand jury.

So by news pa newspaper reports and what's been on the news, like there's I mean, in any and sometimes in any death case, it could be eyewitnesses, right?

Um for what I'm sorry, for for the say uh criminal case.

It could be someone who saw, you know, someone saw this incident happen, right?

So what would be the difference between that individual speaking publicly and body worn camera footage being released that would have like the different impacts?

Like what what would stop the eyewitness from publicly speaking versus the body worn camera footage being released, which is that that witness is not in our custody and control and is not subject to the public records law.

So it wouldn't with that eye witness publicly speaking, you know, uh I guess the exemption F that you referred to, would that public eye witness be in violation of that?

No, the public records law only applies to public agencies.

That witness is not a public agency.

Would it affect the investigation?

Maybe, but we can't control that.

Can't control it, right?

We can only control what we have in our custody and control.

Right.

So there are incidences where you know I guess the footage or the eyewitness, or even like a ring camera, there's nothing that will stop the ring camera from you know impact it well being publicly shared.

You're correct.

Again, if the person who has the ring camera wants to put that out on the internet, they're not subject to the public records law.

And that would not harm the investigation.

It potentially might, but you can't force people not to put stuff out.

Right.

And and can you like how how would it harm the investigation?

I I don't know.

I'd have I don't know what the whatever the scenario is, but I would if there is somebody that has evidence like that, the investigators on the case, the district attorney's office might talk to them and say, look, can we get a copy of that?

Could you please don't release this?

You could ask them, but you can't force them not to release it.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Oh, and I just wanted to just add this last point.

Um earlier this month in Hartford, Connecticut, uh, there was a police shooting.

Uh, within just one week, uh, Connecticut Officer Inspector General release uh not only report, but the body camera footage of that incident.

And while that officer has since been fired, that matter is still under investigation.

Um, but the footage, body warrant camera footage, I believe of multiple officers was uh still made public.

So then my question is this how is this case different um here in Boston from that case?

And I know you probably don't have all the these details um in any different way.

And if it's not, yeah.

I'm sorry, I have none of the details of that case, so you know.

I I don't know what they have for statutes, I don't know what they have, I don't know who released it.

Um I don't know if Connecticut has a statute that's analogous to 38 section four.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Council World.

Um before we dismiss it, we're just gonna do one final um from the lead sponsor or final question.

Just one question, counsel.

With regard to the integrity of the investigation or the grand jury or jury, the volunteer would actually remedy any issues that may happen with regard to a witness seeing or hearing about police officer involved shooting.

The volunteer handles that when they go to trial, right?

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Culpepper.

Um, and thank you again to Dave Frederick with General Counsel with the Boston Police Department for coming down testifying and answering our questions.

Um we will now dismiss you from this panel.

Um you may say so.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

I look forward to talking to you more.

Anytime.

I would now like to call on the second panel to come with us today.

Um with us today, we have Ivardo Carvajal, executive director of the Office of Police Accountability and Transparency.

Um we will hear his um opening remarks.

I think we'll turn it over to my colleagues for uh for questions.

Thank you, Director Carvalho.

How do you pronounce your last name?

Carvalho.

Carvalho.

Yes.

All right.

Well, thank you so much for joining us today.

I'm going to turn over the floor to you if you can state your name and your title for the record.

And you're afraid to give your opening remarks.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Good afternoon.

I am Evandro Carvalho.

I am the executive director of the office, the City of Boston's Office of Police Accountability and Transparency.

And thank you for inviting me to speak today on this critical issue.

I want to first express my sympathies to Stephen, Mr.

Stephen King's family and the families of the man who was killed in an incident over the weekend.

And all of the families that are involved in these tragic incidents.

OPAP believes that the public has a right to see the body worn camera.

Footage is also recognized that the integrity of any investigations and prosecutions must be protected.

We acknowledge the concern that we've heard that premature release of footage could affect jury selection, influence public opinion, or compromise witness testimony.

If that happens, it could ultimately undermine the very accountability that OPAP and the community are seeking.

Opposition is that OPAT was created to be active and agile when incidents like these occur.

And as I mentioned earlier, a key pillar of OPAT's mission is to help increase trust in law enforcement in the city of Boston.

OPAT was created to represent the voice of the community in moments like this.

And so we are all challenged to do good on behalf of the people of the city of Boston.

For OPAT, our goal is simple is to help honor the community's right to know, to help protect the integrity of investigations, because we think that is also very important.

And to help uh to help strengthen trust between our communities and law enforcement.

And again, taking this issue head on.

Um I'm happy to uh take questions.

Awesome.

Thank you so much, Director Carvajal.

Um again, I really appreciate you being down here with us.

Uh we're not gonna go to my counsel colleagues um for counselor's questions, starting with the lead sponsors and going with the order of arrival, um counselor Culpepper.

I'm gonna do five minutes again for this round here.

You have the floor.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Good to see you again, Director Cavallo.

Just a few questions uh regarding OPAC's authority.

Do you have the right to access body camera footage at this point?

If you wanted to see the body cam footage, could you call the commissioner and ask him to allow you to see the body access, the body footage, body camera footage?

Can you repeat that, please?

Does OPAC currently have the right to access body camera footage?

We access body camera footage all the time in terms of the way in terms of you know executing the ordinance on daily basis.

We get complaints from civilians from residents in the city of Boston, and we get access to body cameras.

Have you seen uh body camera footage and officer involved shootings?

I have not.

Have you made the request?

I have.

Excuse me, Mr.

King's incident in particular, that you know, the DA, um, and I spoke to the DA himself as well, and this is sort of where that message early on to trying to balance this act, right?

Uh I I talked about right, where it sort of, yes, ideally we could, we should get the the body camera, but you know, it is a a uh you know the individual, the police officer was charged, officer Molly was charged.

So that you know presents a new challenge, I think, and uh in this space that um has sort of prevented us from from seeing the camera.

So with regard to your investigation, uh is it fair to say that you don't have the ability to conduct a complete investigation without access to the body cam footage?

We do not do criminal investigations.

No, I don't mean a criminal investigation, I mean an investigations under the authority that you have.

Yes, uh, you know, in I guess in hypothetical situations, yes.

If any footage, any and all evidence that's out there, including talking to witnesses, those are things, those are the protocols that we follow on cases on a normal basis.

And um, so yes.

And so you requested the review in the king case body coming footage and of the district attorney.

I didn't.

I talked to him about it.

And as the commissioner, and they both denied access.

Yes, and and one of the things that that's also uh worth mentioning is is and this is something that you know I think this this particular case, you know, is sort of really heightened the space of our authority when we're talking about authority, right?

Is that our our authority again is for civil violations, right?

And uh and criminal investigations, in fact, based on our ordinance, um, as I believe I said in the statement recently, we cannot quote unquote interfere.

I mean, I think this is the language in it, right?

So when you have you know an officer charged in this incident, then it's in the DA as you know, obviously a Raymond, all the process of criminal justice system itself is fallen, then you know it's it's difficult to figure out how do you sort of do a parallel investigation, I guess, in a sense, right?

So we because again, this this is new waters, right?

We just said, okay, you know, and and as I said in my statement earlier, you know, at the end of our mission is to ensure accountability and transparency, right?

And so when we see the system working in this way that it has, it's sort of like let's see, you know, let's at least keep watch, right?

Let's monitor, but you know, it is as I think I heard you talking about grand jury, that's next step and all these other processes within the court.

So we're sort of waiting and monitoring closely what's going on.

So you're monitoring not investigating.

That's correct, sir.

And you'll begin your investigation at the conclusion of the criminal case?

Yes.

Yes.

I mean, in this circumstances, uh, you know, our intention would be, you know, when at the conclusion of this, is that we would then more or less review, right?

So as you uh counselor, I'm sure know, is we have the we have the two boards, right?

We have the civilian review board, and we have the internal affairs of a site panel, right?

And so the CRB, the civilian review board usually does the investigation.

So but when the process proceeds through the system, uh particularly through BPD, like what we'll do is review what happened, right?

So the so that's what I anticipate doing in this case instead of doing a completely new investigation, if you does that make sense because the deep.

So help help me understand when you say review, what are you reviewing?

I'm reviewing the process.

So ultimately, you know, at this point, uh I would review you know the trial documents, I will review witness statements, I would review, you know, obviously the the body camera footage, I would review uh, and I intend personally to go to many of these proceedings in court any myself, uh, so I can watch what's going on because uh so the review would be to look at you know how the process worked in a sense.

So it's it's those.

So you would also review the result also, depending on what the result is.

Right, and and and obviously the result, yeah, right, yes.

And then you would either agree with the result or disagree with the result.

Yes.

Yes and no, in a sense that well, no, no, you would either agree with the result in a certain case or disagree with the result.

Correct.

Right.

And if you disagree with the result, can you can't reverse that result, but you can reach a different conclusion based on your review.

Yes.

And the conclusion that you reach may have specific enforcement authorities.

Talk a little bit about that, and then that's one last question.

But your authority to enforce conclusions that you reach.

Here's you know, great question, good question.

Again, as I was sort of alluding to earlier, the dynamics of these cases, this particular one, right, is different.

Typically, the cases that we'll be looking at are cases that have gone through the internal affairs division of the Boston Police Department.

So you don't necessarily have um the DA's involvement in the decision making.

Here the case proceeds to the court, it may, you know, the outcomes may be any number of things.

Right.

So let's go back to those cases where you review the internal affairs decision.

Correct.

You review the internal affairs decision.

You decide to disagree with the internal affairs decision.

You have enforcement authority with regard to the decision that you reach?

Here's the the options I have, uh, which I think uh sir, this is what you get into.

Okay.

Number one, when we do our reviews of internal affairs decisions, the our lens is this.

Um we look for it was it thorough, number one, number two, was it fair?

Okay, that's that's the lens of the appeal process within our authority.

Once we can if we conclude to your point that the officer, you know, that we disagree essentially, right?

So our options is to disagree or or or agree.

If we agree, we send it back.

If we disagree, the process continues and we send it to the commissioner, and we explain why we're disagreeing.

With the recommendation to the commissioner, correct.

What's the range of recommendations?

So, you know, I so the on this side, I mean the recommendations on the CRB are different, right?

On the Civilian View Board side.

No, I understand, I understand.

So just wanted to kind of make sure we stay in the same uh page, if you will.

The on on on this side, the options are disagree, right, or agree, or do more, which we can have cases where, you know, if we see that a particular officer or the you know, somebody wasn't interviewed, we can say, can you, and this can this this person and that person wasn't interviewed.

Particularly in the disagreed space, and uh EEE then uh or she the commissioner of of BPD then can reply and say, you know, we we did more, uh, or it was in fact thorough and fair for these reasons.

Does that make sense, sir?

I think I'll get a second round, so I'll pick it up then.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Yes, Council Pope, you will definitely get a second round.

Um Council Louis Gen, do you have the floor?

Thank you.

Um, and thank you to uh Director Carvalho for being here.

What I sort of hear you saying, and I don't know if this is in the statute, I'm not sure if it's statutory, but what I hear you saying is that OPAT does not have and is not in the business of doing concurrent investigations when there's an active criminal process that's playing itself out.

Right.

So yes and no.

Okay.

It's it's it's a fair question, is is it's the answer is a bit more complicated.

What it says in the ordinance, right?

Um, is that we are not to interfere with criminal investigation.

Now, what is that's not defined, right?

But in the ordinance, right?

It doesn't mean that in this incident, and I'm I can't think of a hypothetical right now, yeah, that we can't do parallel investigation.

Right.

What I was was trying to convey is that in this situation, when the person uh the office is charged, that's sort of to me, like, okay, you know, the process of the criminal investigation is what is what are we doing in that space when the at the end of the day the the office was designed to increase to do accountability and transparency.

And here the system is saying we're going through the accountability through through a much higher process than OPAT is designed to do as a as an administrative body.

Right, right.

This is a criminal investigation that is clear, you know.

So that's sort of in this space to me, you know, this is where sort of does it make sense?

Yeah, no, I understand that it's it's a so it's I so basically you do have the authority, although okay, it sounds like you're saying is that it's ambiguous as to whether the statute leaves it open as to whether you can run concurrent or parallel investigations.

Yes.

It sounds as though, historically speaking, the concurrent investigations when there's a open criminal investigation has not occurred.

Largely, yes.

Largely, and you're saying in this matter, which is a matter of first impression for the body for both OPED as an administrative body, which I think is an important reminder, um, but also in the case of body worn cameras, that um it is not you you're sort of saying that like this is an office of accountability and transparency, and on the question of whether charges should have been brought against the police officer in order to ensure the uh accountability and transparency, that has been fulfilled in part because of because of their charges have been brought.

So you're like checkbox on the second dairy question, which is a subset question about the release of body camera footage to um either provide more transparency and accountability to the public to reassure people that like everything was followed.

What where does OPAT stand on that issue?

So again, because uh Madam Council as you just said this uh matter of first instance, right?

Let's um but first time we're seeing this, right?

Yes, right, and you know, you have the DA saying this, that essentially, you know, I've charged the person, and you know, this could technically be uh an issue for jury, you know, selections and things like that, right?

That's a legitimate concern that as an attorney as a former prosecutor have to think about, right?

And no, so if the case, if the case, I think the the clear path for that um office of police are kind of doing transparency uh is if the charges were not right.

This is a if the ch if the DA is not involved in charging the per the police officer.

So you're stating that if in the situation where there weren't charges brought and the and the and the camera and the and body one camera footage hadn't been released, then there would have been more of a sort of moral obligation or imperative of your office as an administrative office to sort of stand in the gap correct, right and speak up and state that why hasn't this footage been released?

Correct.

And in this moment, though, there's there are members of the public and members of this body passed a resolution about reviewing the use of body camera footage and the need in this situation.

You're uh you're you're stating that the conflict is in part because you are seeing sort of the mission of OPAT being lived out in sort of the actions in part of the district attorney.

Which is why we're having this hearing about on what schedule should you release body one camera footage.

And the gap here is that there isn't in other states and in other cities.

I know that the council before spoke, um, the the attorney from the department from BPD, there are situ other cities in states where there is on on a schedule where you release body worn camera footage.

Now whether there's an exception or an exemption in those states for active investigations, impairment of a grand jury, I'm not sure.

But um I just wanted to lay that out there, hopefully with some clarity because I was getting away.

I I yes, I I think you know, you you and I were at least one meeting, right?

It you know, I understand the frustration, right?

Yeah, you know, so the community and and what's going on, it's definitely um we all at a heightened you know state of being right now.

Yeah.

I want to thank you for your work because I know that it's um not been easy standing up the office of uh office of police accountability and transparency and know that this body really cares about having uh administrative body that has some sort of teeth.

There's no point of having an office that um is just window dressing.

We need to make sure that you know I'm I'm not even talking about in this situation, I'm talking about overall.

Um I think it's important when recommendations are made and that you are that you are considered as a a legitimate body in this city um to do the work of a police accountability and transparency.

So I just want to thank you for your work and your ongoing efforts to make OPAT uh to live up to what uh advocates wanted in um when when they advocated for the office.

So thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Councillor Louis Jen.

Council Webber, you have the floor.

Okay, yeah, thanks.

Um yeah, I I guess just going to the I do you the the rules that are in place, you know, for OPAT, for body cams in general, the release of body cam footage.

I mean, was this kind of situation even contemplated like when when we came up with these rules?

Because in terms of transparency and accountability, you know, like I think you're you're suggesting that like that's it would lead to the goal would be to lead to criminal charges that's as you know, one possible outcome, and that that's already sort of already happened before the rest of the process could even start.

I can you just I mean, can you talk a little bit about whether we've you know whether when these rules are being drawn up, we even imagine that this would be a potential scenario.

Um hoping to understand uh how I can elaborate further.

Um, I I think again in this situation, um, as counseling said earlier, you know, for us it's it's you know the system is working, if you will, right now, and based on what we're seeing.

Uh I was uh personally at the arraignment, and as I mentioned, uh will be monitoring closely, like call talking to the commissioner to to um to the DA and certainly the mayor in our team, uh my team, so we're sort of on the ground, even in the community meetings that I'm seeing some of you uh uh in.

So that's what we're doing at this point, right?

So I have in you know, just an extent sort of really and I appreciate that we have in this conversation because we always trying to figure out what to do.

Um but the the rules for what I and I've read this too many times that doesn't really contemplate it doesn't seem to be contemplating that, other than what I'm saying that I said earlier, which OPAT is and should be sort of how we're doing.

Like we're sort of in these spaces to to talk to the public to you know to connect with BPD to cannot to come to you know to city council meetings to address these issues.

So do you think the rules need to specifically address you know what to do if there's been criminal charges filed?

I think it's if you could have you know uh any instructions or there's a w a world where you'd like to be living in, like how how would the rules be different?

Great question.

Well or would they, you know, and you know, the uh I think I think what we can do, which what we're doing now is is looking at, you know, again being in this moment, if you will, right, with these wrestling with each self questions, and you know, uh and I'm here as I said to sort of talk through those and seeing what the options are.

It's hard to sort of come up, as I said for instance earlier, you know, it says do not interfere with uh with criminal investigations.

What does that mean?

Uh making law and executed is really hard, but I think in this moment now that we are in, we have in the right conversation to hopefully come up with something uh perhaps uh as a city that that makes sense to all.

Oh, yeah, and then I think Councillor Cole Pepper has spent some time talking about um in the rules where police officers can review the footage before making a statement.

They they might even have their attorney there uh in non-death investigations.

Um have you seen that?

Has that like kind of procedure impacted your uh ability as it touched at all about on OPAT's work?

Um perhaps slightly, you know, uh you I would and obviously I can't comment too much on the rule and and what the prior conversation was because I didn't hear much of it, but you know, police officers as a is when I was a prosecutor, right?

You know, they couldn't have to look at the report, right?

Uh the the they have issue cameras, they can look at those cameras, they should look at those cameras, right?

So that's part of their job in a sense.

So when they do it, uh you know, is important, but it's also part of the process, right?

They you know they have the push report, they have uh their own cameras, they can see those things, and particularly, you know, in in a situation like this.

Obviously, you have the right to remain silent, you know.

This this is where the council, you know, defense stuff comes in, so it's it's harder to sort of go in that space, right?

Because if you in this criminal investigation, you know, everybody's entitled to um you know, to many constitutional rights, as we know.

Well, just the last question, and and I assume if there was a criminal investigation, you'd have somebody maybe asserting their Fifth Amendment rights when if you're trying to get them on the record about something.

I'm not sure do you bump up against that?

We we no, in a sense, because largely again, you know, officers have, you know, that obvious I'm sure you've seen subpoena officers recently, right?

So, but largely they come in, they have rights, you know, procedural rights that we give them, we give them signed documents, but it's not necessarily but they can, you know, they can't say something like that, right?

Do you think do you think that would be an issue if there was a criminal uh investigation ongoing when you're trying to talk to someone?

Yeah, I mean, I could see an any, not just an officer, anyone, right?

If there's a criminal investigations against anyone, right, and and and kind of forcing, and this is outside of OPAT.

This is uh, you know, fairness and process, due process in in our system, right?

So if there's potential for a person to be charged with a crime, and you're pushing them into a space of uh a non-criminal criminal justice space, which this is is uh as I said earlier, administrative hearing, to ask them questions that may, you know, get them incriminated.

That that's a fair, they could just say, yes.

I I can't testify because you know, and okay, thank you.

Does that make sense?

Yes, yeah, I believe so.

Okay, thanks.

Thank you, Councillor Weber.

Counselor Cole Pepper, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um don't you just pick up where we left off in terms of um and you know, let me just say I think you've handled uh this matter involving police officer involved killing probably as best anyone could sitting in your seat uh because you don't want to again any kind of review right now there's not much to review with regard to uh police behavior, but in the past you issued subpoenas.

Isn't that correct?

We issued subpoena in the past um to police officers, correct, but it it's that itself is new.

You know, when I I came into this office next month would be two years.

But you issued them.

I issue subpoenas, and this was but this police officers?

Correct.

And did they follow the subpoenas?

Um we had a few officers come um to so this was a and I don't remember exactly, but there was eight or nine, and three came with the union representative, in fact, uh the president of the union, Larry Calderone.

And there were a couple other officers uh or detectives, you know, lose using offices, officers loosely because you know, people's titles uh change depending on what um their duties are.

We had a couple that said, you know, that we had lawyers reach out and said they weren't available and you know, give them more time.

So and we had a couple that we didn't hear from the cases uh to kind of get to what I believe you'll get into is the cases now.

Actually, we have so a lot of those cases that were not settled because the officer couldn't show.

We did what we uh I'm sure you're familiar with the process in in the court system is you just get another day, give the person your ability to come back, right?

If you will.

Um and in and thankfully, to be honest, we've been working behind the scenes to get them there, right?

And and our next meeting is in April or late April, I think.

I mean, I don't know, I won't say the exact time because I don't and they I don't recall.

But we we're hoping to get you know, to get officers to to fully comply, right?

But we we I did issue subpoenas, correct?

Until they didn't fully comply.

Some officers did, some officers didn't.

Let me ask you this.

Yes.

Try and get to why you're really here.

Yes.

How can the council help strengthen OPAC?

And what do you need from us, if possible, if we can do it, to help strengthen the office, uh, and where you see weaknesses, where you see you need help or new ordinances or new authorities.

Um, you know, I think honestly, I I think discussions like these are productive, right?

Uh you know, folks, we we often focus on the accountability space, which is important.

But OPAT works, two pillars, transparency.

The discussions that we have now are very important.

I think also, you know, we when we that the other thing that happens, and I know uh counselor, you're new to the council, perhaps we can make sure that that's happening.

But when we the other thing that happens is that when we issue our complaints, excuse me, our recommendations to the commissioner, we also uh send it to you all, right?

Uh and I I know I met with many of you before, so um so those ongoing conversations I think are helpful.

And and and I mentioned the reports because the our reports are all online, but you know, when we see incidents, I think you know, we obviously this is important with dealing with you know life or death situations, but there's ongoing things that are happening that we can keep moving the needle forward right on.

What other options do you have when you issue a recommendation to the commissioner, and the commissioner decides not to follow your recommendation?

The options uh which again, some of this uh played in the news as well, is the commissioner is required by our ordinance to reply to send us an answer, a response letter, as we call it, to say, you know, to if he's not uh he uh or she or they uh the individual does not do not follow our directions or our recommendations are dear to them, they're supposed to send us a response saying as to why, right, explain it, right?

And uh we were having some difficulties and this is right, actually, this was the middle of the election, perhaps the CRB did write the CRB decision review board did write the commissioner a letter explaining that we need you know prompt response to some of the cases that we had already issued.

Um so but we have having you know we are having some improvement in that direction of collaboration.

Would it help if we added time frames to when the commissioner should respond to you?

Uh that would be helpful.

Uh I will say uh also that you know we uh one of the things that that I'm working on amongst uh many things, uh in fact the OPAC commission, we have a meeting uh Thursday.

Uh one of the things that that I'm slowly putting together to which we are working on this specific place, is to come up with more thorough and comprehensive regulations.

So the commission, right?

You know, the two boards, uh, the chairs uh, you know, along with me or the commissioners, we can do more regulations to sort of say this is when we expect things to happen.

Um so we're going, you know, as particularly now with things like this happening, we're fulfilling that more and more.

Right.

We when I came into the office, we had you know some regulations, but very limited.

And so I'm looking at those things to expand to see in the gaps, and perhaps not waiting, you know, till we change the ordinance, but a lot of there's some things that we should be able to do within our own authority as you know, as I guess regulators, if you want to call it.

Thank you, thank you.

Thinking it would be helpful where we can help to let us know.

Thank you.

We can help.

Thank you.

Uh for sake of time, uh good information that you gave us, and and we can follow up offline.

But I I thank you for coming and thank you for what you discussed.

And and I do think these discussions are very helpful, especially where we can see how we can help.

I do think a timeline on the commissioner to respond to you is helpful so that you don't have to wonder about when they respond and a timeline with regard to some enforcement mechanism in the event that they don't.

Maybe it your recommendations become effective if within 30 days or 15 days they don't respond.

But we can talk more about that.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Councillor Cole Pepper, and um I really want to thank Director Carvajal for joining us today and answering our questions.

Thank you, sir.

Um, thank you for the work that you do on behalf of the city of Boston and our residents.

I will just now dismiss um you from this panel, and we're gonna invite you.

We do have one last panel who is joining us virtually.

I will now like to introduce um Christopher Schneider, who is uh professor or Dr.

Christopher Schneider, I should say, um, who is a university professor who's gonna be joining us.

Um I hear that you're you're a specialist specialist in this area, you come highly regarded by Councillor Culpepper.

So thank you so much for joining us.

If you can just state your name and your title for um the record, and um you can proceed with opening remarks.

Thank you for having me.

Just to clarify before I begin, you can hear me okay?

Yes, we can hear you.

Okay.

So my name is Dr.

Christopher Schneider.

I am a full professor of sociology at Brandon University.

I have been thinking and writing about body cameras for over a decade.

My research has focused largely on information technologies and related changes to police work.

I've written or collaborated on nine books and published over 100 scholarly papers and essays.

My recent co-authored book is Police Body Worn Cameras, Media and the New Discourse of Police Reform, published in January of this year.

Police body worn cameras were initially piloted in the mid-OTS in the UK and in North America in 2009.

Widespread discussion of equipping officers with body cameras occurred following extensive media coverage of the police-caused deaths of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, and Eric Garner in New York City, each in 2014.

The scientific research testing the efficacy of body cameras is inconclusive.

The research has mostly tested the cameras for two things.

First, do body cameras reduce the likelihood of police use of force?

And second, do body cameras reduce civilian complaints about police?

While some studies show promising results, others reveal no change, and some have found an increase in police force when cameras are present.

Given these inconclusive findings, public discussions of body cameras have instead begun to focus on the concepts of transparency and accountability.

However, both transparency and accountability are very difficult to define and operationalize.

So the research tells us nothing about whether body worn cameras actually create transparency and accountability, mostly because there is no universal definition for either of these concepts that can be operationalized in research.

The basic thesis of our book, Police Body Worn Cameras, is that discussions in media play a significant role in how the public has come to understand body cameras, including how they will or will not work, and the ways that body cameras will contribute to transparency and accountability, which is why we are here today.

In our book, we illustrate how the concepts of transparency and accountability evolve in media coverage over a period of decades, from the early 2000s to the 2020s, into a dominant police reform perspective.

We call this the new discourse of police reform.

Police reform is not new, however, the new discourse of police reform and the problems of transparency and accountability establishes the justification for the adoption and use of body cameras.

The terms transparency and accountability each appear in the Boston Police Department's body camera policy rule 405, but that doesn't mean that police and the public see these ideas the same way.

Accountability in Rule 405 is equated with reduced civilian complaints, whereas Sadiqi Kembon, the director of the Boston-based Black Community Information Center, equates accountability with the release of body camera footage of the killing of Stevenson King.

The evidence reveals as we painstakingly detail in our body camera book a conceptual and definitional inconsistency between police administrators, civil leaders, clergy, and community members when the terms transparency and accountability are used to talk about body cameras and police reform.

So what can we do?

First and foremost, transparency and accountability cannot and should not be assumed.

Clear and direct definitions must be enshrined into policy and then enforced.

What does transparency mean and how will we know when it is not present?

What does accountability mean, and how will we know when there is accountability?

Body camera programs are only as good as their policies.

Criminologist Rob Mauby suggests that transparency is not strictly limited to visibility, but that it ought to also include police demonstrating an openness to explain exactly how the institutional structure and decision making process operate, that police welcome independent public oversight, and that they proactively publicize complaints and investigations.

Transparency is also characterized by visibility, that is, the ability to see the footage.

A review of police body camera programs across the United States reveals wide variance across policies and the policy landscape is constantly evolving.

The BPD's Rule 405 states that body camera footage, quote, is the sole property of the Boston Police Department and shall not be released without the authorization of the commissioner, end quote.

One would be hard pressed to think of an example of publicly funded information gathering in public spaces where the data are not accessible to any member of the public ever without filtering by the collection agency.

We need to look at Chicago's Civilian Office of Police Accountability, or COPA, as an exemplary model of solid policy with respect to body worn cameras.

COPA's policy, a gold standard of police oversight, gives COPA direct and immediate access to body worn camera footage.

COPA also has the authority to release the video.

But there are competing interests, including those of police and government institutions who may want to delay release to avoid compromising investigations, and families who have concerns over the release of footage of their loved ones being killed.

COPA's video release policy for the city of Chicago strikes a balance between these competing and sometimes conflicting interests, but importantly, puts the decision in the hands of a neutral party.

According to COPA's policy, quote, the people of the city of Chicago have an undeniable and in some cases paramount interest in being informed in a timely fashion on the most accurate information possible about how their police force conducts its business, especially where the use of force by police results in death of or great bodily harm to a civilian.

End quote.

COPA's policy stipulates that any information covered by its jurisdiction, such as body camera footage, be released to the public no more than 60 calendar days from the date of the incident, unless a request is made by a government entity to delay release for a period not to exceed 30 calendar days.

COPA aims to release footage as soon as possible after an incident, depending on the circumstances.

Once the Chicago police department notifies COPA of an incident, like an officer-involved shooting, or a complaint has been made to COPA by a member of the public, COPA's mandate allows for direct and immediate access to body worn camera footage, usually within 24 hours after the camera has been docked and the footage uploaded to a database, and COPA has the authority to release video.

Court orders can prevent release.

For example, if a civilian is harmed because of police actions and charges are pending against the civilian, body camera footage may be delayed by court order to protect their right to a fair trial.

However, because COPA's mandate is primarily intended for the protection of the public, this same standard is usually not applied to police officers who have been charged with a crime.

When a police officer is charged in Chicago, their defense attorney may seek a court order to deny the release of body worn camera footage, but judges generally deny such requests, citing that COPA policy is about the officers' actions.

If COPA policy were applied in the city of Boston, the video in question would have likely already been released to the public, and we would not be here today.

COPA also meets with families affected by police violence prior to the release of body camera footage to the public, which ensures that families are aware and prepared, at least in principle, for the emotional impact of seeing the footage of their loved one and helps to respond to victims of violence in a sensitive and caring manner.

COPA representatives also spend time in the neighborhoods of Chicago to inform community members of COPA's work, policies, and procedures, so that the citizens of Chicago remain informed of their rights.

The COPA framework, while a gold standard, does have limits, but nevertheless provides us with a framework for other cities to follow, including the city of Boston.

Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your questions.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Chair Santana.

Good to hear you, Dr.

Snyder, and I've just got a few questions.

With regard to body worn cameras, does your work suggest that they were adopted largely on the belief that they would increase accountability and transparency?

And can you explain those expectations and what they were?

Yes, that is correct.

The research literature supports the idea that body worn cameras have largely been rolled out across police services on the basis of beliefs and assumptions about what the cameras will do, not only with respect to accountability and transparency, two terms, as I noted, that are vague with no universal definitional consensus, but also the idea that if a police officer is wearing a body worn camera, the assumption is that that officer is, of course, not going to engage in police misconduct or brutality because they know the camera's recording, and the assumption is that the civilian on the other end of the camera is going to comply with police commands because they too know that they're being recorded.

However, as we have seen and the evidence has shown, these assumptions are often incorrect.

Rather, what the body worn cameras do is document police interactions, including police violence in these situations, and also documents uh police brutality, misconduct, and so on.

So, again, the assumption was and remains if cameras are present, people are going to not engage in otherwise problematic behavior or misconduct.

But that's simply not true.

If it were true, nobody would ever rob a bank, nobody would ever steal from a convenience store, and so on, because we all know there are surveillance cameras in these locations, uh, and people do it anyway, and the cameras document this behavior.

And so, with regard to police departments and the public generally, do they share the same definition of transparency and accountability, or are they operating on different expectations?

They are operating on different expectations.

This is what we find uh looking over the decades of discussions of transparency and accountability in our new book that was published in January that I referenced on police body worn cameras.

Uh, when police administrators talk about transparency and accountability, they often mean something very different than when victims of police violence talk about police accountability and transparency, clergy members, members of the public, oversight agencies, and so on.

And this is the indeed one of the fundamental problems of discussing transparency and accountability in relation to body worn cameras, because in a lot of ways, these different groups are just talking past one another until there is consensus over what it is we're talking about, as I noted in my statement that's enshrined in body worn camera policy.

That is police sit down with members of uh the panel today and community members, oversight agencies, and come to an understanding, an agreed upon understanding of what transparency is, what accountability is, and how these two things are actualized, body worn cameras will do very little in relation to transparency and accountability, how these different groups see it.

And there's widespread belief that body cameras that they actually improve policing and the outcomes.

What does the research say about the effectiveness?

Can you rephrase the question, please?

The widespread belief that body cameras improve policing outcomes.

And I want to know about your research.

What does the research say about how body cams improve or doesn't improve policing outcomes?

Much of this uh, you know, why spread this idea of accountability and transparency connects to a broader consideration in the academic research literature of what has been referred to as police image work or police brand management.

The idea being that different police departments will release body worn camera footage willingly when it shows their members doing good things, rescuing a child from a burning building, rescuing a cat from a tree, and so on.

But in other circumstances, we'll stonewall requests uh with officer involved shootings and other situations that might make police look bad.

Indeed, this is what we've been hearing about all day today during the testimony.

Uh officer discretion, including senior officers in the circumstance, the police commissioner utilize their discretion on when and how to release body worn camera footage to the public.

The research uh literature, including my research, suggests that this is consistent with police image work to maintain the police brand as being positive and favorable to the public in an interest of ensuring trust and legitimacy in police.

And in your work, you talk about transparency and how it remains an aspirational concept.

How important to clear release policies and turning that aspiration into something real?

Well, I think you know, as I noted in my statement, that the body worn cameras, body worn camera programs are only as good as the policies that direct the program, govern the program, determine best practices.

So, yes, my book, we found that transparency and accountability remain aspirational concepts, as you note.

However, there is hope if these concepts can be operationalized, very clearly defined in body worn camera policy, and importantly, that police are held to account when they violate the body worn camera policy.

In other words, uh, when they do not say, for example, release body worn camera footage in the interest of transparency, should that be encoded in policy, or when and how they find their officers accountable or not.

So, for example, uh, when you look at policy across North America, as myself and my colleague, uh co-author of this book have, we have found that policies in relation to officers who have been found after an investigation to have intentionally not switched their camera on, intentionally switched their camera off, obscured the lens or the audio, uh, does not result in termination, as we think it should, but instead uh might result in uh docked a day's pay or a demotion.

So ensuring that there are stronger policies in relation to accountability when there is a finding that a police officer has actually violated the policy in relation to, for example, turning the camera on, could help embolden body worn camera programs, including in places like Boston, and would be helpful for police oversight agencies for holding officers to account.

Can you talk a little bit about the fine release timelines of protocols and the importance of having uh clear and defined release timelines of policies?

So I noted in Chicago uh it's 60 days, uh, unless a government entity puts in writing uh for a request to delay, which then could no longer be uh 30 days.

Uh other departments, I I believe the Los Angeles police department is 45 days.

So, as I noted in my opening statement, it varies widely across jurisdictions.

That said, there are police agencies that do have timelines enshrined into their body worn camera policy.

This is important because what it does is it sets public expectations uh according to the body worn camera policy, and very importantly, when police groups do not provide body worn camera footage, there must be a rationale put in writing uh for not doing so.

Simply using their discretion and saying that they're not going to release footage just because they don't want to is not enough, and that can be used then to then hold uh officers or commanding officers uh to account for denying access to footage.

And so, based on your research, what have you seen nationally with regard to key best practices for body cameras policies?

If the goal is to build public trust.

I think that uh COPA in Chicago, as I noted, is a gold standard.

So, one thing that's really important.

So, when we look at Rule 405, as I noted in my statement, we see in Boston that it's the police commissioner's sole discretion over whether or not body worn camera footage gets released.

Uh that's something that I think would would need to change uh in places like Boston and other places that might have that enshrined into policy.

Uh instead, uh having a neutral third party oversight agency and providing them with access to body worn camera footage, as we see in Chicago, is very important.

So, for instance, if a civilian has an interaction with a police officer in the city of Chicago and they believe that interaction went wrong, or they believe that's the civilian, that the police officer engaged in misconduct or brutality, they file a complaint with COPA, a third party neutral agency.

Once that complaint has been filed, COPA's investigative mandate takes effect, and COPA's allowed to log in to the database and immediately review that body worn camera footage.

This is very important for ensuring trust and legitimacy in police because to have an oversight agency that has uh teeth, I guess to put it, helps then to ensure legitimacy to members to the public because if they have had a poor interaction with police officer, they know that they can make a complaint and they can also be provided with their body worn camera footage by COPA.

Where in other circumstances, it's my understanding, for example, listing, listening to the testimony today that body worn camera footage requests are routinely denied, uh, as noted by legal BPDs, legal counsel today, when members of the public call to have access to it because they're calling the police to ask for access to their own footage.

Instead, having more power to a third-party oversight agency, which Boston has, but you have to give that agency power to enable to enact on these policies.

These would be steps in the right direction of ensuring trust and legitimacy in organizations like the Boston Police Department.

And is there evidence that proactive release policies rather than case-by-case decisions improve public confidence and trust?

I can't comment directly on that.

I have not seen the research literature that supports evidence one way or the other.

That said, this type of proactive transparency, I think uh certainly leads us in the direction of trust and legitimacy in police.

Because, as we're routinely told by police administrators, the majority of police officers are good people doing the right thing.

Therefore, when there's a bad police officer doing something bad, police administrators should be absolutely forthright in providing this data immediately to the public so that they can show that they are weeding out the bad apples, as it were, to ensure that the majority of police officers remain uh good people with integrity.

One last question.

What would you recommend to a city like Boston that has invested millions in technology, but it's still working through how to govern access and release?

I think much of what we heard today is a step in the right direction.

We need the Boston Police Department and the police commissioner to come forward uh with yourselves and oversight agency and sit down and have an agreement over what transparency means and what accountability means and what the members of the community members of the city of Boston want those things to mean.

So, for example, I gather today from the conversations and testimony, it sounds like to me that the individuals in this room are interested in having a timeline uh that's enshrined in policy for releasing body worn camera footage to the public, right?

The city councilors, I think they seem to be in universal consensus about this.

That's one example of putting that into the policy 405 of the BPD.

So taking the policy and amending it as a result of this testimony, I think would be one step in the right direction.

And as I noted, and I want to be very clear here, body worn camera programs are only as good as the policies.

And in Boston, if you have policies that are vague or don't say anything about a timeline for release of body worn camera footage to the public, well, then you're not going to get any sort of expedient release of body worn camera footage to the public, and the city counselors and members of the communities in Boston are going to be upset because this seems based on what I've heard to be incongruent with understandings of transparency in the city of Boston.

Thank you, Dr.

Snyder, and thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Counselor Culpepper.

Um, and thank you, Dr.

Schneider.

Um, really appreciate your remarks.

Do you have any um yeah?

Um thank you for your remarks.

Um, I'm gonna go back and review review the tape, and you know, from what I heard uh clearly from you is that you know there needs to be clearer timelines for the city of Boston, um, especially since we have the Office of Police Accountability and Transparency here.

Um and and I get I guess the question I do have is around have you had a chance to take a look at the ordinance for OPAT?

Um have you had a chance to take a look at it yet?

Uh OPAT office, the ordinance around that.

Uh I have not yet, but I suspect that I probably will.

I have been in touch with several city counselors, and we've talked about uh working with one another moving forward uh in relation to looking to amend the policy to be consistent with, for example, a time to release the body worn camera footage, uh, but also helping to strengthen OPAT uh to ensure that trust and accountability or trust and legitimacy rather in the Boston police department uh is is maintained and strengthened.

Yeah, I I would love to be part of those conversations because I you know missed uh executive director Cavallo's um testimony and wasn't able to ask them any questions, but you know, I do believe that their involvement and in the oversight of these investigations uh need to be reworked in that ordinance to um really live up uh to the accountability and transparency part um in which they were established for.

So would love to hear your feedback after you take a look at uh the ordinance to make sure that you know we're strengthening it and more in line with all the other reform that's been taking place across the country.

But what I've heard clearly from you uh so far is uh that timelines uh need to be established and to be clearly defined in any process revolving body worn camera footage.

Yes, you know, I'm very happy with the help.

So we can reach out at any time.

Thank you.

Counselor Cole Bepper.

Dr.

Snyder, what's the name of that book?

Your book again?

I didn't get police body worn cameras media.

It's called police body worn cameras media and the new discourse of police reform.

Okay, and that was published with Rutledge in January of this year.

So it is available.

Thank you so much, Dr.

Snyder.

Counselor War.

Um, I do have another question.

It's around you know, settlements coming from any city's police department.

Uh have you seen uh settlements go down in cities where you know that transparency or that timeline has been has been created, like what trying to gauge I know there's you know the public accountability and trust part um that you know resident um you know get from the transparency side, um, but in terms of you know city finances, do we see you know that dollar amount for settlement you know decrease in in cities where that timeline has been created?

I mean it's difficult to say, you know, I would say um no.

When we look at body worn camera programs across the United States, uh, as I noted, what this what has occurred is documentation of police use of force, police violence, um wrongful death lawsuits, and if anything, we've seen settlements go up.

And this is I think really problematic because on the one hand, you have members like civilians, taxpaying citizens who are funding body worn cameras to the tune of millions of dollars of year.

Mostly this is in relation to data storage in large cities like Boston.

And on the other hand, when there is a wrongful debt lawsuit and a ruling, and there are payouts to uh victims' families, as there should be, these payouts often also come from city coffers, right?

So you have taxpaying citizens funding the cameras and funding the payouts.

All the while the research is fairly clear that most police officers, even when they're found guilty of wrongful deaths or other police misconduct, are rarely fired and very rarely jailed.

So Derek Chauvin, who murdered George Floyd is an exception.

He is in prison for his crime.

But when we look across uh different findings, we often do not see this.

And this becomes an issue, I think, for a cost-benefit analysis for citizens who are putting the bill.

There are other ideas.

We outline uh a couple of best practices and suggestions at the end of our book.

One of those would be, for example, requiring police officers to carry professional liability insurance, much like we do with school bus drivers, doctors, pilots, and so on.

The idea being that offending officers say engaged in brutality or misconduct, if they were determined to have engaged in misconduct following an investigation.

So I'm not talking about an allegation that individual officers' premiums would go up over time.

Re-offending officers would no longer be able to afford their premiums, and they would no longer be police officers.

Therefore, we would have no bad apples any longer and only be left with good police officers.

And again, if we take police administrators at their word that most police officers are good and moral people doing the right thing, having them required to carry professional liability insurance would presumably impact very few, if any, police officers.

Thank you for um that idea.

Definitely gonna dive into that.

Uh, but thank you for your time.

And I'm gonna get the name of the book from our counsel Reverend Uh Cole Pepper.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Warrow.

And again, uh I want to thank Dr.

Schneider for joining us today and answering our questions.

Um, I would also like to be included in the conversations about strengthening um uh OPAT and then see how we can strengthen that ordinance.

So I will be speaking with my council colleagues and um but yeah, thank you for joining us.

I will dismiss um uh this panel now.

Um I am being told that we have no public testimony.

So I just want to uh I want to thank both the lead sponsors, Councilor Cole Pepper and Council Morrell for filing.

I want to thank all three of our panels today for joining us.

Um, and I want to thank the public who was here and who's tuning in at home as well for for joining us.

Um, this hearing on document number 0638 is adjourned.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.