Well, I'll be here.

Oh, we've got to be able to do that.

Who else would we do?

Oh, but I can't remember.

Uh, what if you're going to have it?

It's not like that.

I don't know if there is a little bit of it.

Okay.

My name is Henry Santana.

At large city counselor, and I'm the chair of the Boston City Council Committee on public safety and criminal justice.

Today is May twenty second, twenty twenty six.

The exact time is ten eighteen AM.

This hearing is being recorded.

It is also being live streamed at Boston.gov slash city-council-tv and broadcasted on Xfinity Channel 8, RCN Channel 82, and Files Channel 964.

We're in comments maybe sent to the committee email at C CCC.ps at Boston.gov.

And we'll be with part of the record and available to our 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 will have two minutes to testify.

If you're interested in testifying in person, please add your name to the sign-up sheet near the entrance of the chamber.

If you are looking to testify virtually, please email our central staff liaison ShanePack at Shane Dalpak at Boston.gov for the link and your name will be added to the list.

Excuse me.

Today's hearing is on docket number 0638.

Order for a hearing to examine the Boston Police Department's protocols for releasing police body camera and dashboard camera footage.

This matter was sponsored by Counselor Menure Culpepper and Brian Morrell and was referred to the committee on March 25th, 2026.

Today I am joined by my colleagues in order of arrival.

Counselor Culpepper and Councillor Fitzgerald.

Um the opportunity to my colleagues to give opening statements.

I'll introduce today's panelists and we'll go into questions.

So counselor Cole Pepper, you have the floor.

Good morning, and thank you, Chair Santana.

Thank you to my co-sponsor, Constable Rao.

Thank you, Commissioner, for thank you, Commissioner, and for the Boston Police Department leadership and members of the public for being here today.

And good to see you, Commissioner.

Glad that we can have this conversation, in my opinion, a very important one.

Some time ago, Boston made the investment in body one cameras, and I believe we've 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 footage, but far less clear when it comes to releasing it.

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

And under Boston Police Department Rule 405, that authority is with the commissioner.

At the same time, there is no defined time for releasing footage after critical incidents, and no mandate that it'll be released to OPEC, even upon their request.

There's no public-facing framework that explains how those decisions are made, and there is no guaranteed access for oversight bodies and or elected officials.

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

When 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.

I will end with this quote from then Boston Police Commissioner William Evans, discussing release policies, the body won cameras footage after the 2015 police involved shooting death of Andrew Low West.

This is what Commissioner Evans said.

Can't have it both ways.

It can't happen when things are good, and we're going to have to do it when things are bad too.

And so, Commissioner.

When Commissioner Evans made that statement, that was when Angelo West was involved in that police involved shooting.

I think Angelo was shot and killed at that time.

But my point, and I guess the point from Commissioner Evans is you can't release the video with police involved shootings when it shows that the police officer acted uh appropriate or and you can't have it when things will show that they didn't.

Uh and we'll talk more about 405 and the release by the hands.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Councillor Cole Pepper.

Counselor Fitzgerald, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh, just want to thank you guys for being here for agreeing to come in.

Uh, it's an important thing.

Really, this is a to me an education hearing about just what the protocols are and make sure everyone has an understanding uh of what we can be asked, what cannot be asked, and and what the answers to those questions are.

So I thank you guys here for coming to explain that today.

Thank you, Council Fitzgerald.

I would not like to introduce today's panelists.

Um with us today, we have Michael Cox, the commissioner of the Boston Police Department, Nicole Toob, Chief of Staff with the Boston Police Department, David Um Freddie, General Counselor with the Boston Police Department, and Paul McLaughlin, superintendent with the Bureau of Investigative Services with the Boston Police Department.

Um really appreciate you all being here this Friday morning to answer our questions.

I'll turn it over to you all for any opening remarks or presentation you want to give, and I'll turn it back over to my council colleagues for questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I don't have any open remarks.

I just wanted to make sure we're here to answer any questions that weren't previously answered in the other hearing.

I I we always want to make sure we're clear uh to the public around expectations that they might have from us.

So um feel free.

Awesome.

Well, thank you, Commissioner.

Again, really appreciate uh you being with us here today and your team.

Um we've also been joined by Councillor Lee Gen.

Um we're gonna start with counselor questions.

We're gonna do seven minutes per counselor, one do a second round if needed, um, starting with the lead sponsor, Counselor Culpepper.

Um, you have seven minutes.

Counselor Lu Jenna, if you have an opening statement before, yeah.

Just quickly.

Um, uh good morning everyone.

Thank you for being here.

I know that you have a very busy schedules, um, and also that this is a very important topic.

So we're happy to uh that you were able to make it that we were to collaborate and work together, the city council and the administration to find a date and time that's appropriate for you to be here with us.

Um I think it's important for us to make sure that we know what the procedures and policy are regarding um uh police who embody camera footage, and I'm looking forward to the conversation today.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, and thank you to the sponsor, Council Culpepper.

Thank you, Councilor Gen.

We're gonna go to counselor questions, seven minutes, um, starting with the lead sponsor, Councilor Cole Pepper, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Commissioner, under uh national laws chapter 38, section four, dealing with death investigations, uh, it says that the district attorney or his law enforcement representative shall direct and control the investigation of the death and shall coordinate with the office of the medical examiner and the police department with whose jurisdiction the death occurred and and so from chapter 38.

That gives the district attorney the authority to direct and control the investigations, and he coordinates with you, isn't that correct?

I think what's correct is this in any investigation there has to be a lead.

Certainly the prosecutor, the DA is the lead uh for the Commonwealth, at least in Suffolk County.

Anything to do with homicide investigations, so we're part of a criminal justice system.

He's the lead on homicide cases.

I work in conjunction with him to make sure that they can prosecute cases, but they can only be one lead.

Right, but you're coordinating with him, whether he's the lead or not, you are coordinating with him.

Yes.

And so the court has your own.

Yes.

Um set of guidelines or authority within 38, chapter 38.

I just as I described it prior, that he is the lead uh certainly um authority for all homicide investigations in that in the county, and we work with him to help him facilitate his doing his job as a prosecutor.

As part of a team.

Yes.

He is the lead because that he has the authority.

And under 405, is that based on any law under uh what you just quoted?

Rule 405.

Is that based on law?

Are you talking about a department rule?

Right, right, right.

What what part of the rules, sir?

Just 405.

I'm gonna get to the specific part.

If if you have if it's something in here that is based on the law, I just wanted to talk about whether there is or not.

I I don't know specifically what you're asking if there's a there's a there's a part of that if there's another agency in control of an investigation, that's a reference to 384.

Um they would dictate whether or not somebody could review the buttons.

So there are references to it, um, but it's a pretty expansive.

But I didn't see any references in 405 to chapter 38.

And my question is chapter 38 is the Boston Police Department's rule that they created independent of chapter 38.

Yes, sir.

And 405 is uh list the commissioners' responsibility and authority within uh dealing with body cameras.

That's the policy that deals with the body camps.

You're asking about our our internal rule.

Right, it's 405, right?

Yes, and in 405, there's no timeline for releasing body cam footage, is there?

There is not.

There's not.

And when an investigation is ongoing, uh, the decision whether a body cam is released or not is determined on a case by case basis, upon request, they're all determined on a case-by-case basis, yes, sir.

To go back to your previous question, yeah.

Counselor Culpepper, just on the point of when the body cam footage is released, Section 8.2 of the rule specifically addresses public information requests and notes that public information requests submitted under Mass General Law, Chapter 66, Section 10, which is the state public record statute, uh, will be complied with in accordance with all applicable state laws and regulations.

So it ties directly the release of body camera footage upon request to the state public records law as to what can and can't be.

I understand that I understand that part.

Uh but but I wanted to let's let's turn to 6.2 since we're looking at 405.

Under 6.2, 6.2 deals with uh an officer involved either uh discharge of a weapon, uh, an officer that may have witnessed an incident, uh, or an officer who was involved in the incident.

Is that correct?

Commissioner?

Yeah, who's answering the commissioner or attorney?

Or both of you?

So when we come to the hearings, we bring our, you know, basically uh the authorities and the air in the in the areas which you might ask questions to help assist me certainly.

You mean your lawyer?

No, that's I look.

So Dave is certainly the yeah, he can say that is our chief uh is our um, you know, certainly our uh counsel, uh Nicole is my chief of staff, and Paul McGarthon is the superintendent in charge of Bureau of Investigative Services, and so um I I I will say this for the public.

The police department has department heads that actually run the day-to-day activities, and I'm overall responsible for those.

So authority rests with you, you but those are the subject matter experts in each particular with regard to body cams, you're the one that has the authority to the either release it or not to release it.

Yes.

And when you look at 6.2, it deals with officer access to footage following an officer involved death, officer involved shooting, or the use of deadly force, and it's 6.2.

So what's the question?

That's what it deals with, deals with officer involved deaths, often involved shootings, or involved, involves officers' use of deadly force.

Yes, 6.2 refers to the access to the to the footage, yes.

And if we move down to the third paragraph, it talks about uh how the body moon foot footage is allowed for the officer to either review it or to review it with his attorney.

The third paragraph.

Yeah.

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

Ms.

Commissioner?

So I'm gonna are you referring to when it says at the time determined by the supervisor in charge of investigation officers who are one involved in the incident, two discharge their weapon, or three witness the incident, may view their own view, I mean video before giving a statement.

Right.

The officer's attorney may be present when the officer views the video.

So my question is the officer can come in and review the body worn footage after whether there's a death involved or not a death involved, either way, the officer can come in and review the footage of the body cam.

As determined by the supervisor in charge of the investigation at the time.

Oh, your designee.

As determined by the supervisor in charge of the investigation at the time.

Well, the supervisor is your design.

My question is the officer can come in, review the video.

Am I correct?

When if the supervisor says he can come in, yes, there he goes.

And he can bring his attorney with him also, can't he?

If the supervisor says that he can bring his attorney in.

And involved in one of these incidents?

That's what it says.

Officer's attorney may be present when the officer views the video.

My question is the officer can also bring his attorney in.

It's private attorney to view.

If under the circumstances it's the supervisor, if it's deemed appropriate by the supervisor.

Thank you, Mr.

Commission.

I'll pick up all my second round of questioning.

We're just getting started.

Okay.

Thank you, Councillor Cole Pepper.

Counselor Fitzgerald, you have something.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh again.

Sorry about that.

Uh again, thank you all for being here.

Um the protocols for releasing the body camera and dashboard camera footage in total.

I think uh uh Reverend Culpepper's gonna do a great job at getting the middle of that.

I'd like to provide sort of a larger spectrum uh so folks understand what happens.

Could you please tell me uh, you know, for body cams and dash cams, when does a police officer turn them on, turn them off?

Uh when when they give them back uh at the end of the shift, what happens to these cameras, uh, how are they charged?

How long does that take?

Just sort of the basic protocols uh prior to anything being released.

So I don't believe currently we don't have any dash cameras used in the department.

So certainly with body camera, they're issued they issue um certainly they're supposed to have them when they come to work, police patrol officers.

Uh uh when they go to calls, they must turn them on uh upon receiving the call while driving there, and they remain on until the they are finished with the activity or the call.

Also, they would turn them on if uh they encounter any type of police citizen intercounter where certainly their police powers are uh are being used uh around that again, but to keep it on until the end of the interaction uh when they're actually leaving uh the area uh at the end of the day that their body worn cameras are docked and the information from those cameras are uploaded uh into our system where that information is is kept uh and the officers tag that information with a with a number or incident number uh so that they can uh reference it for future.

And that stays permanently, uh it's not a you know, after 30 days or after you like some things that there's no is there a delete timeline or anything on anything?

There is a retention schedule in Rule 405.

Quick.

So and um it would uh delete automatically.

I think the the shortest timeline is a year, and we follow the state guidelines for the retention of video in that.

Um, and every officer, every patrol officer has two cameras.

Um early on, one of the issues was the battery life of these cameras.

A lot of times these officers are ordered to work a second and overtime shift, and the battery life wasn't long enough, so now uh the battery lives have improved, but they also have two cameras, um, so one can be charging while uh the they have the other one on while they're working.

And so does it depends how it is tagged in terms of the the deletion deadline.

Uh I mean there are certain and and how is that decided what stays permanent and what says after a year?

Uh is there any like just that what is the protocol of saying, oh, this incident or this this video specifically, nothing happened.

They can be gone in a year, or this one uh, you know, depending on X, uh, is why it'll be stayed uh permanently.

I think you've answered the question.

It's what type of call it is.

Um, for instance, if there's an arrest, if there's not an arrest, um, and um, you know, if it's if it's a felony, there's different categories it falls in for the retention.

Um, I think if it's a felony arrest, it's actually kept indefinitely okay until manually deleted.

The others are on more of a retention schedule.

Awesome.

Just if it's helpful, counselor, in the rule specifically, section nine lays out the from one year to indefinite and the specific categories of incident that fall within those times.

All right, so if I if I if I want to look up detailed, I can check that out.

And what rule is that?

Rule 405, rule 405.

Yep.

Awesome.

Thank you very much.

Uh, I won't need the remaining part of my time.

Uh I'll I'll leave the yield that back.

But thank you, Chair.

And again, thank you guys for coming here.

Thank you.

Thank you, Counselor Fitzgerald.

Jen, you have the floor.

Thank you, and thanks again for coming here.

Um I wanted to have uh several different threads that I want to uh sort of explore.

Um just the policy of being able to review a body worn camera footage in general, um, what under what circumstances?

So I'm I'm let me not do that.

Let me just um read what it says.

If an officer requests access to footage be made available, uh officer access to their own footage, officers may review their own BWC recording when they are involved in an incident for the purpose of completing an investigation and preparing official reports.

So there are times, like if they're writing a police report, there are times when they can review the body worn camera footage before they complete that police report.

Have you ever looked at a situation where I'm sure there have been some studies done?

Because I think that you probably would want to do some studies here where you have a control group and a non-control group, um, where you look at what does that police report look like in the situation where the officer did not review the footage, and what is a police report look like when they review the footage.

Has there been any sort of studies to look at what the difference is between what the reports look like?

So I I'm not familiar with what the study where it shows a report what the report would look like versus what it wouldn't.

Uh, there is some research or uh on, particularly through I think police um the executive um perf.

Yeah, the research form, I'm sorry, uh, where they looked at actual having officers write police reports and then um actually have them look at the body camera footage to see if the if that's sort of what I'm getting at too to to do that, and um yes, that there is some st some studies or research around that particular area.

And what do those studies show?

I mean, it's different theories around it, uh, where you know uh one thing that I don't know if people understand from time to time that um, you know, depending on the trauma involved or what have you, that your memory sometimes is impacted by that's why eyewitness testimony is often deemed to not be the most reliable form of certainly there's you know there's some issues.

Police officer are not it doesn't matter, it's humans, right?

Exactly.

We hire from the human race, so this applies to everybody, which I try to emphasize all the time.

Yes, um, yes, that you know, it's you can be impacted by trauma, which your memory and things of that nature where our video recording records what it records.

Yeah, so I'll just just be on the record that I don't I'm not a fan of this policy that allows for review of the footage prior to completing the police report because I think that it's important for us to know how to work what biases or what issues we need to work on if people are able to people not officers are able to review a video to jog their memory of what happened.

Um, and so I just wanted to state that it's not directly related to this issue, but um I think it's um we've, you know, oftentimes police reports are treated as you know, truth, and I understand how reviewing of the body camera could help to get to that truth, um, but allowing for police reports that are just based on memory can help us both expose issues when it comes to how we remember and how we accept certain authority or not, like who is who is the truth teller in the situation and depending on that camera to get there, I think uh has some sort of a level of unfairness in it.

I don't know if I'm making sense, but it has like a level of unfairness in it that makes me uncomfortable.

I would probably add that um you know human memory and things of that nature, that's a whole nother research area.

Um but the fact is this is not just about you know, is the officer telling the truth.

They make reference to it because they're having long conversations with people, people are making witness statements.

Um, you know, uh, they might not be able to note down all the things that are there.

So reviewing it actually helps them portray an accurate depiction of what someone said, what happened, the events that occurred, that has nothing to do with the police officer, it just has to do with all the stuff going on around them and people witnessing it.

So it's it's fairly you know a little bit more complex about what you capture in body video and things that nature, but the fact is uh, you know, overall it is probably you know more helpful than not than not having it out there when you're totally relying on trying to take notes, trying to remember what someone said, um, you know, you could be distracted when people are talking.

And it happens quite often, particularly when emotions are high.

And I have two more minutes left.

I forgot that I actually have a lot more questions.

I'm actually not debating the reliability of the.

I think you understand what I'm getting at.

It's not the reliability of the cameras, because I understand that, but I think that could be helpful in the work of policing generally to have those before and after police report.

What does a police report look like before you review the footage?

What does a police report look like after you review the footage?

I think it can be helpful.

Yes, you may, as long as the chair gives me more time.

Just to add to the the um situation where in our rule it addresses their ability to look at the video.

Um but in fatal, fatal counters.

I understood, yeah.

The district attorney's office policy is that they do not look at the video.

So in any time that someone is fatally shot or likely to die, the DA's office would exert their death investigation uh authority and and change that.

So yeah, I remember that we teased that out at the last hearing and made that clear, but I do appreciate sort of reiterating um that point, um, just a few um other questions that I had regarding this this policy.

Um, what circumstances currently allow officers to yet to deactivate cameras during an active scene, victim interviews, hospital encounters, private residences, or any sensitive investigations?

Just those exceptions she just said within the rule.

Um, in someone's home and they ask for it to happen, uh although if it's a you know, hostile scene, things that nature, it's the officer has discretion to keep it on.

Um, but certainly when you're going in the uh hospital settings um, you know, um, you know, settings where it's probably not appropriate to have it on, we have it um, you know, carve-outs for it in our room.

Section 2.8 of the rule lays out the circumstances in which an officer can deactivate the camera, and then there's also a requirement if you deactivate, there's a reporting requirement that comes along with it to explain the reasoning behind it.

Thank you.

Um the next question is about um OPAT access.

Um, OPAT has indicated that there are circumstances where access can be limited because of ongoing criminal matters.

Are there events that automatically trigger OPAT review access?

And should we can if not, should we consider independent reviewing authority during uh during critical incidents?

That's a that's also a question I think that you some folks have been asking in in media reports, so um, you know, what's it to CR?

Yeah, the internal fairs oversight panel, when they certainly review um our our cases that we have seen, they have access to everything that we have access, and so you know, certainly high profile events, things that nature uh they they would absolutely you know have access to that through that uh portion of it.

Uh the other portion of OPAT, if it's a case, I don't think believe uh outside of cases that they've that they've uh started, you know, um and work with us.

I don't know if we have a mechanism to show them other than for regular FOIA requests like the regular world.

Yeah, if if OPAT through the CRB is investigating a complaint where there's body camera footage, production of the footage to OPAP follows the same criteria as to whether or not it would impact an ongoing investigation or fall within one of the other exemptions.

So they don't have any special status that gives them access to footage that would differ from if a member of the public or member of this body were to inquire.

Yeah, and then though the ensuing question is should there be uh separate level of access that is not separate from, right?

That is as a police accountability or some sort of independent authority that has review powers in a way that is different than the public.

I know what your answer is, but I mean, I'm so as I may mention before, you know, previously like there's another subsection of OPEC, which I think is important when they review our internal Freos work, they have total access to what we do, how we do it, video things that nature.

Um previous, I was in charge of it's a while ago before this version of OPEP was there.

Uh we worked, you know, quite well with that review.

And so certainly high-profile cases, you know, when we did them, we would we let them review the work that we did after the fact, uh, and it was uh, you know, I thought it was quite productive, and and usually they reviewed it just as they do now to determine whether it was fair, thorough uh investigations uh that occurred and uh it usually worked quite well back then.

Okay, thank you.

Um you are moving on.

I do have I am uh I'll wait till I'll I'll wait till the next round.

It's fine.

I know thank you, Council.

I'll wait till the next round.

Thank you.

Thank you, Counselor Luigi and Council Weber, you have the floor.

Or we've been joined by Counselor Weber as well.

But we have seven minutes.

Okay, it would be strange if I was asking questions that I wasn't here.

But uh, okay, so just in terms of like the rules like promulgation process, like you know, how how do you how did these rules get developed?

And then I guess my follow-up would be you know, this rule in particular, Commissioner, when you came on as a did you revise this?

Has it changed?

Um the um body one camera rule.

Yeah, yeah, sorry, yeah.

Rule 40405 uh and yeah.

Yeah, so it has been updated on those lines.

Yeah, updated January 15th, 2025.

Okay, what would what parts which parts now?

I can't, you know, just anything relevant to this discussion that I mean so when I assume the police commissioner has to sign off on the rules in some way.

I don't know, Chris.

Yeah, so a gentleman section one general considerations, third paragraph was edited, section 2.2 uh camera activation and incident use, fourth paragraph was edited.

Uh section 2.8, body one camera deactivation, uh bullet number five is new.

Uh section 2.9, special activation factors uh have been retitled and bulleted numbers 12 through 15 are new.

Section 2.10, officers assigned to federal task force, that's a new section.

Section 3.1 officers responsibility, third paragraph is new.

Section 5, supervisors responsibility is a new section title with unit commanders being added.

Uh section 5.2, district and unit commander officers, the design last sentence is new.

Commanding officers shall ensure that the ordinary yeah, that's it.

And just for reference, that list can be found on our website, please stop awesome.gov under our rules and procedures section.

If you download the body camera rule, the proceeding order will delineate the changes.

Okay.

I guess just so the I mean this rule was in place before the you know generally it's been revised, but um like does the z does every new police commissioner, and I'm almost asking your uh other people on the panel, just take a revise the rules or at least have that opportunity.

So I would say that's probably should look at it to review it just to make sure that rules are up to date, um, that they're not outdated in some way, particularly if you change any of your protocols around it or any aspect of it, you have to, you know, revise the rule.

Okay.

Um I guess so uh in that like 6.2 section on uh you know, there's a incident if uh officer involved death, or I can't remember the the term, the words.

So again, like what is the reason why the officer fire who who discharges their weapon should review the footage before making their report.

Why is it in the rule?

Yeah, like what what just you know, like what's the there's the policy reason why we'd want that.

So it's in the rule that was in there for contractual reason.

I wasn't the commissioner when that portion was put in.

Um, so that's from collective bargaining.

That's part of that section about their access to it, yes.

Okay, I mean, to to me, i uh the I feel like the reason would be the somebody's potential like you know, potentially criminally liable and before you know, sort of like give them due process or something, you know, I but I from so that might be a reason.

That to me that, you know, maybe you just bargain it, but it's like somebody may be going to prison, so you know, maybe they want to have be represented throughout that entire process uh but I can speculate, but I wasn't there for the rule.

Well the rule says that it's the investigator in charge of the investigation will make that determination.

There's a possibility that somebody is going to be police officers gonna be criminally charged.

I think it a conversation would be had at that point of whether or not that person's gonna be able to see the video before they make a statement.

But that I just yeah, again, so that that's bargained in the collective bargaining agreement, and uh that that's something that you're just that's why that's in there.

It's part of it's part of the rulemaking the bargaining with the uh collective bargaining units is part of the rulemaking process.

If it's got any impact on the employees, we have an obligation to bargain.

So that's one part of the um formulation of the rule, is our obligation to sit and talk with the unions.

Okay, I and I'll clarify, I just want to make this clear.

We have an obligation to bargain, but they you know we we do make the rules for our our officers.

Yeah, but I mean, so but if it impacts them, we'd absolutely have a obligation to bargain around that.

But um, you know, we we own the rules and regulations of the police department.

Well, aside from that, if if I'm just my guesses, I mean there are the there may be a fifth amendment issue, is you know something, you know, with somebody writing a statement that might get get you know result in criminal uh conviction.

But to what I don't that then the second part of that or the third subpart of that is that witnesses to the discharge of the the shooting also get to review the video before that.

I don't I don't get the justification other than you know I don't see the policy reason for why we'd want a witness to view the video before they made a statement.

You mean witness police officer?

It's uh if you look at the rule, I think it says uh the people who can who can review the video before issuing their statement includes and it's three.

It's like anyone involved, anyone who discharge their weapon and any witness, uh my witnessed the incident, you know, is the number three um may view their own video before giving a statement.

And it just seemed like that.

I'm just I'm trying to like just make an argument for why you'd like to.

But it's their own.

They don't get to view the other anybody else.

They get to just view their own.

Yeah, that's that's you were saying something that was not there.

Okay, okay.

I was like, oh my god, is that in there?

No, no.

But it's not they view their own, but I also I don't I I I they're they're if they're witnessing it, they're not there's not the same Fifth Amendment.

I mean, there's not implicating their own criminal liability if they're just the purpose of the access to the of allowing them to see it is to review you know their uh statements and and things that they've done, not someone else's.

Okay, just lastly before my time runs out.

Do any of these rules contemplate like the a grand jury involvement?

Um, like did you would in in this, you know, in this i king incident, did you like were the rules, do they provide you any guidance for how to how to deal with this question of what do we do during a grand jury investigation?

Um in which way?

What I don't know.

In terms of the there is some sort of confidentiality that comes with the grand jury investigation that is not your policy it's not you know it's not necessarily governed by your rules how I just want to make clear are you referring to release the body camera are you referring to statements of officers I'm not sure I'm I we're here talking about body camera so I'm talking about police of body camera I mean did you do the rules need an update for I do the rules contemplate a situation where the in an officer involved shooting the officer was before the grand jury for that shooting at the same at the same time so in a particular case particularly if it's uh you know uh an incident certainly uh where there's a death involved the officer doesn't have access or would not review the body cam footage well I meant the public uh the public the public having access uh I'll say this uh in and this is um you know hopefully clarifies a little bit more so um you know the criminal justice system is a pretty high level of accountability when we're enforcing laws that they there's no higher level of accountability that there is our primary purpose when we're investigating is the the accountability piece that we're trying to get to if there's anything that's going to interfere or potentially jeopardize our ability to hold people accountable in the criminal justice system that is not going to be released it's not going to be shown it's not going to be shared because the accountability piece is the primary purpose that you're trying to do right around that and that's why when you see carve outs for investigations when there's a current investigations it's because the investigation is the primary factor around the accountability piece that you're there for because when you bring someone in the criminal justice system all of those other things the transparency comes forward all of that information comes out and is shown in it but the fact is we need to make sure that we do all we can to hold whoever it is accountable for whatever laws that might have been broken around that and so that is the purpose of you know when you see those carve outs where the current investigation uh will this get in in the way of our ability to hold people accountable for whatever you know charges that may have been you know uh violated uh and we don't want anything to impact the investigation to do that.

Yeah just just one quick follow up thank you chair is just um I mean I guess based after recent events like do you do you want to do you think the rules need to be revised or do you think the rules like gave you the framework to make this you know to make your decisions or whatever decisions had to be so I say I think we always have to look at our rules and policies and and to see if they reflect the best practices of what's going on in the world.

Um investigations particularly death investigations I I think the rule is it's fairly appropriate for what we're trying to do the investigation is paramount about what we're you know as far as making sure we're holding whoever it is accountable for potential uh violations of the law um the everything that we do particularly around around at least the body cameras described before uh is i i you know our policy is based and it's already been mentioned multiple times is based on the uh on the um public records laws around that and so if there's an active investigation that might interfere it won't be released the second that we're done with that it will be released and so remember the primary purpose is to hold people accountable and if there's something that might jeopardize that or our ability to do it well then we're gonna hold back and not release it until uh that's been determined that the investigation is uh is fairly sure short on around that okay and thank you chair for letting me go over uh I'll make sure to afford you the same courtesy.

Thank you, Councillor Weber.

Well now we'll go into a second round of questions.

I'm starting with the lead sponsor, Councillor Culpepper.

You have seven minutes.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Commissioner, I just wanted to follow up on the question by counselor Weber with regard to officers involved in a um police involved death.

That the officers have the right to come in to review the body on camera footage.

Am I correct?

And an officer involved that involves the death.

Let me just read this back to you.

If it's the body, you just said it answers.

No.

At a time determined by the supervisor of the investigation, officers who were involved in the incident, and this is a section dealing with an officer involved death.

Officers who were involved in the incident, officers who discharge your weapon, or officers who witness the incident, may view their own video before giving a statement.

And so from that statement, the officers can come in and view review their video before even giving a statement.

Isn't that correct?

That's what it says here, Mr.

Commissioner.

Further, at the officer's request, if an officer says I want my attorney in there to review the footage too, this says that he can have his attorney with him when the officer views the video.

That's what it says right here.

Isn't that correct?

Um, the bottom, the last paragraph under 6.2.

6.2, the bottom paragraph.

It's not the bot, it's actually the third, not the bottom paragraph.

It's the last paragraph on the page.

It's 6.2.

We're not reading from the same page, right?

That's all.

Right.

You're in 6.2, right?

Yes.

Paragraph 3, you're referring to it.

Right.

On my page, it's the last one.

But there's a fourth paragraph to that 6.2.

Not on my page, but we've got different pages.

But the question is.

Right, right.

But if the supervisor says to the officer involved, I approve you coming in to view the video.

The officer can come in and review his video before giving a statement.

Isn't that correct?

They could.

They could.

If authorized.

His attorney can also come in with him to review the footage.

According to the rule, if or according to the rule, if that.

But that would not be the case.

And in this case, and we realize that the Boston Police Department controls all evidence.

Isn't that correct?

Well, certainly if we're investigating the scene, we would probably.

Mr.

Commissioner, isn't that correct?

You control all evidence.

No, wait a minute.

So a death investigation, again, is under the purview.

But you control the evidence with regard to the death investigation.

Is that correct?

In conjunction with the district attorney.

But you control the evidence according to 405.

In fact, the district attorney has to request that you release the body cam in order for the district attorney to get the body cam.

Isn't that correct?

If your question is, do we retrieve it?

Yes, we're investigators, so we actually retrieve the evidence in conjunction with the district attorney so he can review all the evidence.

But my question is because you control all the evidence, any law enforcement personnel, including the district attorney, has to come to you to make a request to get the body cam.

It's right in 405.

We share, if certainly the evidence that we retrieved on behalf of the district attorney with him, but it's not that simple because remember, you know, there's search warrants involved where you have to go to a judge.

There's other uh means and things that we have to do.

It says right here under 8.1 prosecutorial law enforcement access, federal state, local prosecutors shall make requests for body one camera footage directly to the video evidence unit.

Correct.

So they have to come to you, the district attorney, to even view body cam footage.

It's our system, so yes, we would have to share it.

And in the case of Mr.

King, the and and I'm I'm so I'm happy that the family finally got a chance to review the body cam footage.

But you agree that he could the district attorney could show it to Mr.

King's family.

Isn't that correct?

If you had said no, he could now, isn't that because you have the final authority with regard to who views the body cam footage?

Isn't that correct?

No, as again, we retrieve the uh information for the prosecutor for the purpose of the prosecution.

Once it's in their hands, it's you know, their evidence is.

Isn't that correct?

We have uh, you know, evidence around body camera footage, yes.

And there's no timeline for releasing it with regard to any of the prosecutors, there's no timeline in here whatsoever with regard to releasing the body cam footage.

I'm not really sure I understand your question now.

Well, let me let me move to another topic.

Let me move to another.

Let me see if I can make it clearer, particularly if there's public out there listening.

If something happens, we as possible.

I'm not talking about the public right now.

I'm just trying to get to the and give it in in conjunction with the prosecutor, Mr.

Commissioner.

Let me see if I can make it clear for you.

It was not for me, but I think it's important that people who are listening.

I'm trying to make it clear.

In an article in the Huntington News, this is what it says.

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

While no one policy is perfect, some are better than others.

Chicago civilian officer police abound ability is an exemplary model of solid policy with regard to body cameras and offers guidance for Boston, whereas, and this is going right to 405 in the Huntington News, whereas in Boston Rule 405, it stipulates that the body cameras is the sole property of the Boston Police Department and shall not be released without authorization of the commissioner.

Astonishingly, even Boston's own police oversight has been denied access to the footage of King's killing.

And so my question is simply this.

So uh that rule in reference to the sole, you know, no anybody can do it.

Here's my question, Mr.

Commissioner.

Can I just because of the it's important because I don't want to do that?

I think it's all important, I really do.

But my question is internal.

It's info five, and that's the rule for all the people that work in the police department that they cannot take pictures, body camera stuff, and send it out to YouTube and things that nature.

So it's a rule saying no one has authorization to release body camera other than police commissioner.

Right.

Sharing evidence with the prosecutor is a whole bunch.

My question is, is there a timeline?

For example, New York releases body cam footage in 45 days.

In 405, is there any timeline with which body cam footage can be released?

Not within that rule, but I told you our policy is within the public records law.

So basically, if there's nothing, it's a commission.

There's nothing prohibiting.

Can I get a yes or no to my question?

I'm trying to do that.

Is there a timeline?

I don't need to give an answer, I need to give uh explanation that people can understand.

But I would say, I will try to do that.

Let me and let me ask the question to try and get a quick answer because my time is up.

How about a third?

Is there a timeline in 405 where body cam footage can be released?

We release our body cam footage using public record law.

So if there's no exceptions, people can request the body cam footage, and then we will release it according to the public records.

If there's a current investigation, then there will be an exemption for not releasing it until that is done.

When it's completed, then we will release it.

8.1 doesn't refer to the state law at all.

8.1 says that the law enforcement acts as whether whether it's safe, federal or local, that they come to you to make a request.

That has nothing to do with the state law and releasing public records.

And my question is simply, is there a timeline anywhere in 405 where body foot cameras can or cannot be released?

Similar to what I just described in 8.2, it says public information requests, video evidence unit shall respond to public information requests submitted under mass general law 66 section 10 in accordance with all applicable state laws and regulations.

It's making reference to the fact that we use public record law as our standard for issuing out requests for public records.

Oh, we'll have a third one which has its own timelines.

Which has its own timelines in general.

But that's not what this says.

And I'll come back to it in a minute.

I want to try and make it a little clearer for you.

Thank you, Councillor Culpepper.

We've been joined by Council Warrell.

I want to go to counselor.

Um for seven minutes, and then we'll go to Council Warren, and then we'll do a third round.

Um, Councilor Jen, you're off the bar.

Thank you.

I don't know if I'm gonna need all of my time because I think a lot of my questions were answered in the first round, but we'll we'll see.

Um I have a question regarding um how like footage requests so BBD reportedly received about 800 body camera release request last year and fulfilled about 500.

What were the prime is that no colours?

You're shaking your head, is that not correct?

No, no, go ahead.

I'm I apologize.

Okay, um, what were the primary reasons for denial?

And how much of a backlog is there in the legal department in reviewing uh how to fulfill those requests?

So I okay, I'm I just I missed the the end of that.

What were the primary reasons for denial?

So 800 requests, 500 fulfilled, and what is the backlog look like, and what are the reasons for backlog?

The primary reason for denials for access to footage in general, yeah.

Yeah, body camera footage.

I there's no general answer.

The investigative would be um one that would come up a lot.

Um privacy is one that would come up a lot.

Um, that you know, it's depicting something of an individual, not privacy for the police officer, but privacy to people in the video, for instance, if somebody's being depicted in a very unflattering way.

Um, there's a privacy exemption that we don't think that their privacy rights would trump the public's right to see that, um, and then statutory would be another one, um, for instance, when we're talking about death investigations, the district attorney says that can't be released, that would be a statutory exemption under A.

So of the 1273 requested, 722 were released, and 551 were denied.

Okay.

Um, do people have an opportunity to appeal then the denial?

There's two ways they can appeal.

Um, whether it's a denial or redactions, they can go to the supervisor of public records.

Um, they could also file a lawsuit in superior court to get the records.

Um, and the legislature actually changed the statute, well, in 2017 to allow for attorney's fees and court costs now if you go to superior court if you weren't able to get your records.

Okay.

And then there are some jurisdictions where like the release of the footage is required even when there is an investigation.

Can you have you reviewed sort of those policies and and and how they're balancing what we are what you're trying to balance here as well, which is not trying to prejudice the investigation, but still there's still a requirement in those jurisdictions to release body warn camera footage.

And so I say so we do release the footage.

So, you know, which people maybe don't understand when an investigation involves it involves a lot.

Um, you know, with the statements, you're trying to determine what went on and what occurred, and the footage could impact that.

Sometimes people see things and all of a sudden they're a witness to something that they didn't see.

Uh, there's a lot that goes on around that.

But the reality is.

I mean that's actually in a very good.

I mean, it relates back to my earlier point about police reports prior to seeing a video and after a video.

But I mean, but you're I mean, humans are you're saying police officers are humans as well.

And so I just wanted to point that out that I think that's it's very I agree with that statement.

No, but thank but the thank you, and but the point is is that when you're in investigation, we're trying to determine what happened, the facts of what happened around that.

And until you determine stuff, and um the release and other people having footage and seeing all this muddies that up, it makes your your case, you know, less provable or less or lessens our ability to actually bring a case forward.

And so until the investigation is over, it's about us accumulating the facts to determine what happens.

I can understand that.

I guess what I'm asking, and because I have not done it, but when we're not whether you've done, it's released outside of uh some other exceptions.

The fact is, I don't want to give the impression as though you know it's indefinite, we're never gonna release it.

I understand that, but I'm just saying that there are jurisdictions when even when there is an impending investigation that they're required to at least body one camera footage.

Can I just add the I just want to make clear that the exemption is not just oh there's an investigation, we're not gonna release it.

It has to prejudice that investigation.

I stated that, yes.

Right.

And so there are plenty of things that we have released on cases, even though there's still the investigation is not complete, signed off and over.

Um, but as you can imagine, if if it's a if it's a document and a report somehow, it's very easy to go in and redact that to take out things that might prejudice and release it.

Much more difficult with the video, the video shows so much more.

So that's why video is a is is a little bit of a different animal when it comes to redacting out what might be prejudicial and and prejudice that investigation as opposed to documents.

And you may mention of other places.

Yeah, there are many other jurisdictions that say they put timelines 30, 60, 90 days on it, but virtually all of them have exemptions for investigation.

So, you know, we put out a timeline and said we'll release it in 90 days, but yet the invet if we say we have a car up for investigations, you're in the same position we are right now.

So it's actually more transparent what we're doing in the sense we're saying, you know, put a public rec records request in.

If we could release it in other words, if that's an impact in our ability to do it, we'll do it within that timeline, which is far faster than any of these other jurisdictions timelines that you hear out there.

And then virtually all of them have these exceptions.

So I you know, I just want you know the public or people who are out there to think that we have a guideline around when we lease it.

If there's no um impact to an investigation, uh we will release the court and public records laws.

Uh, if there is, then we won't um until you know that investigation is done, or at least it won't impact it in that way.

Uh, and um, you know, I you know, I just don't want folks to to think that it's it's this indefinite thing that goes on on forever and ever.

Thank you.

And if I if I may, I have one last question regarding like secondary use of surveillance um footage uh uses, especially when it comes to First Amendment rights, whether religious gatherings, for um demonstrations, protests, what make sure that like we're not using any sort of footage or surveillance technology um to infringe on someone's first amendment rights, and here we're talking about specifically body one cameras.

We don't infringe on people's first amendment rights, is that it does answer your question?

There is policy in the in rule 405 that talks about that.

So if anyone would like to speak to it, but we don't surveil people's first amendment protective rights, but if criminal activity happens during a demonstration or a first amendment protected, the body camera is expected to be activated when there's an arrest that's gonna be made or an interaction like that, it doesn't the First Amendment protective event that's going on, does not prevent the officers from turning on their body camera when they have to conduct an arrest or something to that effect.

Thank you, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Those are my questions.

Thank you, Councilman Lujan.

Um, Council Warrell, you have the floor.

Uh thank you, Chair, and thank you uh for being a commissioner and team.

Uh, one of my first questions is around um my understanding when I was watching the hearing is that we updated, or the Boston Police Department updated the camera bot body uh camera BWC body worn camera rules in 2025.

What was the process?

Like, can you talk to me who was at the table?

Was it just an internal process?

Who was that done with?

So all our rules are internal, they're meant for our police department.

So we usually have uh a subject matter expert, you know, go through our rules and see what requires updating in general.

Um, for instance, there was when when federal agencies started to use body cameras.

Right.

It impacted us because there's there's certain members of the police department who would who are assigned to these federal task forces.

And so we had to now update our rule to address that.

So a lot of times circumstances that happen that happen outside of the department, different different laws might get passed.

For instance, when we updated the body worn camera rule with the retention policy just because the state had changed their retention policy.

Okay, okay.

And so we had so there are sometimes laws and circumstances that dictate a rule.

Right for your for you to update your rules.

Okay, yeah, and it is important that we do look at all our rules in general.

Yeah, you mentioned about the federal one because we have uh federal agencies to sign the task force, things of that nature, and that was important that we update that uh regarding body camera footage.

I think prior to that they didn't allow us to have body cameras when we work with them.

And then I know there was a task force that was implemented to review um body warrant camera um in the footage, I think in 2020, and I believe they released a report um in August of 2022.

Uh the task force, from what I'm reading here was you know, Wayne Budd, Reverend Jeffrey Brown, uh Alison Cartwright, uh, Eddie Crispin, a whole host of other people, and they they um released a report that said law enforcement body camera task force recommended regulations for the procurement and use of body worn cameras um by law enforcement.

Um, and the date on this is August 2nd of 2022.

Um was there anything in this task force recommendation?

Well, the I guess the first question is do you remember the report um that I'm talking about?

At the top of my head, I do not.

I wasn't a police commissioner in August.

Yeah, yeah, you wasn't there yet.

No?

Okay.

Well, there is some recommendations from this report, um, that have not been implemented um in the rules.

Um, one of those, or few of those, let's go to my list right here.

Is access, uh, give recorded individuals in Mexican uh access to their own uh family member or footage.

Um that was one of the rules um that the task force thought should be implemented, uh one of the recommendations.

Um the other one was allow broad public access to um body war and camera footage via FOIA um and then which is what we do.

Right, that's exactly yes, I guess the way that they wrote out the recommendation, um, it wasn't fully implemented into the rules on how the task force recommended it.

Because that's how we follow that.

I mean, the public records law in Massachusetts, the FOIA is the federal, but yeah.

So I get the request.

I get that.

And then also part of it was uh clear procedures and consequences, progressive discipline tears, um, affecting promoters and salaries around um body worn cameras.

But I guess we'd love to also do absolutely do.

In fact, I know for a fact we do.

Uh uh there's automatic discipline when it on any relation of violation of body worn camera that that was not a thing before August 15th of 2022.

Okay.

Um and that's without receiving receiving that report.

I can absolutely this this absolute uh accountability around body worn camera wearing.

Okay, and it might not be fully to what the recommendation was in the report, um, but it could be implemented in a way that you have addressed it, right?

I think the report might have gone a little further than what's currently in the rules.

I think we actually do address it.

It's there is a there is a discipline and automatic discipline if you evaluate the body camera, and if you do it a second time, it will be progressive.

So I think from what you read is if you do the same thing a second time, the discipline's gonna be higher.

Because the commissioner has put out the message that body camera is important and you have to use them.

Got it.

And then my last question, Chair is um, I know that there are some exemptions on when you don't have to release a body war camera, um, but does that request need to be made again after, like let's say an active criminal investigation is done?

Yes.

So you have to make it again.

So you don't automatically release it once.

No, there's not a there's not a rolling obligation once it's denied or released with with redactions, that's closed out for the purposes of the Boston police department.

They can appeal that.

If they don't like the answer, they can appeal to the supervisor or to court, right?

Um if they don't, they have every right to come back at a later time and make that same exact request.

If there's no longer an investigative exemption, they would most likely get there.

And how many of those, right, where the ex where the exemption was active and uh active investigation where we denied public requests.

How many of those?

That have now been closed.

I I don't have that.

I don't know.

I guess through the chair.

Well, I looked at it because it's closed is our record keeping ends then.

So, right, they would have to record.

You have to request it again, yes.

No, no, I understand that.

I recommend it for my knowledge.

And just from personal knowledge, I can't name the case, but there are people that have come back at a later time, knowing that got the records because the exemption that was used no longer applied.

No longer applied.

Right.

Yeah, I guess I just want to know for my for my sake.

All right, well, thank you for the questions.

Certainly, asked uh thank you, Constable Burrell.

We're not going to do another round.

Um, Council Culpepper, you have the floor.

Thank you.

Commissioner, we were talking about the King family being uh shown the video by the district attorney.

My question was, did you talk with the district attorney about whether the king family should see the video?

No, not particularly about that.

I knew he would show it.

But you knew he would show it.

Yeah, it's part of the district attorney's calls in general.

You approved of him showing it.

I mean, I totally understood, you know, that he would at some point, yeah.

But you didn't disapprove it.

No, and let me just turn to OPED for my remaining time.

You received a letter from OPAD uh recently dealing with the internal affairs division reviewing recommendations from OPER.

Is that correct?

Yeah, OPEC, it's the number.

Do you remember?

No, Mr.

Commissioner, I'm trying to get through these questions.

Please, you received a letter from OPAT raising issues about the internal affairs division reviewing OPAT's recommendations to you.

Is that correct?

I received a letter from OPED, yeah, saying I don't know why that happens, but we have an obligation to investigate all allegations of misconduct by our employees.

Right, right.

But Commissioner, the recommendations that come from OPEC are independent of any internal affairs investigation.

Am I correct?

They there certainly seem to be.

They have their own area of authority under the law to review cases that come to the attendant of affairs division and also to OPER, and to make their own recommendations to you.

They can make their own recommendations, yes.

And they have been making recommendations to you.

Yes.

And you've been responding to some of the investigations, except for eight cases.

Why are you still holding those eight cases that OPEC is waiting for a decision on?

I believe I responded to every case.

There's no question.

No, OPEC.

There's a letter right here, Mr.

Commissioner.

Let me just review it for you.

I responded to all cases that OPAC has.

There's eight cases that OPAC is still waiting for a decision on.

Let me read the letter from the letter they sent to you.

There remains eight cases.

Are these specific to body one camera cases?

No, these are general cases.

These are general cases.

Thank you.

We have to stay on topic of the hearing topic, so on body one cameras, unfortunately.

I thought we well, okay.

Well, let me bring into body one cameras, and you if you want.

That's yeah, we have to keep it on topic.

Happy to have another hearing on OPAD itself.

Um, I know some counselors.

You can ask it, I mean, they can say they don't have to necessarily answer themselves.

There's been a dispute of whether the internal affairs investigations um can review the decisions of OPEC, and in the letter, it disputes whether the internal affairs division has the authority to even make a decision with regard to what OPAC recommended.

It further points to these eight cases that the department's pattern of delay and non-cooperation with OPAC remain a major hindrance to our work.

It's time to speed up the work.

And they're talking about those eight cases where they sustained findings and made recommendations to your office.

My question is, why is it that OPAC, number one, their decisions are reviewed by the Internal Affairs Divisions?

And number two, for these eight cases, do you do you think without some kind of timeline requiring you to respond to them would be helpful to you in terms of making sure that OPAC decisions are responded to?

We respond to their decisions.

Some of those cases are perhaps to do with us investigating to verify the facts and circumstances so I can make a uh a finding on their on their recommendations.

Um, and that's usually where most of that comes out.

But do you understand their position is that there's no need for you to investigate their investigations that they've concluded with recommendations to you?

Because their recommendations.

I have to be able to verify uh the reason why someone is being disciplined.

I have to be able to prove it.

Never mind all the the contracted obligations that we have to uh through our personnel around that.

Uh they have multiple uh ways to appeal and and multiple court procedures that I would have to go through.

So I can't um basically delegate my responsibilities to someone else.

So I am actually fulfilling my obligation uh by doing that.

Mr.

Commissioner, my question is OPED has their own area of authority with regard to doing the investigation and responding with findings and recommendations to the office.

These are eight cases that have yet to been responded to.

My question is when will you respond to them, or are you gonna respond to them?

We respond to all cases.

By the way, we have responded, but I don't want to give the information.

And that's my question, Mr.

Commissioner.

Why do you have to investigate what OPEC has already investigated and made about Mr.

Commissioner?

Let me finish.

Let me finish my question.

Why do you have to investigate?

And that's what the dispute is about, that you are investigating the cases that they have investigated, made findings on, and made recommendations to you.

Why do you think it's necessary for you to investigate what OPAC under the law has already investigated, made findings on, and made recommendations to you?

If it's the letter I think you're talking about, sir.

They were asking for legal justification.

So if I can respond to that, is and the May 2nd letter?

Legally speaking.

No, no, no.

Let Mr.

Mr.

Council, they weren't.

Their position was they were disputing whether your internal affairs division has the right to investigate cases that they have already investigated, made findings on, and submitted recommendations for the commissioner to implement.

In my legal opinion, is we we have an obligation to investigate those under both the collective bargaining agreements, under both what's going to happen with those cases going forward, whether they go to arbitration, whether they go to civil service, where they end up going to Superior Court.

There's a lot of legal issues that go with that.

That the commissioner needs to do his own investigation to make sure that we can sustain any sustained findings and move forward with those cases.

So there is a very big legal component to that that we do not get in the way of OPAT doing their job.

They do their job, they come up with findings, they make recommendations, and that's what they are.

They are recommendations to the commissioner.

And with those, if they are sustained recommendations, then we have an obligation and a duty to reinvestigate those to make sure that we can sustain that moving forward.

Even though OPAT's authority is to investigate, actually, it's my authority.

Let me finish.

They have their own set of authority.

OPAT's authority is not your authority.

I know you got a lot of authority.

No, actually.

But OPED, Mr.

Commissioner, let me finish.

Actually, my authority consumes all of that.

No, for all the discipline recommendations.

Let me be let me be clear on something.

I'm just trying to get when you will answer these eight cases, and whether we should work with an ordinance that requires you to respond to OPEC within a certain period of time.

And so I do respond back to OPEC, as we mentioned before, but I think it's important for people to understand that there have been police departments that have been put under consent decree for not investigating allegations of misconduct, and it doesn't matter where they come from.

So we always have a responsibility to investigate our our personnel uh for the activities that go on to make sure that we verify uh that the allegations are true or not true, and that's my responsibility.

Can't be my question to you, are you going to respond to them on those eight cases?

And if so, when already answered that when the investigations are completed.

No further questions, Mr.

Jim.

Thank you, Mr.

Commissioner.

Thank you, Council um Cole Pepper.

I also just want to uh I I know many of my counselors have asked different questions.

I do want to stay on topic on the docket order for a hearing to examine the Boston Police Department's protocols for releasing ball police body camera and dashboard camera footage.

So if we can stay on that topic, happy to have another hearing on any other topic that my colleagues want.

Um council Morrell, um you have the floor.

Uh thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

I'll do my best to stay on topic.

Uh, timeline on rules.

Um, like how when do we go back and updated?

I know sometimes it's um you know determined about what federal or state laws, but is there a timeline on when you know you update?

Is it like in the beginning of the year, end of the year, or is it at any time of the year, you know, the department chooses?

It's a constant, anything could change at any time during the year.

Got it.

Ideally, you get it done as quickly as possible.

Sometimes there's an impact that needs to be bargained with the union, sometimes it's not, and so things can change that timeline a little bit.

Awesome.

And then can you clarify the roles and the differences between the video evidence unit, um, the body worn camera unit, and then the audit and review team?

The the body one camera unit and the video evidence unit, I would think are one of the same thing.

Okay, I think they're just the terminology.

It was it's the video evidence unit is the unit in the Boston police department.

That the majority of the job is is a lot of the job is dealing with the body one camera video in that, uh, the audit in review unit is under the Bureau of Professional Standards.

Okay.

Alright, awesome.

And then I guess my last question or request to the chair is uh, you know, requesting a working session to you know review the task force recommendations compared to rule 405 and then possibly create a list of updated recommendations, you know, based off of what the task force has has already said to propose to the commissioner.

Yeah, counselor, happy to work with you in your office to um make that happen.

Okay, thank you.

Awesome.

Thank you, Counselor Morrell.

We've been joined by counselor um Flynn.

Um thank you for being here.

We are on I think our like fifth round of questions at this point.

Um we're gonna uh the subject of the matter is um order for a hearing to examine the Boston Police Department's protocols for releasing police body camera and dashboard camera footage.

I'm gonna give you seven minutes, um, Counselor Flynn to ask your questions right now.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, and want to apologize.

I was at a Memorial Day event with uh fallen fallen heroes in gold star families this morning.

Commissioner, before before we begin.

I had a hearing here earlier on staffing levels.

Um we're gonna have to reschedule it, I guess.

But is this some opportunity for you to come um and testify about staffing levels?

Sure, I just do a little bit of coordination of scheduling.

Um, you know, I don't determine when you pick the dates for those, so okay.

I the only reason I see did we already participate in that already?

No, we had a hearing the the chair had it um this week.

You were invited, and or or a member of your team were invited, but um Lisa did an excellent job, but I I think it would have been helpful for me to have have the commissioner there.

Again, apologize, unfortunately.

My scheduling is it's and it's getting pretty busy or busy every day.

I understand, I understand.

I'm I'm trying to do my job to support the police and support our rank and file police.

Um, you know, when police officers work sixteen hours a day, um I try to support them and their families.

I think I do think we we place them in a difficult position when there's mandatory overtime, and then a police officer is working on a 15th hour or sixteenth hour, and we're putting them in harm's way.

I do think it has an impact on them, and it does it has an impact on their families.

That's what I'm I'm concerned about is the health and wellness of our police officer families.

And I'm I'm a person on the council for the last eight years.

I support the police.

I consistently support the police, um, probably more so than any city counselor here.

Um, so it can be frustrating to me when I call a hearing, call for a hearing, and and the police department leadership do not show up.

Well, actually, there was someone from our department, so we have multiple.

Yes, Lisa was here, and she did an outstanding job, but I there were there were questions that I didn't necessarily want to ask her because um, you know, wasn't really in her in her lane.

But she's she showed up, she was professional, she was outstanding.

Um so Mr.

Chair.

Now I'm gonna get back to my questioning.

Is that is that okay?

That's fine, you got four minutes.

Okay.

Now you take your time, comment up with it.

Thank you.

And again, um, I didn't hear you, the public testimony.

I'm gonna hear the testimony you provided, so I'm gonna have to review that later um today, when I have the opportunity, and I'm sure some of my questions might be have already asked, but here's my question, uh, Commissioner.

There is a policy of when to release body camera for a police officer when not to release it.

But is it is it selective?

Does it depend on the situation?

Does it depend on the police commissioner?

Does it depend on the scenario where you know some police commissioners in the past have brought elected officials and clergy members to the police commissioner's office to review body body camera, review a video, I should say, and then other times that's not the policy.

But is there a policy that's consistent or is the is the policy depending on the situation and the commissioner?

And is there some leeway in in terms of when the video can be released and not released, regardless of what the policy states?

So thank you for the question.

So I I would say this that we we use public record law as our policy, our main policy for release of body warm camera.

If there's an exception to it at the time and involving investigations, then we would not release it while that uh investigation is ongoing.

But at some point, um when uh all investigations conclude, or there's no other exemption that would cover it, uh, at the conclusion of that investigation, we would, you know, release release the body worn camera or uh or any evidence that uh that public record law says that we would have to uh release, and it doesn't matter who who is here.

So a a police commissioner has the authority to release or or to show or to show elected officials or members of the clergy body camera in selective cases.

So now you're talking about something different.

You're talking about just picking a random group of people and then showing them video.

No, not not a random group of people.

Maybe um maybe well respected clergy members, maybe city councils or state legislators, and maybe uh um a family member that was uh somehow impacted in a situation where the body camera impacted their loved one.

Not not to the general public but to selective people as I as I mentioned.

If you're asking, could that occur, yes, it could occur?

Depending on depending on who the police commissioner is or depending on the scenario?

Both.

I probably said scenario-based around you know, you can you facts and circumstances of something might be dictate uh for emergency reasons that we might need public trust in some way where it might impact the investigation, but the reality is uh there's a public safety need to do this right now that's far greater than um what we're looking into.

So sometimes facts and circumstances dictate um, you know, people going outside of those policies, yes.

Would the impact of the video having a impact on potential media coverage or potential impact on um how the community react reacts would those two be um considered as a factor in terms of not showing it to a selective group of uh clergy or city counselors?

So that is not the routine, you know.

Um that would be obviously a pretty really really special circumstance.

I'll say this our given policy is that we will release it.

That's that's and when we're when we were not releasing that there's an exception to it.

But that exception doesn't last forever.

And then when the investigation is over, the exception is over, then we're gonna release it.

So transparency is the goal around it.

But the reality is if it impacts our investigation, our ability to hold someone accountable, then we're gonna postpone that until we do our primary function, and that is holding uh whoever is violating some law or you know, law enforcement uh issue around that body one camera accountable, and then when we're done with that investigation, then it will be released.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner.

I also want to recognize Superintendent McGaughlin, who is very responsive and um providing providing a lot of good feedback to the residents of Boston.

So I want to acknowledge Superintendent McLaughlin's professionalism as well.

Mr.

Chair, um, I'm out of time.

I have no further questions.

Counselor Fritner, you're gonna have um further questions.

Do you need more time right now?

We're gonna wrap up.

You're gonna wrap up, um, after call counselor call pepper.

So I want to give you the opportunity if you have any other questions.

Mr.

Chair, out of the out of respect for my colleagues, I'm gonna I'm not gonna ask any questions.

All right, thank you, Councillor Flynn.

Thank you.

Appreciate you being here.

Counselor, do you have any um further questions?

Yeah, just one last question.

Uh, or request.

I think Council Louis Jen might have asked this, but if we could get a list of um, I guess it's FOIA requests or public records request, and then the ones that have been denied, so we kind of could see which, you know, what are the exemptions and what are the most common uh exemptions being used for denial?

We can we can certainly put that request in through the committee.

Thanks.

Thank you, Council.

That's okay.

Great, and then we're gonna um go back to Counselor Cole Pepper.

Okay, four minutes.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh Commissioner, is it fair to say that the way decisions are made on these body cams are on a case-by-case basis?

Yes.

And is it fair to say that when you look at how the decisions are made, that the BIS bureau chief has the authority to release or make a decision that the commander of the video evidence unit approves or denies requests, that the supervisor uh has access, and that's under 6.5, that can approve or disapprove the request, that the commander on the scene has the authority to approve or deny the request.

So when you look at the different uh bureaus that have the authority to approve or deny the request, it comes down to that form 26.

Are you familiar with Form 26?

I know what Form 26 is, yes.

And let me just read this to you.

In accordance with the current practice, should an officer receive a subpoena for body one camera's footage, the officer shall direct the subpoena to the supervisor with a form 26.

So when the officer directs the officer, with the subpoena to a form 26, can you explain the procedure for when a Form 26 is approved or not approved?

Just tell us a little bit about what the Form 26 is.

And then under that FOIA, I was just gonna say, Counselor, the section that you're reading from is specifically from section 8.1, which is about law enforcement access.

So if an officer if an officer in the course of a criminal prosecution, likely resulting from an incident that they responded to receives a subpoena from either the district attorney's office or defense counsel for footage that may be evidence as part of a criminal case, not an officer involved shooting, but a criminal case.

The process for that officer to get the footage to ensure that it is released appropriately is to submit that request with a form 26 through the chain of command.

So Form 26s are not used at all in an officer-involved shooting.

Form 26 is a it's a general term for a document used internally in a variety of circumstances.

No, but there is a Form 26, right?

The form 26 is just an intern, it's an internal form that all officers use uh to communicate internally here.

If that's what we refer to a Form 26.

It's not specific to body-worn cameras, right?

Some people call it others.

I'm asking with regard to body worn cameras.

Because that's what it says here.

It says this is an offer.

Local prosecutors shall make a request for body worn camera footage directly to the video evidence unit.

So there's a video evidence unit, right?

That controls all body worn cameras, and the video evidence unit, right?

They're the keeper of those records.

Right, right.

And it says the officer shall direct the subpoena to the supervisor with a form 26 regarding body worn camera's footage.

So my question is when there's a request for the body worn camera footage, they're directed to use a form 26.

Am I correct?

I just read it to you.

Yes, because it goes and explains it's just a report.

No, no, no.

You use a Form 26, right?

And the Form 26 then goes to what process.

It's just an internal form.

No, I understand.

I understand, I understand that.

I understand that.

What's the process once you get a Form 26 that's requesting body worn camera footage?

It's like I think you have to if you look at that sentence in its entirety in the context of the section.

No, no.

I just want to know, what's the protocol?

I'm gonna try to answer your question.

What do you do with it?

I'm gonna try to answer your question.

So the policy dictates that prosecutor shall make requests directly to the video evidence unit.

Right.

But should an officer receive a subpoena directly for footage, the officer shall then forward the subpoena along with the form 26 to the supervisor.

The 26 notifies the supervisor that the officer received a request and is passing it along, and then that goes to the video evidence unit for response to review to ensure that under the policy, release of the footage is appropriate, and that would include the exemptions that we have talked about.

Right.

And the video evidence unit does what once they receive that form 26.

It's not the form 26, it would be they it would be attached to a subpoena.

Mr.

Lawyer, the question is what do they do with it once they give it to the video evidence unit?

It depends what's the protocol?

It depends on what the request is and who's requesting it.

No, no, no.

You might have a subpoena from a law from a police department in Springfield.

Right, right.

And so what then happens?

That's what I'm trying to get to.

What's the protocol of how it's processed?

Then that subpoena with the form 26 from the officer goes to the video evidence unit.

Right.

We would most likely get a call in my office, we receive this.

Is it okay to release this to that department?

And it's for if it's for a law enforcement purpose, the answer would be yes, release that.

When you're talking with the suffering, this goes to the partner agencies, and they're set up automatically on cases outside departments all over the state or in another state aren't set up like that.

So my final question: the only offices that will use a form 26 for body worn camera footage are law enforcement.

I don't know it's an internal form.

I understand, I understand.

But that's the procedure that they would begin with to make the request of body-worn camera footage.

And that limited that limited thing that they're describing where they got it got something directly to them, that's how they would make it move it into the video evidence unit.

Can I give you an example, sir?

No, no, no.

There may be a there may be a civil case going on.

Civil lawyers have the right to subpoena things.

They might subpoena a police officer.

I agree.

That police officer writes a Form 26 saying I've received a subpoena to show up and testify and bring this video.

And if it's body worn camera footage, it would then go to the video evidence unit.

That's the only way the officer could get that.

Right.

And the video evidence unit would then send it to you.

They potentially might bring it to my attention.

If it doesn't come to your attention, my question is where does it go?

Does it work its way up to the commissioner to approve it?

That would be highly unlikely.

That would not happen.

Council, I think just can I just clarify one thing because you mentioned the incident.

You mentioned the section on the BIS Bureau chief and allowing people to.

I just want to make sure I want to make sure you understand what that means.

Okay, but I just want to make sure you understand.

When a firearms discharge investigative team goes out and investigates any discharge of a firearm, the officer's body worn cameras immediately taken and it's uploaded.

And the video evidence uh representative who comes to the scene immediately restricts access to that to a very limited group, usually the fitted investigative team.

What this what that says there when it mentions the BIS chief is that I have the ability to expand that group if perhaps they added investigators or someone else that had a need and right to know within the investigative team, I can add to it.

So that's what that access means.

In that case, it doesn't mean anything publicly or anything else.

It means who can who can see it within the investigative team?

And the and the idea is to keep it a very small group so that we're able to work the investigation without you know outside interference without other people within the department having access to it and the you know the risk that goes along with it.

But that's what anybody worn camera, they bring it in to upload it.

But no, what I'm saying is in an officer-involved shooting, that is uploaded and then immediately restricted.

So I could in in if I wanted to go watch a body worn camera from an incident yesterday, not an officer-involved shooting, and I wanted to go in there, I could go in and look under the eye number, the incident number, I could look under the officer, and I could pull that video up and I could watch it.

All right.

In the case of an officer involved shooting, that is immediately restricted so that nobody in the department can look at it within with except for people that are given access as investigators, or again, under my authority or the commissioner if he told me to say we're gonna add a couple people because of a particular reason.

Maybe the investigative group got bigger, uh, maybe there's some reason that we have to add somebody in there.

So that's I just want to clarify that that's not about releasing that is only about a limited access and officer-involved shooting.

To upload it.

No, it's uploaded, it's locked and it's uploaded and it's locked down.

Right.

Okay, and then it's a just as I said, small group of people can see that.

Other outside of that, nobody in the department can see it.

Well, let me ask you this.

If an officer based on 4.2 wanted to then see his own body worn camera footage, would he be able to see it with his lawyer?

The officer, not without giving be being given access.

So that the people that are included in that group that have access on an officer involved shooting, a discharge, is very small.

Does that include the supervisor in charge of the investigation?

Yes, it does.

And so the supervisor in charge of the investigation could then say, officer, now you can go in with your attorney to look at the body worn camera of the shooting that you were involved in.

Well, according to this rule, the way it's written, yes, but uh, as I said to Council Louis Jean, in the case of a fatal or or likely to die with a district attorney's offices exerting their um authority as the overall lead of the investigation.

Their policy is in those cases that the officer is not allowed to watch their video before they give a statement.

So there is an exception, it's not written in our rule.

But when it says here, but it's their policy.

So I said it earlier.

So, counselor, you do bring up a good point.

You talked about apprules and stuff.

Sometimes when things are highlighted, I can tell you the rule is going to be changed for clarity.

I can tell you that right now.

Is this one that's gonna be changed for clarity?

For clarity, because the fact is when you go and read something and it's and it's not clear sometimes to internally, we think things are clear all the time.

Externally, it might not be.

So we will absolutely review it.

Which I I said before, we review all our rules and regulations.

We're in the process of getting accredited part of accreditation.

Is that you have to review all your rules and regulations to make sure they're up to date, best practices, things of that nature.

And it takes time to go through rules and so we've been going through a few of them.

We're going to review this one and absolutely try to make it clear because it was really internally written for our internal audience but we're trying to make them a little bit clearer for external audiences.

And Commissioner I appreciate you I love your counselor counsel and appreciate deputy superintendent because I think these are the goals of these kind of sessions to weed out what needs to be worked on.

You heard Counselor Worrell call for a working session and to look at what's not clear so it can be clarified so in future cases we know exactly how the Boston police department is going to operate.

So I appreciate you and we've got a few things we're going to work on ourselves with regard to ordinances but just appreciate your time I know you're busy I know you got a million things to do and uh I really appreciate you answer my phone call every time I call you you answer my phone call I appreciate you because that speeds through some of the things that I don't know how accurate that is but you know no I appreciate you you thank you and appreciate me when I answer it so thank you.

I know but you always do so you score a hundred on that one yeah I I I my wife is going to say the same I I don't know if I answer for anybody I mean a lot of meetings so but the intent is good so yeah yeah I think I think yeah I think our goal is just to try and figure out what needs to be worked on whether we need some ordinances whether we need and we'll be talking much about some of the things that we discuss in our working session.

Thank you Mr.

Chair.

Thank you Counselor Culpepper I've been informed by um central staff that we don't have anyone who has signed up to public test of public testimony.

So I really do want to thank my colleagues I want to thank the lead sponsors counselor um cole pepper and counselor for bringing this um hearing order um and I want to thank our panelists um for being here this morning with us uh thank you commissioner um I think that's my colleagues mentioned we know yeah you're busy uh um and running a department so really appreciate your time here this morning um this hearing on docket number 0638 is adjourned