very timely response of you, mr. chairman, as well as senator grassley. i'd say if a picture is worth a thousand words, then a video is worth a thousand pictures and unfold lives. certainly time for a national conversation about body cameras and policies affecting communities in distress. whether we are talking about ferguson, baltimore, ohio, new york city, oklahoma, or my hometown north charleston, south carolina, one thing is certain, long-term solutions are very important. they're critical. in addition to body cameras, i'll continue to work on things like my opportunity agenda that i believe will breathe new hope, new opportunities into distressed communities. things that have impacted my life having grown up in a single-parent household in poverty in north charleston. i'll tell you the foundation for changing some of the outcomes starts with education, long-term education will provide a path, an avenue out. think about work skills for those adult learners. apprenticeship programs where you can earn and learn at the same time as well as apprentice -- entrepreneurship programs. i'm here today because i believe

building trust between law enforcement and the community truly is body worn cameras worn by officers. i say one piece because there is no silver bullet. there is no panacea. but rather, many pieces to this puzzle. we're here today to listen and to learn from experts on how these cameras can be helpful and at the same time for us to understand the concerns like data retention, disclosure issues. including foya, costs and training. when do you use the cameras? i look forward to the discussion as well as the hard work ahead. the good news is, according to at least one study, public complaints falls by 90%. use of force, use of force drops by as much as 60%.

that's moving in the right direction. tasking the federal government to test body cameras should not be confused with federalizing local policing. which i would object to. nor is it an attempt to mandate the use of body cameras. it's an attempt to keep law enforcement officers and our communities safer. let me close with the heart felt desires of mrs. judy scott whose son was killed in north charleston, walter scott. she was not looking for revenge. as a matter of fact, on the first day, she said, i forgive the officer. she did not speak about the need for justice in her initial comments. she allowed the system to work that out. what she simply said to me was this -- i want to make sure i really want to make sure that

mothers do not have to bury their sons. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator scott. thank you. our second panel. come forward, please. do you want to ask? okay. he can take my turn if he needs to. >> thank you, all, could you please stand and raise your right hand? do you solemnly swear the

testimony is the truth, nothing but the truth so help you god? our panel consists of mr. peter wear who is the district attorney for the state of colorado from golden, colorado. lindsey miller, senior research associate police executive research forum washington, d.c. president and ceo of the conference on civil rights and human rights, washington, d.c. and jarrod brudler, south carolina sheriff's association from columbia, south carolina. welcome to you all, and we'll start with ms. miller and just move across the panel. >> good afternoon, and thank you, chairman graham and members of the committee for the opportunity to speak about the issue of body worn cameras. i'm lindsey miller with the police executive research forum, which is an independent,

nonprofit research organization that focuses on critical issues and policing. our work on body cameras began in 2013. when we partnered with the office of community oriented policing services to research the use of body cameras and police agencies. last september, released a publication that examines the benefits of body cameras and considerations for implementation. the report also provides a set of 33 comprehensive policy recommendations that reflect promising practices and lessons learned. so today, i'm just going to touch briefly on a few of our key findings and recommendations and my submitted written testimony provides additional details on these topics. first and foremost, the decision to implement a body camera program should not be entered into lightly. and develop careful written policies to govern their use. we also found that when implementing a camera program

and developing policies, it is critical that agencies engage with community organizations, line officers and unions, local policy makers and elected officials, prosecutors and other stake holders. making it a collaborative process can help strengthen the legitimacy of a program and make implementation run more smoothly. while body cameras can be a useful tool, they aren't a cure all. we need to remember they aren't a substitute for good policies, good training and good community policing programs. so when it comes to the benefits of body cameras, we found that cameras have been useful for several things. strengthening police accountability and agency transparency, improving the behavior of people on both sides of the camera. as senator scott said, reducing and resolving officer use of force incidents and complaints against officers. identifying and correcting problems in the agency at the individual level and throughout the entire agency. strengthening officer

performance and improving evidence documentation for investigations and prosecutions. we also looked at some of the considerations that agencies must take into account when implementing cameras. these include privacy considerations, especially when it comes to filming victims and witnesses. the impact that cameras have on relationships between police and members of the community. managing the expectations that body cameras create, especially among courts oversight bodies and members of the public. and finally, how to manage the significant ongoing financial costs of a body worn camera program. turning to our actual policy recommendations, i want to cover a couple. one of the most important questions that an agency will answer is when to require officers to turn their cameras on and off. our report recommended that with limited exceptions, they should be required to activate their cameras when responding to all calls for service and all law

enforcement related encounters and activities that occur while the officer is on duty. we also recommend that officers should be required to obtain consent prior to recording interviews with crime victims. and they should have limited discretion to keep their cameras off during conversations with witnesses and members of the community who wish to provide information of a crime about a crime but who don't want to speak on camera. and this addresses some of the significant privacy concerns that come with videotaping crime victims and witnesses. one of the biggest issues that is emerging that's facing police agencies is when to release the video footage to the public and the media. there really are no easy answers. our report generally recommended a fairly broad disclosure policy to promote agency transparency and accountability. agencies must balance the need of transparency with the real

concerns that come with releasing footage to the public. we also want to make sure videos of people in their most vulnerable don't end up on youtube. these are just a couple of our recommendations that cover training and evaluation. we also provide useful strategies for house police leaders can engage officers, policy makers and the public. body cameras can provide real benefits, both for police and the community. however, it is critical that agencies slow down, think about all of these issues and take an incremental approach to camera deployment. police agencies must remember that the ultimate purpose is to help officers protect and serve the people within their communities. so i thank you, again, for the opportunity to speak today and i welcome any questions you might have. >> chairman graham, distinguished members of the committee, i am the executive director of the south carolina sheriff's association. it is an honor to appear before you today. i'd like to begin by applauding

the subcommittee for taking the time to study the positive and negatives of body worn cameras before enacting legislation. embracing new technology for the purposes of increasing transparency, officer accountability, and officer safety can produce tremendous benefits but can also generate serious, unintended consequences. for more than five years now, law enforcement agencies throughout south carolina have been experimenting with the use of body worn cameras. to date, approximately 15% have implemented a body worn camera program. these agencies found this technology provides a significant benefit to the department and individual officers. not only do these cameras provide valuable training opportunities, but they also help to resolve officer-involved conflicts. these agencies have experienced significant reductions in complaints on officers. simply put, everyone, including the officer and the person interacting with the officer tends to behave better when they know they are being filmed. in the end, the body worn cameras produced a more accountable and professional police force for these agencies.

the primary issue preventing laurlt agencies from fully embracing the use of body-worn cameras is the exorbitant cost. i'm sure every sheriff and police chief would love to have an agency more accountable and professional, they must weigh the cost of the technology against the potential benefits. unfortunately, the cost is often too much for an agency to absorb. this technology is extremely unique in that the initial phase of the camera of implementing the cameras is arguably the cheapest phase of implementation. the greatest can be found in the storage or the retention of data. at a time when many agencies in south carolina are struggling to find sufficient funds to protect the officers and the public, a legislative mandate to implement body worn cameras seems like a nightmare to many. thankfully, pending legislation in south carolina will create a statewide trust that will fund the initial and ongoing costs associated with body-worn cameras. this this provision has resulted in the support of our

legislation. another issue preventing law enforcement agencies from fully embracing this technology is the protection of privacy. while transparency and openness are welcome concepts for some, those notions are not always conducive to producing successful police work. often times, our best tips come from criminal informants, witnesses or victims who wish to remain anonymous. there's a great fear in the law enforcement community that the proliferation will further divide our communities and have a chilling effect on the exchange of information between our officers and the communities they serve. in my humble opinion, these cameras are not intended to be the source of embarrassment or humiliation. data from these cameras should be used as evidence to enhance our pursuit of justice, not to humiliate or entertain our neighbors. when this data is viewed as evidence, rather than as a public document, it ensures that a single moment of indiscretion does not provide a lifetime of embarrassment.

also ensures that one's guilt or innocence is determined in a court of law, not a court of public opinion. as the use of body worn cameras increases, it is important for community leaders to manage the expectations of the public. it should be understood that every police action will not be caught on camera. critical incidents can happen in a blink of an eye. there will be times when it's not possible or feasible to have body worn camera footage. data should simply assist in the overall quest for justice. in conclusion, i would like to answer the question that brought us here today. yes, when used properly, technology and more specifically body worn cameras can increase protection for law enforcement officers and the public. we should be careful not to put too much trust in this technology. they can aid in transparency, but they will not mend community relations alone. neither -- neither will they address the root causes that

have led to tragic incidents. technology will never accomplish what can be gained when people sit down, talk, listen and attempt to understand a different perspective. often said public safety is a core function of government. while i certainly believe that is true, there are far too many law enforcement agencies in this country barely making ends meet. in desperate need for diversity training, use of force training.

advance training, not just basing training is critical in our efforts to provide public safety. if we want to increase protection for law enforcement officers and the public, then we need to provide our law enforcement agencies with the fund necessary to attract, recruit and retain the best and brighters officers. to ensure they serve and protect our communities we quality, fairness and justice. with that, i thank you the opportunity to speak and will gladly take any questions. >> good afternoon, chairman graham, ranking member whitehouse and members of the subcommittee. my name is peter wier from the first judicial district in colorado. that's located in golden, colorado, just west of denver. also am privileged to be speaking on behalf of the national district attorney's association. and we appreciate very much the opportunity to lend our voice to this important topic. i'd like to suggest that any discussion of body worn cameras is also a discussion of the foundation of our criminal justice system. its trust in fairness of the system. trust in the men and women who work in the system. and ultimately, trust that

justice will be done. when we talk of data that is generated by body worn cameras, we need to keep in mind that data is actually evidence. talking about the generation of evidence. there are many, many uses for the recordings generated by body worn cameras. and as it goes to the issue of trust, accountability and transparency are critical functions of that. however, you cannot lose sight of the fact that there are many, many considerations to take into account when we start dealing with the collection, retention, distribution and processing of evidence, which is what is generated by the body worn cameras. clearly from a prosecutor's perspective, this evidence can be very, very important.

when you present a case to a jury, certainly they would benefit from being able to see the place and the circumstances immediately after the commission of a crime. jurors would benefit from being able to evaluate credibility and demeanor of the witnesses that are recorded contemporaneously with the crime. and when we start talking about officer-involved shootings, body cameras can play a role in determining whether or not the officer acted within the scope of his authority or whether that officer may have violated his oath and acted outside justifiable, legal grounds. clearly, the prosecution community supports the use of body-worn cameras and appropriate circumstances with appropriate safeguards and appropriate procedures involved in the use of the body-worn cameras.

as has been mentioned already, there are some areas of concern that are shared by prosecutors. and i need to stress it's critically important as we go down this path that the prosecution community be part of the dialogue in creating policies and procedures, not just at the federal level, but the state and local level to be able to engage with local law enforcement to identify the issues that may be very unique to each jurisdiction. in this discussion, one size does not fit all. we're talking about judicial districts, law enforcement agencies, sheriff departments, various sizes. and what may work in one local may not work in other locals. the question that is critical for prosecutors is exactly what is being recorded? what is the extent of the

recording. and perhaps another way to put it, when should you not record? be easy to say just record anything any time the officer is on the street, the camera is on. but is this the process we want? certainly results in extraordinary costs associated with this. the cost of not necessarily the camera itself, but the cost of appropriate storagving and cataloging so that evidence can be used in an appropriate manner. prosecutors are also concerned with respect to the storage and retrieval of that evidence. we have obligations to present this evidence to defense attorneys. we must be able to know which portion of a recording pertains to a specific case and be able to district that to the defense bar. that leads us to the question of, what's our broader responsibility to the public? many states have open records laws or critical justice records acts that mandate that much of this information must be disclosed. where is the right line between collecting this important

evidence and what, in fact, we will be distributing to the public at large and it has been testified to these cameras are not a panacea because they show different perspectives. we are very optimistic of the possibility of body worn cameras, and used appropriately, it can be an important tool for law enforcement and prosecutors. thank you, mr. chairman. >> good afternoon, chairman graham, ranking member whitehouse and members of the subcommittee. i'm wade henderson, president and ceo of the leadership conference on civil and human rights. a coalition of more than 200 national organizations charged with the promotion and protection of the rights of all persons in the united states. i'm also the joseph l.rowl jr. professor at the school of law at the university of the district of columbia. thank you for bringing us together today. over the last year, we've seen a growing movement to address policing practices that have a

disproportionate impact on low-income communities, communities of color and african-americans in particular. these practices like discriminatory profiling and explicit and implicit racial bias and law enforcement have framed the national debate around police reform and prompted a national conversation on the use of technology, specifically body worn cameras as one possible means to enhance accountability and transparency and policing. americans across the nation have been transfixed by a series of video clips recorded by concerned citizens that capture tragic encounters between the police and the people they serve. not since the brutal images of the bloody sunday marchers being savagely beaten in selma, alabama, were broadcast across the nation 50 years ago have we

seen video make such a profound impact on our nation's public discourse. prior to these broadcasts, the voting rights act did not exist. those images inspired the nation to write and pass the voting rights act five months later. today's citizen recorded videos have inspired the nation once again. when one hears eric garner's cry he can't breathe or sees walter scott shot from behind, it's hard not to be moved. chairman graham, you spoke for millions and certainly for me. when you described the video of walter scott's killing in north charleston as, quote, horrific and difficult to watch. there is a temptation to create a false between these citizen recorded videos and body worn cameras operated by law enforcement. i urge the committee not to give into this temptation because body worn cameras won't be

operated by concerned citizens and won't be recording officers. they will, instead, be directed at members of the community. that's why last friday, the leadership conference joined with a broad coalition of civil rights, privacy and media rights organizations to release shared rights for use of cameras by law enforcement. these principles, which i'd like to introduce into the record today recognize that cameras are just a tool. not a substitute for broader reforms of policing practices. they point out that, quote, without carefully crafted policy safeguards in place, there is a real risk that these new devices could become instruments of injustice rather than tools for accountability, unquote. that's why it's so important. and when cameras are deployed, it's with a set of clear and narrowly defined purposes and

that policies governing theirs you are developed in concert with public stake holders. these cameras should be tools of accountability for police encounters. not a face or body scanner for everyone who walks by on the street. if those technologies are used together with body cameras, it will actually intensify, start disparities in surveillance and more heavily policed communities of color. early experiences suggest without strong rules, officers won't necessarily record when they should. for that reason, it's vitally important that departments impose stringent discipline on officers who fail to record encounters that are supposed to be on camera. finally, our principles call for a prohibition on officers viewing footage until after their reports are filed.

footage can be misleading or incomplete. that's why other sources of evidence, including the officer's own independent recollection of an incident must be preserved allowing officers to preview footage provides an opportunity to conform reports to what the video appears to show rather than what the officer recollects. moreover, there is a risk that the officers report at the video may seem to confirm each other independently when they really aren't independent at all. the leadership conference urges federal, state and local governments as well as individual police departments to consider our principles as they develop and implement policies and programs. without the appropriate safeguards, we are at risk of compounding the very problems in policing that we are seeking to

fix. thank you for your consideration. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, we'll accept your principles without objection to make it part of the record. senator franken, would you like to go first? >> well, thank you. i -- this is just -- i feel like we're in the infancy of this technology. and as now ranking member on privacy technology and the subcommittee, i can see, you know, mr. anderson raise facial recognition and the use of that possibility. we know that technology is here. and this raises so many issues. one of the issues i talked about with senator scott before this hearing a little while ago.

and is in these studies, ms. miller, is there any indication of the benefits in terms of cost. in terms of money? in other words, i would imagine that reducing by 80%, 90%, the negative sort of interactions that there may be an actual financial benefit from that. >> you know, that's what we heard from the police executives we worked with. they said this drop in complaints, the drop of lawsuits has really helped them on the back end save money. there hasn't been a lot of -- haven't been a lot of studies, cost benefit analysis yet into the technology. my organization is actually starting one now. so we're going to be working on

that over the next year to kind of look at that, to see what are the cost savings in terms of lawsuits and investigations. and, you know, do those help outweigh some of these significant costs. anecdotally we hear, they're with it 100% even though the costs are very steep. >> so there's benefits but also costs. dollar benefits versus other benefits? >> sure, yep. the dollar benefits may not equal the cost the dollar costs. this is -- some of the issues that are being raised are when the officer turn it on? when does he turn it off? all of us can in our minds see 60 minutes stories of a miscarriage of justice because of editing of footage. that's not very hard to do. so then the question is, what kind of protocols are put in

place to guarantee that doesn't happen? and i imagine that's been thought through. does anybody have any response to that in terms of how do we avoid the "60 minutes" story or the 2020 story or the date line story that we all have in our head three years from now or 20 years from now, someone in prison for 20 years for something they didn't do because of a misuse of this? >> senator franken, it's a terrific question. let me thank the subcommittee for convening this hearing. you have, by doing so, put the issue squarely on the public table.

and we appreciate that. to avoid the problem you've identified, let's begin with the need to develop these policies in public. there should be transparency and involvement of various sector. obviously the law enforcement professionals, certainly those who are professional advocates in this area. but clearly, the public at large, scientists and others and guidelines have to be developed with an eye toward the subsequent use of this information in various cases. secondly, these cameras offer protection to good officers and to the public they serve. officers who are, in fact, inclined to do what they should be doing that is the vast majority of officers currently on the beat. we lift them and salute the work they are committed to do. unfortunately, not every officer follows proper protocols. the existence of these cameras we hope will have a -- to not inclined to follow present protocols. third, it will require law enforcement to, in fact, revisit the protocols they currently have. so they can ensure the officers

receive appropriate training on the use and appropriate involvement of these cameras. all of these steps, we feel, can contribute to a wise investment. this should be not be undertaken lightly. the expense is obviously considerable. but when you balance the impact on the public they serve, the money saved in litigation costs that result from unfortunate incidents of bad policing of the balance of the cost will probably work out in favor of the purchase of cameras. >> well, thank you, and i know that all of you have same kind of questions i wanted to be asked. i just want to -- talked about storage, archiving, retrieing and disclosure, essentially as all policies and before storage, i guess, is what do you shoot? and when? those are all, and mr. henderson, you talked about a

carefully crafted policy. i think those are all things we need to be keeping in mind as we go through this technology and this new world. >> well, thank you for your thoughtful testimony. and perhaps one of the most refreshing things i've heard is that how unsimple this is. this is a little bit more complicated than i think meets the eye. some of the suggestion is all you need to do is put cameras on officers and you are good to go. that clearly doesn't appear to be the case. i have a particular question about victims. there is something called the federal crimes victims rights

act. one of the rights guaranteed is the right to be reasonably protected from the accused. one of the others is the right to be treated with fairness and respect for victims' dignity and privacy. i'd be interested. maybe we can go down the line and i'd like to get your comment on how we might be able to make sure we protect the victims of crime. >> thank you for the question. our report, we recommend that officers be required to obtain a consent prior to filming conversations with crime victims. that puts the -- it gives the crime victim the dignity and the privacy to be able to determine whether he or she wants to be filmed. and then on the back end, of course, there's the issue of public disclosure, which is another privacy issue when it comes to victims and we recommend agencies really

consider the privacy. as i said in my testimony, you don't want to see people at the most vulnerable show up on youtube. careful reviewing, making sure the footage isn't disclosed if it's evidentiary. if it contains interviews with victims and then careful redactions. >> in south carolina, we're currently working through state legislation to implement body worn cameras. one of the moves we've done there is to basically make body worn camera footage exempt or not even subject to the freedom of information act considered not a public document. in doing that, we make sure that the individual victims of those crimes, they're not their identity is not shared. their incident is not shared. those types of things can only be achieved through the discovery process in court. and that's one of the biggest concerns there, as well, making sure people were not victimized for long-term periods based on that. >> mr. weir? >> thank you.

this is something very important in this discussion. the victims certainly have the right to be protected and they have the privacy rights associated with that. any policies that have to be crafted have to be done thoughtfully and in some detail. there may be circumstances, frankly, when recording of a victim would be appropriate thinking of the domestic violence victim that is recanting. but there are also circumstances where it'll be absolutely inappropriate, victim of a sex assault or child victim subject to abuse. i think the clarity becomes critical at that point. because what you're left with in a courtroom setting is video for a number of purposes. and then it is remarkable in its absence when perhaps the most

important individual in a proceeding is not on video, and being able to explain that to a jury and perhaps having an appropriate jury instructions to explain that to a jury would be very, very important. >> mr. henderson? >> senator, we agree completely that there has to be clear operational policy for recording retention and access to film. we certainly believe there are clear incidents where the rights of privacy of the individual would preclude a release, a casual release of this information. however, in incidents involving the police use of force, there should be access to that information as quickly as possible. it should be shared broadly with the public.

and those policies that govern the retention and access to information should be strictly enforced. so that when officers fail to record incidents that should be recorded, there should be consequences for that. now, obviously, there has to be adequate training, there has to be reinforcement, and there has to be a sense that these officers are, in fact, being helped as much by the existence of these cameras as the public they serve, and when those things work in conjunction with one another, we think they produce positive results. >> mr. henderson, if i could follow up. as i was telling senator scott, as we were talking about the officer being responsible for turning the camera off and on and being trained to turn it on at the right time, i could see how that itself will be controversial.

because what did the officer record? what did the officer choose not to record? and so, as we said earlier, this is not, perhaps, quite as simple as. >> you're right, senator, but, again, if the department provides clear operational guidelines for the recording, retention and access to that film, then the officer is not left having to decide for him or herself what incidents require a recording and what don't. he'll have that clear, bright line that we hope will encourage him or her to do the right thing. that's why it's important to be developed with public review, disclosed openly, that the transparency and debate in the public sphere serves the interest of the officer as well as the public. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. i appreciate all the witnesses.

i will echo what my friend senator cornyn said. the unsimpleness is perhaps the most significant thing that we have heard. as the sheriff probably knows better than the rest of the panel, police officers see people at their worst. they see people at times of real emotional agony. with horrific physical injuries and a video record of a great deal of that would be hugely intrusive to those individuals, hugely in demand by our 24/7 news media if it bleeds it leads culture. and i think you can expect some intense conflict over this availability. you can go into people's homes if you're a police officer. does that person have a right to not have what's in their home seen? if they're a sports hero or something like that. i think this is really important to solve the problem of police use of force. but we want to make sure we don't open a whole new array of

problems. you say there are 46 different sheriffs in your home state? >> yes, sir. >> in rhode island, we've got 39 cities and towns, most have their own police departments. how many of your sheriffs have what you consider a sophisticated i.t. department? >> a handful. obviously, a lot of them have to comply with requirements. so they've got some i.t. advanced u.t. stuff there. only a handful have the ability to do those things. and i think police departments are very often targeted by hackers nowadays. so the question of the hackablety of all this when you consider what the rupert murdoch folks did in engineer lang,

hacking into telephones, how easy would it be to pay somebody to hack into these and get some of that very, very personal footage out. i don't know how i -- i appreciate your desire, mr. henderson, that there be a clear, bright line but at this point i don't see a clear, bright line. if you're a police officer who has to make an on/off decision, when you turn it on, do you know when you're going to be using force in advance? probably not. does that mean any encounter you should sort of turn it on just in case, then maybe it erase it after? this is really complicated. what are the best policies out there right now? are there a couple that we could look at where you think people have really got this right in the public records law, in terms of something that a patrol officer who already has 5,000 other things to remember can implement it in a sensible way and in a way that is protective of the myriad of privacy rights

that surround this. miss miller? >> well, i think that -- >> thank you for your organization's great work. >> thank you. i appreciate that. when we did our research we looked at a lot of different policies and spoke to a lot of agencies from across the country because i think this technology is so new that i couldn't even really point to one policy that was a model at this point. i think that for one thing, every state law is different when it comes to disclosure and evidence so they're all going to be a little different. but what we did was we gathered all of those policies. we spoke with all of the people who have experience in this, law enforcement officials and civil rights groups and unions and different folks. we kind of came up with what we found were at that phase some of the best practices and best

policies. so when it comes to turning the cameras on and off, the policy we saw the most and that we thought was probably the best was to do it during all calls for service. so when you get a call on the radio, when an officer gets a call on the radio and goes to that call, they turn it on from the minute they get that call and it goes until the end of that incident. then also during all -- >> an officer comes to somebody's house responding to a call. the person who made the call says i don't want you to come in with your camera on. this is my house. i don't know what you're going to do with all that footage. what's the officer's choice then? >> it depends on the jurisdiction. we would recommend that the officer continue recording unless this is a victim who is saying that they don't want their face on the camera. but at that point we say continue recording because most of the agencies we worked with said as long as the officer has a legal right to be in the home, which he would as responding to a call for service, then that's when they should be recording, because if you don't want some incident to occur they be and not have the footage of that

incident so there is an accountability piece as well as the privacy piece. >> that's kind of the back side of the supreme court decisions we're dealing with now with police surveillance where the supreme court has taken a look at things that police always have done but said now with their hyper enabled by technology, it is actually a new question. so my time is up but this is a really interesting hearing. i appreciate the chairman holding it. >> thank you. senator klobuchar? you all decide among yourselves. >> thank you, chairman graham. senator klobuchar and senator scott for calling this hearing. this is an important time and important issue. the american public is searching for answers on how to effectively heal the divisions we've seen play out between law enforcement and the communities they serve. last week was national police week and we honored 273 officers killed in the line of duty, a stark reminder that policing is

a dangerous profession and it is our duty as elected officials to provide state and local police with the support and equipment, the training, resources they need to come home to their loved ones and families at the end of each day on the job. in recent week and months we have also seen disturbing footage taken from a number of scenes in new york and missouri and ohio, south carolina and in maryland, and in each of these instances the actions taken by law enforcement and the ensuing public response has highlighted the deep divisions that still exist in many places between law enforcement and the communities they protect. it is also our duty as elected officials to try and help bridge those divides and i welcome today's hearing as an opportunity to learn and work constructively on what is the best way forward in finding common ground. like many of my colleagues, i believe body wearing cameras have tremendous potential if implemented correctly and thoughtfully to increase accountability, to settle conflicting witness accounts, to

contribute to officer safety and to transparency and to heal some of these deep divides. but there are very important concerns that you as witnesses have raised so far today. and i think meeting those concerns will be absolutely essential to ensuring that cameras become properly deployed tools of accountability rather than means of furthering division. so i have a couple of simple questions and i would appreciate your answering them in turn, if you wouldn't mind, to just continue this conversation. when designing and implementing rules for the use of body-worn cameras, who should be at the table. and how can communities ensure that the rules around use of cameras and access to video foot animal are properly followed once in place. >> thank you for the question. the first part we recommend that police agencies engage with pretty much any stake holder that's going to be affected by the camera. so community organizations. line officers. unions. prosecutors.

local policymakers. courts. all of these people need to be included at the table when it comes to policy development and engaged and their voices heard. when it comes to the second part of your question and kind of the accountability portion, we recommend that agencies share their policies online on their websites with the public. that they share their retention schedules for data with the public. and we recommend that they regularly collect statistical information about the usage of cameras and make that public as well so that the public can see how the cameras are being used. what's being released. things like that. those are kind of our two recommendations. >> thank you. >> again, in south carolina we are looking at implementing statewide legislation to have body-worn cameras. the legislature has kind of sent that task over to the law enforcement training council which is made up of various law enforcement agency heads from across the state.

i know that they have already groups miss miller has mentioned, as well as our criminal defense attorneys, their associations, those types of folks, to make sure everybody has input on the implementation and development of those policies. i echo miss miller's comments on the accountability, that that's probably the best way to go about doing that. >> thank you. thank you, senator, and thank you for the question. i think it is critical once again to keep in mind that we're not just looking at the front end of this process. the accountability and transparency associated with video recording is very, very important. but the back end of this is what are we going to do with it. this in fact is evidence that is being collected. and how that evidence is stored, managed, and appropriately disclosed to defense counsel, and perhaps disclosed to the public, but perhaps under some circumstances not disclosed to the public to respect privacy interests. all those are very important considerations. many of these decisions i believe can be -- should be

addressed at the local level. something that the community itself needs to be engaged in. when we start talking about building and developing trust between law enforcement and the community, this is something that should happen well before we are rolling out body cameras. the community has got to be engaged and those relationships have got to be formed by all partners. but we can't lose sight of the fact that at the end of the day, the collection of this data fundamentally is for evidentiary purposes, and how can we best preserve that evidence. >> thank you, mr. weir. >> senator, thank you for the question. i agree with the remarks of my colleagues. all affected stakeholders should be invited to the table, and there should be a public debate on these issues. that includes elected officials. that includes members of law enforcement. that certainly includes legal advisors, people who may serve, with prosecutors, defense bar

should somebody invited to come. civic organizations, as well as recognized non-governmental organizations that have roles to play in evaluating the implementation of this. first, might be included in the debate. now having said that, again, body-worn cameras are only one tool. so they cannot accomplish systemic reform. and so if, for example, we do not have a policy addressing a ban on racial profiling, for example, and that continues to be a factor in law enforcement in a particular community, it will defeat the purpose of the body-worn camera if that purpose is to help reiterate law enforcement and the community together and their approach to law enforcement. >> i really appreciate all your answers. again, i'm grateful to the chairman for calling this. as the co-chair of the senate

law enforcement caucus and someone that worked closely with law enforcement in my previous role, it is my hope that some of the different organizations you represent will work together to help develop some model guidelines and some model policies. it should be locally driven but not every community is going to have the resources, time and effort. i think body-worn cameras are misperceived as an easy solution to very complex and deep-seeded problems. they can be a constructive tool but we need to do the hard work first to make sure the parameters and challenges are understood and i'm grateful for your testimony today. >> mr. chairman, before we turn to senator klobuchar, can i ask unanimous consent that the statement of our ranking member, senator leahy, be added to the record of this proceeding. >> without objection. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman and senator whitehouse. thank you all for being here. this is an issue very near and dear to my heart. i used to be a prosecutor and minnesota was one of the first

states in the country that videotaped interrogations, both in squad cars, and custody, anything that was in custody. and when i was -- it came about because of defense efforts actually to prevent -- to prevent any kinds of questions about bad activities, but also to protect civil rights. but i made the argument, and our police pretty much agreed, that it also protected them, it made for a better process. it allowed people to see videotape of someone when they were being questioned so the jurors could judge for themselves what they thought. we had a few cases where we had people that would say things that were somewhat incriminating on the videotape. the jurors were able to see. and mostly, it made sure miranda rights were read and that the process was fair. and so i guess i'd start with that. i think it's come now in more jurisdictions obviously and our

police have grown to accept it. and they did accept it, actually, pretty quickly when it started there. of course, there is other issues with regard to body cameras and privacy that we've pointed out that are different than just interrogating one person. but i want to start with the -- with this concept of the interrogations. i guess i'll start with you, mr. weir and mr. bruder. i realize not every jurisdiction has mandatory recording of interrogations and how would you compare body cameras to other types of interrogations? what are some of the issues that you don't have with the interrogations that you have with the body cameras? >> thank you, senator, for the question. as you know, there are other recording devices that are more widespread right now such as dashboard cameras used by law enforcement in stops. those have been proven to be very effective law enforcement tools for many of the reasons that you articulated. oftentimes it shows the officer acting in absolute conformity with the best practices that you

would expect from police and sheriff's officers and state troopers. it is also great evidence of what actually happens on scene. >> it's also a good training thing, actually, i think for officers and they're able to watch each other and see what's good and what's bad and make sure it's really -- it is a very good way i think for people to learn when they are able to watch each other. but continue on. >> i would certainly agree with that, senator. i would also agree that we are all about trying to improve our process. and from a law enforcement and prosecutor perspective, our goal is to pursue the truth. our goal is to achieve justice and we don't hide from the facts. and if in fact the video recording helps establish those facts, then it is a tool that should be used. with respect to the taping and videotaping of interactions and

conversations with witnesses and defendants, that is a good practice. in my jurisdiction we do that as often as we possibly can. however, it is not mandated, and i would be very reluctant to advocate mandating that given once again the pursuit of truth, the pursuit of justice, there may be legitimate evidence that results from the conversations between law enforcement and an individual that could be lost. that subverts our pursuit of truth and justice. so i think under the right circumstances it should be encouraged and it is used extensively. but i would certainly not be in favor of any kind of a mandate. >> i think in our state it was a supreme court decision called the scales decision. but i will tell you, our police have grown, for the most part, to like it. and we have not had issues about being able to get convictions or anything like that because of

this practice. sometimes they have to explain why they pursued a certain number of questions or why they did it a certain way, that is true. but i think overall, we've found it to be beneficial. >> thank you for the question. i would echo mr. weir's comments that it's best practice and probably advisable to go ahead and try to get those interrogations on film when possible but it is not mandated in south carolina. to kind of transition to a different point that you were making, something that was a great fear of ours when we were trying to support this legislation, we, too, have dash cameras in our car and we've seen a tremendous problem where somebody's foot can go off the scene of the video, then the case is being dismissed because you don't see everything that's happened on video. what we don't want to happen is for that to be taking place with body cameras. we don't want to get to the point where body camera footage is the end all/be all of

evidence. >> i understand this 37 we used to call it the csi effect with juries because we would have a case, mr. henderson knows what i'm talking about, where there would be no possibility of dna but a defense lawyer would say, well, there's no dna. and people are used to seeing this on tv so your point's well-taken. although i think you'd have to explain to juries why something ave that for a case. but i think that's a good point. i thought that when i came in, senator whitehouse was asking some questions about just the pilots. we have one going on in duluth, minnesota. maybe you want to look at what they're doing in minneapolis with how they're doing. i think those pilot programs are one good way to figure out what's working best and to allow states to develop some of these privacy policies that are going to have to be in place to make this work. i don't know if you wanted to add to that, mr. henderson. >> senator, thank you. no. i think pilot studies can be very useful in providing

information to be considered by a wider audience before a major investment is made in the purchase of these cameras. having said that, i hope that states and localities will not use that delay as a basis of not going forward, particularly now that the department of justice is making available grant funds to support some states in moving in this area. i think that should be encouraged. we support the administration's approach. >> and that's why i led with this interrogation issue, because at first it was something that our officers were concerned about and i think they grew to think it was actually a pretty good policy over time. this one, i will admit, has much more complications in terms of some of the issues that were raised with privacy and what you do with these tapes and that you protect people's privacy, as opposed to just interrogating someone in a squad car or in a room. and so that's why it is more complicated and we have to consider that as we move

forward. but i want to thank all of you for being so thoughtful today. thank you. >> senator scott. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, once again, for holding this hearing. i have met with more than a dozen groups over the last couple of weeks and would love to turn the information over to the committee and submit it for the record. thank you, sir. miss miller, do you know how many jurisdictions around the country are currently running some type of a pilot program or have adopted the policy of body-worn cameras. >> that's a great question. it's one i get asked a lot and it is one i don't know the answer to. i don't think anyone knows the exact number. the most recent estimate i've heard is 3,400 and 4,000 agencies across the country, but again, that's just an estimate and i don't think it is necessarily current. that's something that i think people are working on trying to figure that out. >> the reason -- i mean the number is not nearly as important as the level of activity around the country. think four or five years from

now looking back this will be a foregone conclusion that we find ourselves with the vast majority of officers wearing body-worn cameras. i do think it is important for us to point out the fact that the american laboratory is currently at work looking for best practices and the best policies. we can look around the country and we'll find the weaving together of the best practices and policies around the country. i do think it is important to perhaps re-emphasize the necessity of local development of the policies. policing as a local effort and not a federal effort. nor should we find ourselves trying to figure out how to federalize local policing. i think it is also important for us -- mr. weir, i'd love to hear your thoughts on the mandates. i think we should encourage it but not mandate it. i think miss miller's discussed previously, create a framework for folks to work within. though