Part four of a series exploring issues surrounding Massachusetts wiretap law. Part one explains the wiretap statute in detail, part two deals with the right to record police and part three covers a bill that could expand the law.

Vanessa Lynch, with Arise for Social Justice, listens to a talk at a Saturday rally outside the Springfield Police Station.

SPRINGFIELD – When the police stop you, immediately you should hit record, Vanessa Lynch told the crowd.

Lynch, a member of the Arise for Social Justice board of directors, sat on the grassy median at a rally Saturday, Aug. 2, across from the Springfield Police Station. Protestors sat on buckets holding hand-drawn signs that said "Stop the militarization of law enforcement" and "Film the police."

Luke Ryan, an attorney based in Northampton, spoke into a microphone about police-public interactions, explaining constitutional rights and how to behave during encounters.

"The people writing police reports are humans," Ryan said. "They can make mistakes."

The camera is more objective. Use it the wrong way, however, and you could be arrested.

Between 2012 and June 2014, there were at least 65 criminal charges brought under the wiretap statute in Massachusetts, not counting those in Plymouth or Suffolk district attorney jurisdictions.

Of the six charges brought in Springfield District Court during that time period, at least five were dismissed or dropped. Four of those charges were brought after the defendant allegedly recorded police officers. One of those defendants was Karen Dziewit.

Karen Dziewit, 24, takes the oath to tell the truth during her appearance in Springfield District Court July 8, 2014. (Michael S. Gordon / The Republican)

Dziewit, 24, of Chicopee, was arrested

May 11 in Springfield when police responded to a disturbance on the street. She was charged with unlawful wiretap after she turned on a recording app on her phone and left it in her purse.

Multiple court decisions have indicated Massachusetts residents have a right to record police, as long as they do so without secrecy. Because the phone was in her purse and she didn’t alert officers to the recording, that likely constituted a secret recording when compared to previous rulings.

Prosecutors dropped Dziewit’s wiretap charge July 8, and her disorderly conduct charge was continued without finding for 30 days. The case highlighted wiretap statute and the legal limits of recording in Massachusetts — even in public places or of public figures.

The case for cameras

Courts and many law enforcement agencies value video evidence as an investigative and prosecutorial tool.

Ninety-three percent of prosecutors say video evidence is a successful prosecutorial tool, according to the International Association of Chiefs of Police. The objective eye of the camera lightens the load on eyewitness testimony and "who are you going to believe" testimony.

Massachusetts cases like Glik v. Cunniffe bolster the public's right to produce video evidence. In that case, the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled citizens have the constitutional right to record police, and such recording "aids in the uncovering of abuses."

Massachusetts wiretap law targets only audio, so the court was talking about audio recording, but because audio is often intrinsic to video, the issues are linked. Unless someone turns off the audio during a video recording, they are held to the same two-party consent and secrecy restrictions as someone with a tape recorder.

While those restrictions remain in place in Massachusetts, the criminal justice community as a whole has embraced video and audio recording. Officers will even do it for you.

The U.S. Supreme Court embraced the use of dashboard camera video in 2007's Scott v. Harris. A police officer forced a 19-year-old's vehicle off the road during a high-speed chase. In the ensuing crash, the man was paralyzed.

In a rare move, the Court allowed cruiser video evidence contradicting the plaintiff’s version of events, and ruled in favor of the officer.

The Court further stated that a lower court should have prioritized the video evidence rather than the plaintiff’s word. In that case — and in many others — video produced by police exonerated the officer.

Craig E. Ferrell, Jr., Deputy Director and General Counsel for the Houston Police Department, wrote in the October 2013 issue of Police Chief Magazine that officer-produced video combats "negative public perceptions created by partial cellphone videos often showing only an officer's use of force."

In other words, officer-produced video is even more important than videos created by the public. It rolls before and after an incident, giving more context than many observer videos.

In 2012, Springfield’s Community Police Hearing Board received 86 complaints about police officers. Only seven were sustained. In 2013, eight of 92 complaints were sustained. Sustained complaints were “supported by sufficient evidence,” the 2012/2013 CPHB report said.

George Bourguignon, chair of the CPHB, said many complainants simply don’t follow through on their complaints — failing to provide evidence.

Why don't Springfield police have cameras?

The CPHB recommends cruiser cameras. Police Commissioner John Barbieri wants them. Mayor Domenic Sarno supports them.

But despite the support for and widespread use of dashboard cameras in other police departments, video still is barred from Springfield cruisers. Police contract negotiations earlier this year ensured that, for now, it will stay that way.

Springfield Labor Relations Director William Mahoney, at podium, discusses a new police supervisors contract during a City Council meeting at City Hall. Police Commissioner John Barbieri, left, urged approval of the contract. The council voted 12-0 to approve the contract. (PETER GOONAN / THE REPUBLICAN)

In February an

arbitration panel ruling

blocked the city from installing cameras in cruisers and microphones on officers. That came after the police union pushed back against the proposal, saying further study and negotiations were needed.

Instead, the panel ordered the city to create a Joint Study Committee of union representatives and police management officials. William Mahoney, Springfield labor relations director, said Barbieri has appointed representatives to the committee and they are in the process of meeting with union representatives.

Kevin Coyle, a lawyer for the police union, said the city’s contract proposal was too vague. He said the city failed to create adequate policy and protocol for camera use.

Coyle said the issue needed further study because there are not detailed protocols of how in-car cameras are used. In a March story by The Republican, Coyle said the union needed details of camera programs in urban cities, not from a "deputy sheriff on some lonely road in Kansas."

Lonely Kansas roads do not have a monopoly on dashboard cameras.

A decade ago, nearly half of the largest U.S. police departments by population-served used in-car video, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. In 2007, 60 percent of departments serving a population in Springfield's range used in-car video.

In-car cameras were first regularly used more than 30 years ago. By 2003, 72 percent of individual state police and highway patrol cars nationwide had cruiser cameras, thanks to $21 million in grants during the previous three years from the Department of Justice’s Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program.

Protocol and policy guidelines for in-car cameras are widely available. The Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies maintains a detailed set of standards for best practices and implementation. The International Association of Chiefs of Police published digital video system guidelines with exhaustive technical detail on in-car camera specifications and placement.

The IACP and COPS also put out a guide of best practices and research more than a decade ago. The American Bar Association has legal standards for building departmental policy regarding video surveillance.

The effect and implementation of cruiser cameras has been studied extensively. An enormous number of cruisers in urban and rural settings have cameras.

But Coyle said without guidelines included in the proposal, the city’s case was a blanket directive: put cameras in cruisers.

He said he expects the committee to conduct research and have something more to discuss during bargaining for the next contract.

That’s two years away.

Some Springfield community members want to ensure that next time, the chance to get cameras in cars will not slip away.

Frank Cincotta with Arise for Social Justice holds a sign at a Saturday rally outside the Springfield Police Station.

Arise for Social Justice

, a low-income advocacy organization in Springfield, is rallying for support for in-car cameras. Organizer Frank Cincotta said a

petition started three months ago

has over 1,000 signatures, and the group aims for 25,000 before the next police contract negotiations.

Cincotta said there is a lack of police accountability in low-income areas, and in-car cameras provide an unbiased, accurate account of what happened — including when an officer’s actions were justified.

“This isn’t an anti-cop thing,” Cincotta said.

Arise isn't alone in its support for in-car cameras. Talbert W. Swan II, president of the Greater Springfield chapter of the NAACP, spoke out against the arbitration panel's decision earlier this year in a letter to Joseph Gentile, president of the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, Local 364:

The 2003 COPS and IACP report said 94 percent of community members responding supported the use of in-car video. In the same report, 71 percent said police should notify people when they are recording. That notification is where in-car cameras and on-person microphones could conflict with wiretap law.

Coyle said recording could invade privacy or violate wiretap law without the proper guidelines. Without protocol specifying what should be recorded and reviewed, it puts undue hardship on officers to have every conversation recorded, even with other officers.

The wiretap issue is relatively straightforward. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled that audio recording is legal as long as all parties in the conversation should have reasonable expectation that they are being recorded. A visible and obvious camera or a badge identifying the recording device would likely suffice.

Arbitration Award 2-25-2014 by masslive

What should or shouldn’t be recorded is a matter of departmental policy. Guidelines for such policy — such as when an officer should activate a camera — are available.

In many departments, in-car video is considered a boon to officers rather than a burden. In a 2002 survey of state law enforcement agencies, such as high patrol and state police, the International Association of Chiefs of Police found overwhelming evidence of the usefulness of in-car video.

In allegations of misconduct when video evidence was available, 93 percent of officers were exonerated. Internal affairs investigations were more simply resolved.

Only 11 percent of responding officers said camera usage was moderately or very stressful. Fifteen percent said they were more satisfied with their jobs.

But despite the long-time and widespread prevalence of cruiser cameras, the exhaustive guidelines laid out by police organizations, the proven benefits to most officers and the overwhelming public and administrative support, the Joint Study Committee will need time to study cameras before they can possibly be placed in any cruisers sometime after contract negotiations in 2016.

Other departments look to future of police cameras

While Massachusetts maintains the tightest recording restrictions nationwide and Springfield haggles over traditional dashboard cameras, some out-of-state police departments are taking transparency to the next level: recording in-person interactions from the police point-of-view.

Body cameras are a trendy technology in the police world, with departments including San Antonio, Philadelphia, Seattle, Detroit, Washington, D.C., and others working camera pilot programs. A 2013 Police Executive Research Forum survey of 254 departments found about 25 percent using body cameras.

In 2012-2013, the Rialto, Calif., police department tested the cameras and returned dramatic results: the department had more than a 50 percent reduction in use of force. There was a 90 percent reduction in complaints about officers than in the previous year. At the same time, there were more police-public interactions than in the previous year.

The probable reasons behind such improvements are not hard to reason. When people are watched, they tend to behave better. That includes police officers and members of the public with whom they interact.

This means body cameras do not only serve to keep tabs on police. PERF points out that objective documentation of interactions “exonerates officers who are targets and citizen complaints and reduces the number of lawsuits against the department.”

Though the statistics are dramatically positive for all parties, the ACLU warns that strict policies should be in place for the cameras to be effective without destroying privacy. Issues regarding when officers should have the cameras turned on, data storage and public information accessibility make policies complicated.

The 2013 PERF survey showed that about one-third of departments that have body cameras have no written policy on their use.