ADVERTISEMENTSkip

................................................................

It was released to the Journal on Wednesday in response to a request under the state’s Inspection of Public Records Act.

“We think this report is one of the premier comprehensive studies that has been done … on on-body recording systems,” said Rob Perry, the city’s chief administrative officer. “There’s been nothing of this particular nature.”

Amid a spike in officer-involved shootings, Albuquerque police in 2012 became the first metropolitan police agency in the country to outfit all its officers with cameras. It agreed to continue using the cameras as part of a settlement agreement with the Department of Justice, which found Albuquerque police had a pattern of excessive force.

The UNM researchers said in the report that Albuquerque police officers are working under a confusing and contradictory lapel-camera policy that tells officers to record every interaction with citizens and provides a list of scenarios in which officers should record, including “contacts where there is reason to believe a complaint could result.”

“We believe the current policy is confusing and officers do not completely understand the policy,” the report says.

The study suggests police set clear policies for when they should and shouldn’t record and identify some situations in which the officers have the option to record or not. They also made other recommendations, such as providing officers with ongoing training and creating clear rules for when videos are released in court cases and to the public and news media.

Dispatch data

The researchers analyzed police computer-assisted dispatch data to help map out when officers did and didn’t make recordings on calls for service. They found that police made recordings on about 62 percent of calls for service over a two-year period. They also completed focus groups with about 15 percent of all Albuquerque police officers of different ranks and assignment.

Key findings ⋄ Officers are more likely to record on higher-priority calls.

⋄ Officers with fewer years of service are more likely to record than more experienced officers.

⋄ Current policy is confusing and difficult to understood.

⋄ APD needs to create a system to monitor lapel camera use.

Recommendations⋄ Get rid of current policy calling for all citizen encounters be recorded.

⋄ Policy needs clear language on what should and shouldn’t be recorded, and what happens when video isn’t made or is missing.

⋄ Stakeholders in criminal justice system should help create a policy for how video is released for court and news media purposes.

⋄ Give officers two cameras, which would improve downloading time and give officers a backup.

⋄ Officers need regular training on camera systems.

⋄ Realize on-body camera system recordings is a complicated issue.

In focus groups, officers questioned whether they should record juveniles, hospital patients, witnesses and police tactics. One officer said that while checking someone’s well-being, he accidentally filmed a teenage girl coming out of the shower, according to the study.

“I took this job to defend the Constitution of the United States, not to violate people’s rights by going into their home and doing these things, so I’d like to see a better protection for the people,” an officer said in a focus group.

Several officers also said they are less likely to have conversations with people on the streets because orders are unclear on whether they need to record them. Others said that since they started using the cameras they are more likely to write citations for minor infractions, such as possession of marijuana, according to the study.

“The requirement to record everything was described as tedious and overkill and in some instances, a hindrance or distraction to other important job responsibilities,” the study says.

Other officers said that it was frustrating to see criminal cases dismissed because of a lack of video and that videos from ongoing cases shouldn’t be released to the media. Officers said the lapel camera policy is being used against the department.

“They know (using cameras) is what they have to do now,” said Paul Guerin, who led the study for the institute. “Officers really just want to know the rules of the game.”

The study was finished just as police officials are working on crafting a new lapel camera policy as part of the police reform effort brought on by the DOJ investigation.

City Attorney Jessica Hernandez said Wednesday that a policy she hopes will clarify camera use has been crafted, but it still needs to be reviewed by the DOJ, monitoring team and police union and be submitted in federal court before it takes effect and officers are trained on it.

Boyd shooting

Since they have been attached to police officers, the cameras have affected how officers act in the field.

A lapel camera recording of the James Boyd shooting led to protests, and ultimately two officers were charged with second-degree murder. It remains unclear when the department should release lapel camera footage in cases in which police officers shoot people, as there are still videos of some officer-involved shootings that haven’t been released.

And a lack of video when officer Jeremy Dear shot and killed 19-year-old Mary Hawkes raised questions about the case and ultimately played a factor in Dear being fired from the department for repeatedly not following orders to record all encounters with citizens.

Even purchasing the cameras was controversial. The Attorney General’s Office has launched a criminal investigation into how he department awarded Taser International a no-bid contract to supply Albuquerque police with cameras.

On the other hand, Police Chief Gorden Eden said the cameras have helped officers write more accurate police reports after a busy shift. The footage has also exonerated officers of accusations made against them.

Officers know their actions are caught on video, which has had both a positive and negative change to their behavior, he said.

“Discretions sometimes becomes an issue. (Officers) just feel like there discretion has been taken away,” Eden said in a meeting with the Journal editorial board on Wednesday.

The data showed that officers made recordings on only 62 percent of calls for service in 2013 and 2014. Although officers did make recordings on 75 percent of Priority 1 calls, the most series calls. Researchers found that officers with less experience were more likely to make recordings than more experienced officers.

Guerin said those statistics don’t prove that officers violated a policy if no recording exists because not all calls for service lead to an encounter that should be recorded. But he said the data do raise some concerns.

“I think we should have seen a better match,” he said. “Officers use cameras. But they don’t use cameras all the time.”