Exclusive: Rules for body-worn cameras say support officer should record strip search but try to ensure person’s privacy

This article is more than 1 year old

This article is more than 1 year old

Police in New South Wales are told to film people being strip searched, internal documents reveal.

Amid growing concern about the increasing and sometimes unauthorised use of strip-search powers by police in the state, documents obtained under freedom of information reveal that officers routinely film searches while they are being conducted.

Standard operating procedures for body-worn cameras in NSW state that while an officer conducting a strip search should turn the camera off, “the support officer is to record the search using a [body-worn video] camera”.

While the document states that officers should “take particular care to ensure the person’s privacy is adequately protected” by ensuring footage cannot be viewed by anyone “without a lawful reason to do so”, the searches should still be filmed.

“A person’s privacy is not a sufficient reason to cease filming a strip search conducted in the lawful execution of an officer’s duty,” it states.

Strip-search trauma similar to that of sexual assaults, NSW music festival inquest told Read more

The standard operating procedures – which govern the way police use the cameras – were obtained by the Redfern Legal Centre.

The centre’s police accountability lawyer, Sam Lee, said there were “enormous privacy considerations” involved that should have been “publicly explored” before giving police that power.

However, there could be some benefits for the subject of a search, particularly in the case where it was conducted unlawfully.

“No doubt there would be members of the public who would be absolutely horrified to know that police are able to use body-worn video to document the humiliating and invasive process of a strip search,” she said.

“[However], there will also be members of the public who would benefit from access to such a recording in the event that a strip search may have been conducted unlawfully.

“An alternative could be to only allow the activation of audio to document the reasons for conducting a strip search as well as the conversation carried out during the search.”

In a response, a spokesman for the NSW Police said police using body-worn cameras were required to balance access to “the best possible evidence available” with “the need for police to ensure the protection of rights and dignity of people with whom they interact”.

“Standard operating procedures also ensure resulting footage cannot be seen by people without a lawful right to do so and that there is no unnecessary recording of a person’s private parts,” the spokesman said.

Strip searches by police have been under increased scrutiny amid criticism at the lack of clarity about when they can be conducted.

Last year the police watchdog, the law enforcement conduct commission, announced it was holding an inquiry into allegations police had abused their strip-search powers. Evidence showed the number conducted by police had doubled.

In June the Sydney Morning Herald revealed that an internal report from the force’s lessons learned unit found there was no clear definition of a strip-search in state legislation.

Music festival inquest: police officer allegedly threatened patron with ‘slow’ strip search Read more

The 2018 report found it was left to individual officers to interpret the law, and that police had applied their powers inconsistently at different music festivals.

Last month at an inquest into drug-related deaths at music festivals it was revealed that the NSW coroner is pushing for the release of police strip search protocols.

“That issue is something that, in my respectful submission, should be clearly understood by the families of the young people who are involved in the inquest and by the general public at large, under what circumstances are police entitled to strip search patrons who are entering,” counsel assisting the inquest Peggy Dwyer said.

The operating procedures for body-worn cameras also state that it is up to the discretion of police to use the technology, something critics say limits their usefulness.

The document says officers “should” be turned on “when police would normally use their notebook to record information”, when “performing a police function”, “when the use of force is anticipated”, and a number of other circumstances.

However, Lee said that when pursuing police complaint matters she was “regularly informed that no footage exists”.

“[The Redfern Legal Centre] believes police discretion to activate [the cameras] should be removed and for there to be robust operational guidelines around activation, tagging, retention and release to promote greater police accountability and transparency,” she said.

The “release and retainment” of footage was “highly weighted towards whether it will be of any assistance to the prosecution’s case”.

For example, footage captured by the cameras is deleted after six months unless an officer “tags” it as relevant as evidence or for an investigation.

NSW police spent $4m rolling out body-worn cameras in 2015 and 2016. Last year Victoria issued them to police in Melbourne’s north as part of statewide rollout expected to be complete by 2020.

The Victorian government and police force said the cameras will function as an accountability tool, and help to “de-escalate violence in interactions between the police and criminals”.