The D.C. Council on Tuesday unanimously approved legislation that will allow the public to view most of the video recorded from body cameras worn by police officers.
The bill changed parts of Mayor Muriel Bowser’s original proposal that barred the public from viewing footage from the body cameras, but kept intact a ban on video shot in residents’ homes. That footage will be available for review during court proceedings.
Though the bill was expected to pass without much protest, a late amendment proposed during discussion by Council member Jack Evans, Ward 2 Democrat, caused some dissent.
Several members were surprised when Mr. Evans and Council member Mary Cheh, Ward 3 Democrat, teamed up to present the amendment, which would allow police officers to view footage from body cameras before writing initial reports, except in the instance of a police shooting. In the original bill, officers were barred from viewing their own video before filing an initial report.
The amendment passed in an 8-to-5 vote, but not without significant protest from several Council members — and some confusion.
Mr. Evans claimed the provision would help police make more accurate initial reports in the hours after a crime and noted that he had support of Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier in proposing the amendment.
But Council member Kenyan McDuffie, Ward 5 Democrat who wrote the legislation, said the amendment was problematic because it conflates an officer’s recollection with what’s captured on the video.
“Officers should write the report from their perspective and not the camera’s,” Mr. McDuffie said. “This undermines the purpose of a body-worn camera.”
Sharing that view, Council member David Grasso, at-large independent, said initial police reports should be written from the perspective of the officer’s memory, not a camera.
“There is a great benefit to having the initial impression of the officer in the original report,” Mr. Grasso said. “The report can be amended later after viewing the video.”
Mr. Grasso was wary of Mr. Evans’ claim that he had Chief Lanier’s support, saying he had heard nothing from city police or the police union on the matter.
Council member Charles Allen, Ward 6 Democrat, was quick to shoot down the amendment, questioning why a police shooting was the only exemption and not other incidents of police violence.
Mr. Allen also said he had heard nothing about this from Chief Lanier and that amending the rules on the fly would make him anxious that there had not been enough examination of the consequences of the provision.
He also questioned whether the amendment was broad enough in only excluding videos of police shootings.
Several Council members fought for the provision, sharing Mr. Evans’ view that the initial report should be about accuracy more than the officer’s perspective.
“If the officer is able to view the footage before the report, then it ensures accuracy,” said Yvette Alexander, Ward 7 Democrat. “In some traumatic situations, people don’t what happened.”
Even after the full bill eventually passed unanimously, there was debate about the amendment. Less than an hour after the legislation was approved, Mr. McDuffie tried in vain to pass another provision that would allow officers to view footage before writing the initial report, but expanded the exemptions to include incidents with deadly force and serious physical harm as well as police shootings.
Both Mr. McDuffie and Council member Vincent Orange, at-large Democrat, said they contacted Chief Lanier during the period between the bill’s passage and the new provision’s introduction and said she approved of the new language. Mr. Evans said he contacted Chief Lanier and she disagreed with the language.
Chief Lanier was not in attendance at the meeting and could not be reached for comment.
Mr. McDuffie pulled the new amendment, but vowed to revisit it at a more appropriate time.
• Ryan M. McDermott can be reached at rmcdermott@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.