Philbrook_Police Body-Worn Cameras and the Importance of Oversight in the Form of Public Access

1
May 2016
Police Body-Worn Cameras and the Importance of
Oversight in the Form of Public Access
Brian A. Philbrook

2
POLICE BODY-WORN CAMERASANDTHE IMPORTANCE OF OVERSIGHT IN THE FORM OF PUBLIC
ACCESS
Brian A. Philbrook
I. INTRODUCTION
II. POLICE BODY-WORN CAMERAS
A. Background
B. Pros
C. Cons
III. THE IMPORTANCE OF PUBLIC ACCESS
A. Open Government is Good Government
B. Striking a Balance
1. Proposed Statutory Solutions
2. Considering Non-Statutory Solutions
IV. ANALYZING BODY CAMERASUNDER MAINE’S PUBLIC ACCESS LAWS
A. The Freedom of Access Act
1. Background
2. Is Body-Cam Footage a Public Record?
3. Exemptions
B. The Intelligence and Investigative Record Information Act
1. Background
2. Unwarranted Invasion of Personal Privacy
i. Privacy Interests in Non-Disclosure
ii. Public Interests in Disclosure
iii. Balancing Test
C. Maine’s Current Framework is Sufficient
V. CONCLUSION

3
I. INTRODUCTION
Law enforcement agencies in Maine and around the country are beginning to feel the
effects of police body-worn camera (body-cam) programs in the area of public access. Public
access requests are coming in waves and agencies are not prepared for them.1 In many states, this
has triggered a reflexive response toward additional legislation that gives special status to body-
cam footage under public access and freedom of information laws. Maine is one of the few states
remaining that has not passed any new legislation concerning public access to body-cams,2 and
rightly so, as Maine’s current public access laws already sufficiently account for body-cams and
many of the issues that accompany them.
The purpose of this paper is to discuss the public access issues surrounding body-cams
Ultimately, body-cams have the potential to be a win-win technology for both law enforcement
and the public. However, this can only happen if they are deployed within a proper framework
consisting of strong legislation, policies and procedures that will ensure that the technology
protects the privacy of the public without merely becoming a surveillance apparatus, and that the
privacy and other concerns of law enforcement officers are also taken into account.
The purpose of body-cams is to allow for “public monitoring of the government instead
of the other way around.”3 Ultimately, the legitimacy, as well as the benefits of body-cams will
depend on oversight in the form of public access. Body-cam programs will only work if the
information they collect is available for review.
1 Interview with Christopher Parr, Staff Attorney,Maine State Police, in Augusta,Maine (Apr. 14, 2016). (Parr says
his office is “getting more and more requests for video and audio” in the context of othermediums like dashboard
cameras (the Maine State Police do not yet deploy body-cams). “We do not have the personnelto review all of the
recordings . . . to look for harms, privacy invasions,etc.”)
2 Body Worn Camera Legislation and Policy Map, Google.com (2016),
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=zm7Rb0jg6SZo.kYaxZ2qW64NY&hl=en_US; Access to Police
Body-Worn Camera Video, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (2016), http://www.rcfp.org/bodycams.
3 Jay Stanley, Police Body-Mounted Cameras: With Right Policies in Place, A Win For All, ACLU (Mar. 2013),
https://www.aclu.org/police-body-mounted-cameras-right-policies-place-win-all.

4
The framework of this paper will proceed as follows. First, it will provide some
background on body-cams, including the potential benefits and risks inherent in the technology.
Second, it will discuss the importance of oversight in the form of public access in ensuring that
body-cam programs are successful in achieving the aims outlined in the previous section. It will
discuss the concept of “open government is good government” and the need for striking a proper
balance between public access rights and privacy interests in the context of body-cams. Third, it
will analyze body-cam footage under Maine’s Freedom of Access Act, and the Intelligence and
Investigative Record Information Act. As will be seen, these two laws are analyzed together as
they are intertwined when performing a public-access analysis concerning most law enforcement
records in Maine. Lastly, this paper will make a case arguing that Maine’s current legal
framework for public access to body-cam footage is sufficient and does not need to be changed,
as additional legislation will only add complexity and make the jobs of law enforcement
unnecessarily more difficult. Instead, Maine should consider non-statutory solutions to handle
the impending wave of body-cam footage access requests that are inevitably to come with the
increasing implementation of these programs.
II. POLICE BODY-WORN CAMERAS
A. Background
Recent events in cities such as Ferguson, Missouri;4 Staten Island, New York;5 and
Cleveland, Ohio;6 have accelerated the adoption of body-cam programs and sparked the Federal
4 See U.S. Department of Justice, Department of Justice Report Regarding the Criminal Investigation Into the
Shooting Death of Michael Brown by Ferguson, Missouri Police Officer Darren Wilson (Mar. 4, 2015), available at
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-
releases/attachments/2015/03/04/doj_report_on_shooting_of_michael_brown_1.pdf;
Gunshots, looting after grand jury in Ferguson case does not indict officer in Michael Brown shooting ,Fox
News (Nov. 25, 2014), http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/11/25/ferguson-grand-jury-decision/; see also,
Brown v. City of Ferguson, Missouri, No. 4:15CV00831 ERW, 2015 WL 8313796, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 9, 2015).
5 See Joseph Goldstein & Nate Schweber, Man’s Death After Chokehold Raises Old Issue for the Police, The New
York Times (Jul 18, 2014), http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/19/nyregion/staten-island-man-dies-after-he-is-put-in-

5
Government’s investment in body cameras for local police departments.7 As part of this
investment, the Department of Justice announced a $20 million pilot program for body-cams in
response to the needs of local law enforcement agencies, including $17 million in competitive
grants to purchase body-cams, $2 million for training and technical assistance, and $1 million for
studying best practices.8 By November 2015, forty-one of America’s one hundred largest cities
had equipped officers with body-cams.9 The goal of these body-cams is to enhance transparency
and accountability of law enforcement activities while reducing risk of abuse by police.
However, despite what many believe to be the case, body-cams are nothing new. Rather,
they have only recently been brought into the spotlight. In fact, law enforcement agencies in the
United Kingdom have been testing body-cams since 2005.10 In Maine, the Gardiner Police
Department has been using body-cams for several years, and now all Gardiner police officers are
required to wear body-cams.11 “We did it three years ago, four years ago, five years ago, and it
was before all of the public outcry and things like that, so we weren’t being reactionary, there
was no deciding factor,” said James Toman, Gardiner Police Chief.12 “It reduces officer liability,
chokehold-during-arrest.html?smid=pl-share&_r=1; C.J. Sullivan, Man dies after suffering heart attack during
arrest, New York Post (Jul. 18, 2014), http://nypost.com/2014/07/18/man-dies-after-suffering-heart-attack-during-
arrest/.
6 See Eric Heisig, City of Cleveland to pay $6 million to Tamir Rice's family to settle lawsuit,Cleveland.com (Apr.
25, 2016), http://www.cleveland.com/court-justice/index.ssf/2016/04/city_of_cleveland_to_pay_6_mil.html; Ryllie
Danylko, Protests break out in Cleveland over Tamir Rice shooting,Ferguson grand jury decision,Cleveland.com
(Nov. 25, 2014), http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/11/protests_break_out_in_cleveland.html;
see also Winston v. City of Cleveland,No. 1:14 CV 2670, 2016 WL 397972 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 2, 2016).
7 Office of the Press Secretary, White House, Fact Sheet:Strengthening Community Policing (Dec. 1, 2014),
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/12/01/fact-sheet-strengthening-community-policing.
8 Department of Justice, Justice Department Announces $20 Million in Funding to Support Body-Worn Camera
Pilot Program (May 1, 2015), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-20-million-funding-
support-body-worn-camera-pilot-program.
9 Abigail Tracy, EJ Fox & Ryan Walsh, Is Your Police Force Wearing Body Cameras?, VOCATIV (Nov. 15, 2014),
http://www.vocativ.com/usa/justice-usa/police-force-wearing-body-cameras/.
10 Michael D. White, Police Officer Body-Worn Cameras: Assessing The Evidence,16 (2014), available at
https://www.ojpdiagnosticcenter.org/sites/default/files/spotlight/download/police%20officer%20body-
worn%20cameras.pdf.
11 Taylor Kinzler, Gardiner Police Use Body Cameras to Maintain Accuracy In The Field (Jan 25, 2016),
http://wabi.tv/2016/01/25/gardiner-police-use-body-cameras-to-maintain-accuracy-in-the-field/.
12 Id.

6
city liability, again it helps the officers with their reports, you get good prosecution with it
because a picture really is worth a thousand words. . . . I think for liability purposes . . . each
department really should look at incorporating either cruiser or body worn as a tool they
regularly utilize.”13
The technology itself typically includes a forward facing, pager-sized camera, often
clipped to the officer’s uniform—most often worn on the shirt lapel, but other cameras can be
worn on the shoulder lapel, glasses, or hat.14 Different makes and models of the cameras include
different options—some include a single center button (i.e. “push to record”), while others
include touch-screen controls and/or a screen to view recently recorded footage.15 Some cameras
provide video footage only, while other, more expensive cameras also include audio.16 Video
type, quality, field of view and format also provide a variety of different options.17 The most
common cameras in use come with large docking stations that are often set up inside a police
station where each officer plugs the camera in at the end of their shift and the footage is uploaded
to a centralized server or online cloud-based storage platform where it is encrypted.18 Some
models even allow for immediate video upload while officers are in the field.19
B. Pros
13 Id.
14 See Bureau of Justice Assistance,Body-Worn Camera FAQs, https://www.bja.gov/bwc/pdfs/BWC_FAQs.pdf
15 Id.
16 Id.
17 Id.
18 Id.; see also Terry Stackhouse, Orono Police Now Wearing Body Cameras (Feb. 22, 2016),
http://wabi.tv/2016/02/22/orono-police-now-wearing-body-cameras/ (“Put the camera on. Push the button when
they are encountering an incident that they feel needs to be recorded which is, we’re pretty much saying everything
needs to be recorded, and when they come back in at the end of their shift they plug it in to a docking base and it
downloads to a server”).
19 Id.

7
In Floyd v. City of New York, New York residents alleged that their constitutional rights
had been violated by the NYPD’s stop and frisk policy.20 As part of the case, the U.S. District
Court ordered the NYPD to implement a body-cam pilot project.21 The court stated that body-
cameras would “serve a variety of useful functions”:
First, they will provide a contemporaneous, objective record of stops and
frisks, allowing for the review of officer conduct by supervisors and the
courts. The recordings may either confirm or refute the belief of some
minorities that they have been stopped simply as a result of their race, or
based on the clothes they wore, such as baggy pants or a hoodie.[citation
omitted] Second, the knowledge that an exchange is being recorded will
encourage lawful and respectful interactions on the part of both
parties.[citation omitted] Third, the recordings will diminish the sense on
the part of those who file complaints that it is their word against the
police, and that the authorities are more likely to believe the
police.[citation omitted] Thus, the recordings should also alleviate some of
the mistrust that has developed between the police and the black and
Hispanic communities, based on the belief that stops and frisks are
overwhelmingly and unjustifiably directed at members of these
communities. Video recordings will be equally helpful to members of the
NYPD who are wrongly accused of inappropriate behavior.22
20 Floyd v. City of New York, 959 F. Supp. 2d 668 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).
21 Id. at 685 (“Because body-worn cameras are uniquely suited to addressing the constitutionalharms at issue in this
case, I am ordering the NYPD to institute a pilot project in which body-worn cameras will be worn for a one-year
period by officers on patrol in one precinct per borough—specifically the precinct with the highest number of stops
during 2012”).
22
Floyd v. City of New York, 959 F. Supp. 2d 668, 685 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)

8
As articulated by the court, the perceived benefits of body-cam programs are plentiful
and have the potential to be a win-win for both the public and law enforcement alike.
Many of these benefits stem from the simple fact that observation changes behavior.23
When we know we are being watched or recorded, we often think a bit more about our words
and actions—we become more self-aware and self-conscious. Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon is
often used when explaining this concept. The Panopticon was a prison design that consisted of a
large cylinder with all of the inmates’ rooms on the outside ring facing inward, with a single
watchtower in the middle of the cylinder covered by a one-way mirror that would allow the
guards inside the watchtower to view the inmates, but not in the reverse.24 Even if the
watchtower were empty, the inmates would remain on their best behavior simply due to the
“disciplinary power of the gaze” or at least the illusion of it.25
Like Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon, the “disciplinary power of the gaze” created by
body-cams could have a similar effect on police encounters if civilians and officers know that
their behavior is being recorded and will be reviewable by others, including, potentially, by the
public. In other words, body-cams ensure that everyone is “on their best behavior.”26 In fact,
studies show that the number of incidents involving use-of-force by law enforcement are
significantly reduced by the use of body-cams, the presence of which is “often enough to
deescalate the situation”27 as the mere “visible presence of a camera [can] . . . compel highly
23 See JEREMY BENTHAM &JOHN BOWRING,THE WORKS OF JEREMY BENTHAM:PUBLISHED UNDER THE
SUPERINTENDENCE OF HIS EXECUTOR,JOHN BOWRING (2001).
24 Id.
25 Id.
26 Lindsay Miller & Jessica Toliver, Police Executive Research Forum, Implementing a Body-Worn Camera
Program: Recommendationsand Lessons Learned, Washington,D.C.: Office of Community Oriented Policing
Services, 5 (2014), available at http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/472014912134715246869.pdf.
27 Id. at 5-6; see also Michael D. White, Police Officer Body-Worn Cameras: Assessing The Evidence (2014),
available at https://www.ojpdiagnosticcenter.org/sites/default/files/spotlight/download/police%20officer%20body-
worn%20cameras.pdf.

9
agitated people to calm down more quickly.”28
In one study in California, the Rialto Police Department randomly assigned officers to
wear body cameras for a 12-month period.29 As a result of the study, the department realized an
88% decline in the number of complaints filed against officers, and a 60% decline in use of force
incidents. When force was used, it was twice as likely to have been applied by the officers who
were not wearing cameras at the time. According to Rialto Police Chief Tony Farrar, “[w]hen
you put a camera on a police officer, they tend to behave a little better, follow the rules a little
better. And if a citizen knows the officer is wearing a camera, chances are the citizen will behave
a little better.”30
Complaints against officers who wore body-cams also decreased by 60% in Mesa,
Arizona, and by 23% in Phoenix, where it was also shown that complaints were less likely to be
sustained against officers wearing body-cams.31 Experts, like Dr. Michael White, contribute this
to a possible “civilizing effect” (i.e. a “panopticon” effect) resulting in better behavior by all
parties involved in confrontations, as well as an effect of discouraging the public from filing
unfounded complaints.32 Ultimately, “evidence capture is just one output of body worn video,
and the technology is perhaps most effective at actually preventing escalation during police-
28 David O’Reilly, Evesham Police Chief Calls Cameras a ‘Game Changer, Philly.com (Aug. 7, 2014),
http://articles.philly.com/2014-08-07/news/52519341_1_body-cameras-security-cameras-evesham-police-chief
29 Michael D. White, Police Officer Body-Worn Cameras: Assessing The Evidence,Police Officer Body-Worn
Cameras: Assessing The Evidence (2014), available at
https://www.ojpdiagnosticcenter.org/sites/default/files/spotlight/download/police%20officer%20body-
worn%20cameras.pdf.
30 Id.
31 Body-Worn Camera Toolkit: Body-Worn Camera Frequently Asked Questions,(2015), available at
https://www.bja.gov/bwc/pdfs/bwc_faqs.pdf.; Charles M. Katz, Ph.D., Arizona State University, Evaluating the
Impact of Officer Worn Body Cameras in the Phoenix Police Department (Dec. 2014), available at
https://www.bja.gov/bwc/pdfs/Evaluating-the-Impact-of-Officer-Worn-Body-Cameras.pdf.
32 District of Columbia Police Complaints Board, Enhancing Police Accountability Through an Effective On-Body
Camera Program for MPD Officers, Report and Recommendations of the Police Complaints Board, District of
Columbia Office of Police Complaints (May 8, 2014), available at
http://policecomplaints.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/office%20of%20police%20complaints/publication/attachm
ents/Final%20policy%20rec%20body%20camera.pdf.

10
public interactions: whether abusive behavior towards police or unnecessary use of force by
police.”33 However, these benefits can only be realized if the individuals are on notice that
recording is taking place.
The increased transparency and reduced violence that should inevitably come with body-
cams creates an opportunity to increase the public’s cooperation with law enforcement, since
“people evaluate the legitimacy of the police largely in terms of their judgments about the
fairness by which the police exercise their authority.”34 The video footage can help citizens more
generally to better understand the difficult jobs of law enforcement officers, as well as
specifically to view their own encounter with an officer in a more objective way. “If citizens can
see that they were, perhaps, mistaken, or that they did not understand the situation from the
officer’s point of view, or that they did not have all the facts, they may come away with a better
grasp of the situation, and feeling that they need not continue with the complaint process.”35 In
fact, dash-cam video, for example, has exonerated police officers in complaints a staggering 93%
of the time.36 Recently, in the small town of Liberty, Maine, a man was stopped by a Maine State
Police Officer while walking on the wrong side of the road at night while wearing dark clothing
making it difficult for drivers to see him.37 The man, who was black, filed a complaint accusing
33 First scientific report shows police body-worn-cameras can prevent unacceptable use-of-force, University of
Cambridge (Dec. 23, 2014), http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/first-scientific-report-shows-police-body-worn-
cameras-can-prevent-unacceptable-use-of-force.
34 Tom R. Tyler & Jeffrey Fagan, Legitimacy and Cooperation:Why Do People Help the Police Fight Crime in
Their Communities?, 6 Ohio St. J. Crim. L. 231, 264 (2008).
https://www.bja.gov/bwc/pdfs/bwc_faqs.pdf; David A. Harris, Pitt Law, Legal Studies Research Paper Series,
Picture This: Body Worn Video Devices (“Head Cams”) As Tools For Ensuring Fourth Amendment Compliance By
Police, Working Paper No. 2010-13, 7 (April 2010), available at http://www.nlg-npap.org/sites/default/files/Harris-
Video.pdf.
36 Int’l Assoc.ofChiefs of Police, The Impact of Video Evidence on Modern Policing,15 (Dec. 1, 2004), available
at http://www.theiacp.org/portals/0/pdfs/IACPIn-CarCameraReport.pdf.
37 Abigail Curtis, Police work or profiling? Videos give divergent accounts of Liberty encounter, Bangor Daily
News (Jan. 24, 2016), http://bangordailynews.com/2016/01/24/news/midcoast/police-work-or-profiling-videos-give-
divergent-accounts-of-liberty-encounter/.

11
the officer of racially profiling him and questioning him for over half an hour.38 In response, the
Police quickly released the dash-cam footage from the event, which refuted the man’s claims and
depicted a roadside encounter that lasted only five minutes.39 Simple disputes like this one can
quickly be resolved thanks to dash-cam and body-cam technology.
Body-cams allow for improved evidence gathering as they capture much of what an
officer sees and hears, unlike other fixed cameras such as dash-cams or traffic cameras. This
improved level of evidence gathering not only assists in investigations and in the courtroom, but
also serves to eliminate baseless allegations of officer misconduct while helping to confirm
legitimate allegations. In Topeka, Kansas, a police officer was found innocent in a case of a
deadly shooting after review of body-cam footage.40 In Phoenix, months of video footage was
reviewed that revealed a pattern of inappropriate behavior by a particular officer, and was used
as evidence in convicting an officer of assault. Studies have also shown that the implementation
of body-cams have correlated with higher rates of charging and convictions in domestic violence
incidents.41
C. Cons
Amidst the many perceived benefits of body-cams are downsides and risks that need to
be discussed. To start with, deploying body-cams requires a huge investment of time and
resources. In January 2015, the Phoenix Police Department announced that it would cost $3.5
38 Id.
39 Id.
https://www.bja.gov/bwc/pdfs/bwc_faqs.pdf; Lindsay Miller, Jessica Toliver, Police Executive Research Forum,
Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned, Washington,D.C.: Office
of Community Oriented Policing Services, 7 (2014), available at
http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/472014912134715246869.pdf.
https://www.bja.gov/bwc/pdfs/bwc_faqs.pdf.

12
million to deploy and manage body-cams for its 3,000 officers.42 Law enforcement also has to
devote valuable time on training their officers on proper camera use, review, classification and
redaction techniques. For most agencies, these costs can be prohibitive to deploying body-cams
without the help of federal funding, which most small agencies are happy to accept.43 “If the
President wants to buy body cameras, I’ll be more than happy. It would allow us to purchase
more of them,” said Chief Thomas Connolly Jr. of the Sanford Police Department, when asked
about the costs of body-cams.44 This has been the attitude of many police departments around
Maine, who have been receptive to the idea of body-cam programs, especially if they receive
funding help from the federal government. The Gardiner Police Department has even gone so far
as to eliminate dash-cams from law enforcement vehicles and rely solely on the use of body-
cams.45 Police departments using body-cams in other parts of the state include Orono,
Monmouth, Richmond, Wilton and Portland, and more.46
Reliability of the video footage is also an issue. Current body camera technology only
captures footage of what is directly in front of an officer, and “provides a relatively narrow
perspective.”47 In retrospect, this leads a viewer to make assumptions about what is happening in
the blind spots that are not captured on film, or the causes of an incident or interaction that are
not shown for any number of reasons, thereby adding to the dispute. How is the judicial system
expected to view these images objectively when they can create a sort of tunnel vision, shutting
everything else out, and skewing, distorting or altogether eliminating the true context of a
42 Megan Cassidy, Phoenix police:Body cameras beneficial but costly,The Arizona Republic, (Jan. 22, 2015),
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2015/01/21/phoenix-police-body-cameras-beneficial-
costly/22142475/.
43 David Hench, With caution,police in Maine consider buying body cameras, The Portland Press Herald (Dec. 4,
2014), http://www.pressherald.com/2014/12/04/with-caution-police-in-maine-consider-buying-body-cameras/.
44 Id.
45 Taylor Kinzler, Gardiner Police Use Body Cameras to Maintain Accuracy In The Field (Jan 25, 2016),
http://wabi.tv/2016/01/25/gardiner-police-use-body-cameras-to-maintain-accuracy-in-the-field/.
46 Id.
47 Interview with Christopher Parr, Staff Attorney,Maine State Police, in Augusta,Maine (Apr. 14, 2016).

13
situation? Studies have even shown that seemingly unambiguous video footage is prone to
multiple interpretations by different individuals of different race, age, socioeconomic status,
education, cultural orientation, and party affiliation. 48
Continuous recording could create an atmosphere of mass surveillance of citizens at all
times, especially in larger urban areas with on-foot patrol officers. This could inevitably have a
disparate impact on poorer, minority areas as they are the most heavily policed and would thus
be subject to the most surveillance.
But perhaps the biggest concern, and one of the major focuses of this paper, is the
inevitable invasion of privacy. Citizens have an expectation of privacy that might be threatened
by the proliferation of body-cams. In particular, many of the situations encountered by police
officers consist of sensitive issues ranging from domestic violence, to sex crimes, and encounters
with minors. Those individuals discussing sensitive and embarrassing issues with police could
lose their privacy when their conversations are recorded.49
People invite us into their homes on their worst possible day, and I don’t
think they invite us with the intention of having that interaction made
public . . . Families call us when they’re in crisis. Victims calls us when
they’ve had horrific things done to them by evil people. And to make
48 Dan Kahan et al., Whose Eyes Are You Going to Believe? Scott v. Harris and the Perils of Cognitive
Illiberalism, 122 HARV. L. REV. 837, 903 (2009).
https://www.aclu.org/police-body-mounted-cameras-right-policies-place-win-all (The ACLU has “supported the
installation of video cameras on police car dashboards,in prisons,and during interrogations.” However, “body
cameras have more of a potential to invade privacy than those deployments. . . . Police officers enter people’s homes
and encounterbystanders,suspects,and victims in a wide variety of sometimes stressfuland extreme situations.”);
Sarah Breitenbach, States Grapple With Public Disclosure of Police Body-Camera Footage States Grapple With
Public Disclosure of Police Body-Camera Footage (2015), http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-
analysis/blogs/stateline/2015/09/22/states-grapple-with-public-disclosure-of-police-body-camera-footage (last
visited May 15, 2016) (“Protecting private citizens is the chief reason police officers want to carefully regulate
which videos can be released, he said, pointing to videos recorded during routine patrol duties,like visiting a home
during a domestic argument, as footage not to be released. ‘No crime has been committed, but now we have a video
that could be used to ruin somebody’s life”).

14
those things public revictimizes them, doesn’t serve justice. And I don’t
think it’s the right thing to do.50
As we have seen with dashboard cameras (dash-cams), embarrassing video of individuals in
some of their worst moments have been leaked to the media, or posted online, for no reason
other than for gossip or to embarrass an individual, resulting in that individual having to re-live
the incident in a way that “re-victimizes them and doesn’t serve justice.”51 Ultimately, this could
result in a decrease in victims and witnesses reporting crimes, as it could make it “hard for
[them] to come forward when everyone will know their story based on video footage.”52
Additionally, continuous recording would encroach on the officer’s privacy when dealing
with personal matters, or in general everyday interactions with other officers or civilians. Body-
cams have the potential to record the daily conduct of the officers, depending on department
policies. The ACLU has even said that “continuous recording would [ ] impinge on police
officers when they are sitting in a station house or patrol car shooting the breeze—getting to
know each other as humans, discussing precinct politics etc. . . . continuous recording might feel
as stressful and oppressive in those situations as it would for any employee subject to constant
recording by their supervisor.”53
Further, “[t]here is also the danger that the technology would be misused by police
supervisors against whistleblowers or union activists—for example, by scrutinizing video
records to find minor violations to use against an officer.”54 Moreover, an officer’s awareness
that his every move is being recorded could be unnecessarily stressful and constraining, or could
50 Kate Mather, A fight over access to video from LAPD body cameras is shaping up, Los Angeles Times (Feb. 5,
2015), http://www.latimes.com/local/crime/la-me-lapd-cameras-20150205-story.html#page=1.
51 Id.
52 Body-Worn Camera Toolkit: Body-Worn Camera Frequently Asked Questions, 7 (2015), available at
https://www.bja.gov/bwc/pdfs/bwc_faqs.pdf.
https://www.aclu.org/police-body-mounted-cameras-right-policies-place-win-all
54 Id.

15
distract the officer, placing him or her, and those in the vicinity, in danger. “In a life or death
situation, if the officer is thinking ‘how is this going to look?’ Well, that might be his last
thought.”55 Ideally, officers should be able to rely on their training without worrying about their
every move showing up on YouTube and being the subject of conversation for Internet trolls.56
According to Maine’s Chief of Investigations, Brian MacMaster, in Maine “there are two
groups [of police officers]—the young officer, fresh out of the academy, idealistic; and the old
veterans who just see [body-cams] as big brother.” 57 MacMaster’s own views tend to fall within
the first grouping, but he says he understands the reservations of the latter. “I come from a time
when, you were a cop, you told the truth, your word was your word and that was good enough,
even for the courts.”58 But today, things have changed, especially with technology, and officers
need to be better equipped. “I tell them, look, everyone out there on the street already has a
camera, and you should already be of the mindset that someone could be recording you, so you
yourself might as well have a camera too so that you can record things from your perspective.”59
III. THE IMPORTANCE OF PUBLIC ACCESS
One important issue implicated by body-cams that often gets overlooked is that of public
access. Without it, all of the perceived benefits of body-cams cannot be realized—behavior will
not improve, abuses will not be uncovered, and ultimately, body-cams would be just another
medium of government surveillance.60
A. Open Government is Good Government
56 What is a troll?, Indiana University, Knowledge Base (Jan. 3, 2013), https://kb.iu.edu/d/afhc.
57 Interview with Brian MacMaster,Chief of Investigations,Office of the Maine Attorney General, in Augusta,
Maine (Mar. 29, 2016).
58 Id.
59 Id.
60 See Jeffrey Rosen, A Cautionary Tale for a New Age of Surveillance, New York Times (Oct. 7, 2001),
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/07/magazine/07SURVEILLANCE.html?pagewanted=6 (In England, CCTV
cameras began as a counter-terrorism tool, but quickly developed into a tool used to catch shoplifters).

16
In a memo to the heads of executive departments and agencies, President Obama stated,
“[i]n our democracy, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which encourages accountability
through transparency, is the most prominent expression of a profound national commitment to
ensuring an open Government.”61
It is often said that open government is good government. At its most basic level the
public must have a right to know information about its government’s activities in order to remain
democratic.62 This principle is at the core of democracy, and is not only a check against tyranny,
but also serves as a source of trust, confidence and collaboration between the public and the
officials they have elected to govern them. Body-cams are one way of achieving this aim, but
they can only do so if there is a right of public access.
Public oversight is critical in the context of body-cameras. While most categories of
public records are able to serve a function even without being released to the public, body-cam
footage serves no legitimate purpose without this oversight. Without a right of public access, law
enforcement would naturally be incentivized to only release footage that shows good behavior
and casts officers in a favorable light, while leaving out the incriminating footage. This has
happened in Maryland, for example, where University of Maryland police released 60 hours
worth of footage after a student was beaten by officers, but withheld the 90 minutes that were
actually relevant to the incident.63 This is exactly the type of behavior that public records laws
are intended to prevent.
61 Office of the Press Secretary, White House, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies,
Subject: Freedom of Information Act, https://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/FreedomofInformationAct.
62 See, e.g., Fink v. Lefkowitz, 47 N.Y. 2d 567, 571 (1979) (“the public is vested with an inherent right to know and .
. . official secrecy is anathematic to our form of government”).
63 Ruben Casteneda, U-Md. Officials Seek Inquiry of Campus Video in Beating Case, The Washington Post (Apr. 21,
2010), http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/20/AR2010042005093.html.

17
According to Attorney General Loretta Lynch, “[b]ody-worn cameras hold tremendous
promise for enhancing transparency, promoting accountability, and advancing public safety for
law enforcement officers and the communities they serve.”64 If body-cam footage is made
available to the public in a straightforward, and perhaps even proactive, manner, then it will
likely reduce the possibility of allegations of deception, and law enforcement agencies will be
viewed as having more credibility. Additionally, it provides an opportunity for the public to
better understand the immensely difficult, and dangerous, jobs of law enforcement—bridging the
gap in understanding between public citizens and those who have sworn to protect them. “The
quicker we can get [body cam footage] out to the public to clarify what we perceive to be the
facts, the better it is.”65
B. Striking a Balance
Almost every state has enacted legislation to address body-cams.66 Most states already
have public access statutes on the books, and many have considered new statutes designed to
limit public access to body-cam footage. 67 Some states have limited who can gain access and
some have gone so far as to categorically exempt body-cam footage from public access, which
seemingly defeats the purpose of body-cams and public records laws altogether.68
64 Mark Berman, Justice Dept. Will Spend $20 Million on Police Body Cameras Nationwide,The Washington Post
(May 1, 2015), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/05/01/justice-dept-to-help-police-
agencies-across-the-country-get-body-cameras/.
65 Peter Hermann & Aaron C. Davis, As Police Body Cameras Catch On, a Debate Surfaces: Who Gets to Watch?,
The Washington Post (Apr. 17, 2015), http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/as-police-body-cameras-catch-
on-a-debate-surfaces-who-gets-to-watch/2015/04/17/c4ef64f8-e360-11e4-81ea-0649268f729e_story.html.
66 Body Worn Camera Legislation and Policy Map, Google.com (2016),
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=zm7Rb0jg6SZo.kYaxZ2qW64NY&hl=en_US; Access to Police
Body-Worn Camera Video, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (2016), http://www.rcfp.org/bodycams.
67 Kathy A. Bolten, Iowa Bill Would Require Police Body Cameras for Officers, Des Moines Register (Feb. 25,
2015), http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2015/02/25/police-body-cameras-iowa-
legislation/24024853.
68 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 44-04-18.7(1) (2015); S.C. Code Ann. § 23-1-240 (G)(1) (2015).

18
Most public access laws require agencies to disclose records upon request, unless they
fall within an exemption.69 The Supreme Court “has repeatedly stated that these exemptions from
disclosure must be construed narrowly, in such a way as to provide maximum access.”70 These
well-intended laws seek to protect citizens, and officers alike, from a variety of potential abuse.
For instance, a criminal could request to see footage from a particular time when an officer was
in a private residence, in order to case the home for a potential burglary. Or, maybe there’s a
dispute between neighbors and footage could be obtained for blackmail or extortion purposes.
The list of potential abuses is unlimited. In addition to private residences, identities of witnesses,
victims, informants, or undercover officers are also highly sensitive and must be treated with
extreme care.
It seems clear that privacy interests in these situations are at their apex and thus outweigh
public interests in accountability and transparency; but, are there instances when the public
interest might actually outweigh the threat to privacy in these situations? For example, what if
police are investigating a domestic disturbance and questionable use-of-force ensues that
includes some egregious officer behavior? Sometimes it is necessary, such as in the case of the
shooting of 12-year-old Tamir Rice in Cleveland,71 to disclose such footage in an effort to
uncover and expose systemic wrongs or injustices. At what point does the public’s interest in that
footage outweigh the privacy interests of the individuals involved? The answer is rarely cut and
dry as every situation is different, resulting in a continuous struggle to strike the proper balance.
1. Proposed Statutory Solutions
69 Department of the Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 360 (1976); see also N.L.R.B. v. Robbins Tire & RubberCo.,
437 U.S. 214, 236 (1978).
70 Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820,823 (1973).
71 Toby McIntosh & Lauren Harper, Backlash Develops Over Release of Body Cam Footage, Freedominfo.org (Feb.
26, 2015), http://www.freedominfo.org/2015/02/backlash-develops-over-release-of-body-cam-footage.

19
In drafting legislation addressing body-cams, it is imperative that lawmakers seek to
strike a proper balance between accountability and privacy—i.e., between the public’s right to
access and the individual’s right to privacy. In order to strike this balance, boundaries must be
written into the law that determine when a public record may be disclosed and when it must be
protected from disclosure.
In June 2015, Connecticut passed H.B. 710372, which prohibits recording during
communication between officers outside the performance of their duties, as well as conversations
with undercover officers.73 The law also includes “considerations for interactions with people
undergoing physical or mental evaluations or treatment or in medical facilities—with exceptions
only made for when such an interaction involves a suspect.”74 In writing the law this way,
Connecticut will prevent many potential public access disputes from the beginning by not
creating the record in the first place. Clear boundaries are drawn for when an officer must record,
and when they must not, all but eliminating damage to the footage’s integrity. In the wake of the
Newtown school shooting, Connecticut’s legislature also adopted the exemption for situations
where disclosure of records could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion
of privacy, becoming more closely aligned with the federal FOIA framework for privacy
exemptions.75
Some state legislatures have proposed categorical exemptions for body-cam footage,
which would pre-empt entirely any balancing of public interest considerations when determining
72Mary Ellen Godin, Malloy signs excessive force, body camera bill into law, myrecordjournal.com, (Oct. 1, 2015),
http://www.myrecordjournal.com/news/latestnews/7835186-129/malloy-signs-excessive-force-body-camera-
bill-into-law.html; H.B. 7103, June Special Session (Ct. 2015), available at
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2015/ACT/PA/2015PA-00004-R00HB-07103SS1-PA.htm.
73 Id.
74 Amanda Palmeira, With Police Body Camera Legislation,States Need to Remember Importance of Public Access,
New England First Amendment Coalition (Aug 12, 2015), http://nefirstamendment.org/with-police-body-camera-
legislation-states-need-to-remember-importance-of-public-access/.
75 Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 1-210.

20
whether or not to release body cam footage. In Massachusetts, for example, which is known for
having one of the weakest public records laws in the country, legislation was recently proposed
that would prevent all body-cam footage from public access. 76 Instead, the bill would make the
footage “confidential absent a court order” except that it would be available to the individuals
recorded in the video and their attorneys.77 Limiting access to those individuals who appear in
the footage and their attorney and immediately family would contradict the purpose of the
footage and the public’s interest entirely. In Florida, any video, photo or audio that depicts the
killing of a person is exempt from public disclosure and may only be accessed by a surviving
spouse or immediate family member.78 While laws like this seemingly protect privacy, they
could do more damage than good by severely limiting access to body-cam footage, even in cases
where the public interest might heavily outweigh an individual’s privacy interests.
Efforts made to provide some level of control to data subjects is understandable, and even
desirable, but limiting it to those individuals alone is misguided. Yes, the footage that will be
recorded by body-cams has inherent privacy concerns that may be stronger than in other public
records, but this should not cause alarm. Courts across the country, including in Maine, have
dealt with these issues in the context of other types of records, thereby already contemplating
many of the unique privacy issues implicated by video and audio records. The framework is
already there; there is no need to alter it. Additional statutory exemptions or frameworks would
only be redundant and would make things unnecessarily complex. Instead, before resorting to
additional legislation, non-statutory solutions should be considered to address the concerns posed
by public access to body-camera footage.
76 H.B. 2170, 189th Leg. (Ma. 2015), available at https://malegislature.gov/Bills/189/House/H2170.
77 Id.
78 Christine Becket, Expanding Personal Privacy, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, (2011),
http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news-media-law/news-media-and-law-summer-2011/expanding-
personal-privacy; see Fla. Stat. § 406.136.

21
2. Non-Statutory Solutions
Law enforcement should seek to utilize proactive measures to ensure the protection of
privacy before an exemption is even needed. For example, technological solutions for redaction
and blurring should be utilized, where cost-effective. Blurring out faces and other identifying
images or sounds would solve many public access issues as many of the privacy concerns would
be mitigated or eliminated entirely by de-identifying the footage.79 YouTube, for example,
already has an automatic facial-blurring tool.80 Redaction allows for proactive release of
controversial incidents caught on camera in order to save time and resources, avoiding the need
for a public access request altogether.
For example, in Seattle, Washington, law enforcement have been proactively uploading
body-cam recordings to YouTube for some time. The Seattle Police Department, which has been
operating under a federal consent decree since 2012 when the U.S. Department of Justice
identified a pattern of excessive force among officers, realized they had to address public access
issues when a local man requested all of the video footage from the city’s police cruiser dash-
cams.81 In Seattle, “[t]he city worked with a local computer programmer notorious for filing
requests for public records. The programmer helped build software that automatically redacts the
videos, eliminating sound or blurring the video to protect people’s privacy . . . The police
department has currently uploaded 2,591 videos to [its YouTube] channel.”82 The software
79 The analysis beginning on page 28 will explain further.
80 Nicole Cozma, How to blur objects in YouTube videos, CNET (Feb. 26, 2016), http://www.cnet.com/how-to/how-
to-blur-objects-in-youtube-videos/.
81 See Investigation of the Seattle Police Department, U.S. Department of Justice,
https://www.justice.gov/crt/investigation-documents.
82 Wylie Wong and Phil Goldstein, Seattle Shares Body-Cam Footage on Youtube, SlateTech (Jan. 21, 2016),
http://www.statetechmagazine.com/article/2016/01/seattle-shares-body-cam-footage-youtube.

22
developed by the programmer consists of merely five lines of code.83 “People can sift through
video by date and other tags to find a specific incident, and then file a public information request
to view an unedited copy, expediting public access to certain videos and conserving police
resources.”84
Many public access laws, including Maine’s, also allow agencies a good deal of
discretion in charging fees, which could help to account for the inevitable costs that are likely to
result, including the materials, technology, and personnel time needed to process the requests
and/or redact the video.85 While it is inevitable that individuals will likely complaint about fees
associated with large records requests, the fees themselves are fair. Law enforcement, or any
government entity for that matter, is funded by tax dollars, so out of fairness, it makes sense that
the requesting individual should have to bear the cost of a record request that is using valuable
law enforcement resources when other taxpayers, potentially, are not reaping a benefit. In cases
where the requester is indigent, most public access laws, including Maine’s FOAA provide for
fee-waivers.86
Law enforcement agencies could also adopt policies and procedures that address privacy
at the collection stage in order to facilitate the process for responding to access requests. For
instance, new technology allows officers to “tag” footage after it has been recorded, so that it can
easily be organized in a database, making it easier to locate.87 This “tagging” procedure could be
83 David Kravets, Seattle Police Unveli Blurred, Soundless Body Cam YouTube Channel, Ars Technica (Mar. 2,
2015), http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/03/seattle-police-unveil-blurred-soundless-body-cam-youtube-
channel/.
84 Sara Breitenbach, States Grapple With Public Disclosure of Police Body-Camera Footage,The Pew Charitable
Trusts (Sep. 22, 2015), http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2015/09/22/states-
grapple-with-public-disclosure-of-police-body-camera-footage.
85 See 1 M.R.S. § 408-A(8).
86 See Id. § 408-A(11).
87 Lindsay Miller, Jessica Toliver, Police Executive Research Forum, Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program:
Recommendationsand Lessons Learned, Washington,D.C.: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 32
(2014), available at http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/472014912134715246869.pdf.

23
added as another task to be completed when an officer files his report in his squad-car after an
incident occurs, and there could be different tags based on the category and severity of the issues
(e.g., use of force incidents, arrests, or detainments could be flagged for immediate review).88
Ultimately, any proactive measures that can simplify the public access request process
and the subsequent privacy analysis that follows89 should be sought before resorting to
legislative action.
IV. ANALYZING BODY CAMERAS UNDER MAINE’S PUBLIC ACCESS LAWS
A. The Freedom of Access Act
1. Background
The right to acquire information from the federal government has existed by statute since
1967 when the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) went into effect. FOIA requires
federal agencies to disclose public records to individuals who request them, unless one of several
limited exemptions applies.90 The Supreme Court “has repeatedly stated that these exemptions
from disclosure must be construed narrowly, in such a way as to provide maximum access.”91 In
this way, FOIA is able to enhance government accountability and the prevention of government
“waste, fraud, abuse, and wrongdoing”92 while at the same time protecting legitimate
government interests and individual privacy rights. Many states, including Maine, have modeled
their local public access laws after the federal FOIA, and often look to federal FOIA cases to
assist in informing the application of their own local statute. 93
88 Id.
89 See analysis beginning on page 28.
90 See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1)–(9).
91 Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820, 823 (D.C. Cir. 1973).
92 Pub. L. No. 104-231, 110 STAT. 3048
93 Blethen Maine Newspapers, Inc. v. State,2005 ME 56, ¶ 13, 871 A.2d 523 (“Cases decided pursuant to FOIA
inform our analysis of Maine’s FOAA”).

24
In 1975, the state of Maine enacted the Freedom of Access Act (FOAA). Similar to
FOIA, FOAA provides a right of public access while at the same time protecting legitimate
government interests and individual privacy rights, thus striking a balance between them.
Accountability, transparency, privacy and open-decision-making—these are the fundamental
principles of FOAA.
FOAA states that “every person shall have the right to inspect and copy any public
record” unless otherwise provided by statute.94 The purpose of FOAA, like its federal
counterpart, is to “ensure an informed citizenry, vital to the functioning of a democratic society,
needed to check against corruption and to hold governors accountable to the governed.”95
FOAA’s expansive access provisions serve to inform citizens about “what their government is up
to” and “shed light on an agency’s performance of its statutory duties.”96 Pursuant to FOAA, a
public agency or official must produce the requested information unless that public agency or
official has just and proper cause for denying access to the information.97 FOAA is to be liberally
construed.98
2. Is Body-Cam Footage a Public Record?
Under the broad definitions of public records in the federal FOIA and Maine’s FOAA,
body-cam footage should qualify as a public record, particularly since they are records that are
created by, and under the control of, an agency of the government. The fact that body-cam
footage contains visual, and sometimes audio, footage, does not exempt it from these definitions;
94 Id. § 408-A
95 MaineToday Media, 2013 ME 100, ¶ 8, 82 A.3d 104 (quoting John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp., 493 U.S. 146,
152 (1989)).
96 U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749, 773 (1989).
97 1 M.R.S. § 409.
98 Id. § 401.

25
rather, the technology-neutral nature of the definitions should create a presumption that they are
included.
Maine’s FOAA broadly defines a "public record" as:
[A]ny written, printed or graphic matter or any mechanical or electronic
data compilation from which information can be obtained, directly or after
translation into a form susceptible of visual or aural comprehension, that is
in the possession or custody of an agency or public official of this State or
any of its political subdivisions, or is in the possession or custody of an
association, the membership of which is composed exclusively of one or
more of any of these entities, and has been received or prepared for use in
connection with the transaction of public or governmental business or
contains information relating to the transaction of public or governmental
business.99
“These records are well within the definition of a public record.”100 It would be
misguided for Maine to ever exempt body-cam footage from FOAA’s definition of public record
as doing so would contradict and/or defeat the purpose of body-cams in the first place (i.e.
accountability, transparency, etc.).
3. Exemptions
Exemption 6 of the federal FOIA protects information about individuals in “personnel
and medical files and similar files” when disclosure “would constitute a clearly unwarranted
invasion of personal privacy.”101 Additionally, exemption 7 provides for the withholding of law
enforcement records where disclosure would interfere with law enforcement proceedings,
99 1 M.R.S. § 402(3)
101 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6)

26
deprive an individual of his right to a fair trial or impartial adjudication, result in an unwarranted
invasion of personal privacy, expose confidential informants, reveal non-public investigative
techniques or procedures, or otherwise endanger the safety of others.102 Exemption 7(C) is
limited to information compiled for law enforcement purposes, and protects personal information
when disclosure "could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal
privacy."103
Although federal exemptions 6 and 7(C) contain different threshold issues (i.e., is it a
personnel, medical or similar file; or, is it information compiled for law enforcement purposes),
and different standards of proof (i.e., exemption 6 requires a showing that disclosure “would
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,” while exemption 7(C) requires a
showing that disclosure merely “could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted
invasion of personal privacy”), both employ essentially the same analysis. That is, (1) determine
whether there is a significant privacy interest in the requested information; (2) evaluate the
requestor’s asserted FOIA public interest in disclosure; and (3) if there is a significant privacy
interest in non-disclosure and a FOIA public interest in disclosure, balance those competing
interests to determine whether the information can be disclosed under the exemption’s respective
standard (i.e., “clearly,” “reasonably,” etc.). This analysis is the same when applying Maine’s
exemption to public access for “unwarranted invasion of person personal privacy,” which is
modeled after the federal statute and is found in Maine’s Intelligence and Investigative Record
Information Act.
B. The Intelligence and Investigative Record Information Act
1. Background
102 Id. § 552(b)(7)
103 Id. § 552(b)(7)(C)

27
The Maine Intelligence and Investigative Record Information Act (IIRIA)104 is one
statute that provides for an exception to FOAA disclosure. IIRIA applies to records that contain
intelligence and investigative records information and is collected, prepared, or kept by a Maine
Criminal Justice Agency.105 Intelligence and investigatory records information (IIRI) “means
information of record collected by or prepared by or at the direction of a criminal justice agency
or kept in the custody of a criminal justice agency while performing the administration of
criminal justice . . . [and] includes information of record concerning investigative techniques and
procedures and security plans and procedures prepared or collected by a criminal justice agency
or other agency.”106 It “does not include criminal history record information”107 but does often
include personally identifying information relating to witnesses, victims and informants. IIRI “is
confidential and may not be disseminated by a Maine criminal justice agency to any person or
public or private entity if there is a reasonable possibility that public release or inspection of the
record would” fall within one of several enumerated situations.108
Ultimately, because body-cam footage is “collected by or prepared by or at the direction
of a criminal justice agency or kept in the custody of a criminal justice agency while performing
the administration of criminal justice,” body-cam footage will, as a category, almost always fall
under the purview of the IIRIA when a public access request is made. Moreover, it will be
subject to the IIRIA’s exemptions to public disclosure—in particular, the exemption for
“unwarranted invasions of personal privacy.”109
2. Unwarranted Invasion of Personal Privacy
104 16 M.R.S. §§ 801-809
105 Id. § 802
106 Id. § 803(7)
107 Id.
108 Id. § 804(3)
109 Id.

28
The IIRIA includes an exemption to disclosure for situations that “[c]onstitute an
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”110 The question under the exemption is this: is there
“a reasonable possibility that public release or inspection of the record would . . . [c]onstitute an
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” of one or more of the individuals named in those
records?111 A public access request for body-cam footage would likely be analyzed under this
exemption.112
This exemption, which utilizes a reasonableness standard, is more closely aligned with
FOIA’s exemption 7(C), thus tilting the balance in favor of nondisclosure since the “privacy
language is broader than the comparable language in Exemption 6,”113 and thereby establishing
“a lower bar for withholding material.”114 Nonetheless, federal case law examining situations
that fall within exemption 6 of FOIA are still analogous and can be used to inform Maine’s
interpretation of public access analysis. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court has expressed that
“[c]ases decided pursuant to FOIA inform our analysis of Maine’s FOAA.”115 Therefore,
examples of federal cases will be discussed here in the context of analyzing Maine’s statutory
framework for public access, and the exemption for “unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”
110 Id. § 804(3)
111 Id.
112 Unless of course it already meets one of the other exemptions in § 804 (e.g. interferening with ongoing law
enforcement investigations,etc).
113 Reporters Comm. for Freedom of Press, 489 U.S. at 756 (“Exemption 7(C)'s privacy language is broader than the
comparable language in Exemption 6 in two respects.First, whereas Exemption 6 requires that the invasion of
privacy be “clearly unwarranted,” the adverb “clearly” is omitted from Exemption 7(C). This omission is the
product of a 1974 amendment adopted in response to concerns expressed by the President. Second, whereas
Exemption 6 refers to disclosures that “would constitute” an invasion of privacy, Exemption 7(C) encompasses any
disclosure that “could reasonably be expected to constitute” such an invasion. This difference is also the product of a
specific amendment. Thus,the standard for evaluating a threatened invasion of privacy interests resulting from the
disclosure of records compiled for law enforcement purposes is somewhat broader than the standard applicable to
personnel, medical, and similar files).
114 Am. Civil Liberties Union v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 655 F.3d 1, 6 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (“And because Exemption 7(C)
permits withholding of such records if disclosure would constitute an ‘unwarranted’ invasion of personalprivacy,
while Exemption 6 requires a ‘clearly unwarranted’ invasion to justify nondisclosure,‘Exemption 7(C) is more
protective of privacy than Exemption 6’ and thus establishes a lower bar for withholding material”).
115 Blethen, 2005 ME 56, ¶ 11, 871 A.2d (citing Campbell v. Town of Machias, 661 A.2d 1133, 1136 (Me. 1995)).

29
In determining whether there is “a reasonable possibility that public release or inspection
of the record would . . . [c]onstitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,” the court
examines:
1. The personal privacy interests of individuals involved in maintaining
confidentiality of the records sought;
2. The public interest supporting disclosure; and
3. The balancing of the private and public interests.116
i. Privacy Interests in Non-Disclosure
The first step in this analysis is to identify whether there is a significant privacy interest
in the requested information, and if there is, to what extent is the interest in non-disclosure. In the
landmark case, United States Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the
Press, the Supreme Court stated that “both the common law and the literal understandings of
privacy encompass the individual’s control of information concerning his or her person.”117 This
“includes the prosaic (e.g., place of birth and date of marriage) as well as the intimate and
potentially embarrassing.”118 The threat “need not be patent or obvious to be relevant.”119 In
other words, this provides for a low standard of proof that can be met with ease.
The personal privacy interests of victims is clear, evinced by the many statues that
proclaim Maine’s policy of protecting victims involved in the criminal justice process and the
court system as a whole.120 However, the interests protected by the IIRIA go beyond victims
116 Blethen Maine Newspapers, Inc., 2005 ME 56, ¶ 14, 871 A.2d 523.
117 Reporters Comm. for Freedom of Press, 489 U.S. at 763
118 Painting & Drywall Work Pres. Fund, Inc. v. Dep’t of Hous. and Urban Dev, 936 F.2d 1300, 1302 (D.C. Cir.
1991).
119 Pub. Citizen Health Research Group v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 591 F.2d 808, 809 (D.C. Cir. 1978).
120 See e.g., 5 M.R.S. § 90-B, Address Confidentiality Program; 5 M.R.S. § 4656, Identifying information sealed (in
protection from harassment proceedings if health, safety or liberty jeopardized); 5 M.R.S. § 3360-D, Claims
(confidentiality of Victims’ Compensation Funds records); 5 M.R.S. § 3360-M, Payment for forensic examinations
for alleged victims of gross sexual assault (confidential billing process); 17-A M.R.S. § 1176, Confidential of victim

30
alone. IIRI can, and often does, include information about uncharged suspects, witnesses,
informants, and bystanders, most of whom do not opt in to the criminal justice system—they too,
have privacy interests in not being associated with police investigations.121 This interest extends
from the belief that “[t]he public disclosure of law enforcement files has the potential to cause, at
the very least, public embarrassment and humiliation, and possibly more severe consequences to
reputational and pecuniary interests.”122
ii. Public Interests in Disclosure
The second step in the analysis—once it has been determined that a privacy interest could
be infringed by disclosure—is to identify and assess the asserted public interest in disclosure.
While public access requestors are typically not required to provide a reason for their request, the
Supreme Court has ruled that, when disclosure could result in an invasion of personal privacy, a
requestor bears the burden of establishing that disclosure of the record would serve a public
interest.123
To constitute a public interest in disclosure, the information must serve the purpose of
opening up agency action to the light of public scrutiny,124 and there must be a “nexus between
records; 17-A M.R.S. § 1777, Certain communications by victims confidential; and 24 M.R.S. § 2986, Forensic
examinations for alleged victims of gross sexual assault (health care provider to ensure the confidentiality of the
alleged victim’s identity); 25 M.R.S. § 3821, Transportation and storage of forensic examination kits (examination
kit, when transported and stored by law enforcement, identified only by tracking number).
121 See Blethen, 2005 ME 56, ¶ 15, 871 A.2d 523 (recognizing privacy interest in avoiding unwarranted association
with alleged criminal conduct whether as a perpetrator, witness or victim).
122 Id. (citing Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 746 F.3d 1082, 1092 (D.C.
Cir. 2014)).
123 See Id. at 172 (“Where the privacy concerns . . . are present,the exemption requires the person requesting the
information to establish a sufficient reason for the disclosure”).
124 Dep't of the Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 372 (1976); see also Showing Animals Respect & Kindness v. Dep't
of the Interior, 730 F. Supp. 2d 180, 196 (D.D.C. 2010) ("the public interest in disclosure under FOIA is not limited
to the agency processing the request for records; the public has a right to know what their 'government' is up to, not
just what a particular agency is up to”).

31
the requested information and the asserted public interest that would be advanced by
disclosure.”125 A requestor’s personal interest in disclosure is irrelevant to this analysis.126
Courts have held that all FOIA exemptions are to be narrowly construed in accordance
with the legislative purpose of Congress that disclosure, rather than secrecy, is the dominant
objective of the Act. Information that is “associated with an isolated case” or sought “for its own
sake” does not serve the central purpose of FOAA and thus cannot justify disclosure where
privacy interests are at stake.127 Instead, “the public interest sought to be advanced [must be] a
significant one, an interest more specific than having the information for its own sake.”128 “[I]n
the absence of an allegation of governmental wrongdoing, the interests in protection of the
prisoners, alleged victims, informants, and others who have been the subject of investigation
would outweigh the public’s interest in the disclosure of the records.”129
iii. Balancing Test
The final step in the analysis is to ask whether the asserted public interest (if central to
the purpose of FOAA) outweighs the individual’s privacy interests.130 If there is a privacy
interest in nondisclosure, and a public interest in its disclosure, then the two competing interests
must be weighed against one another to determine whether there is “a reasonable possibility that
125 National Archivesand Records Administration v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157, 172-173 (2004).
126 See Reporters Comm. for Freedom of Press, 489 U.S. at 771-72 & n.20.
127 Blethen, 2005 ME 56, ¶ 35, 871 A.2d 523; see also World Publ’g Co. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 672 F.3d 825, 831
(10th Cir. 2012) ("Based upon the purpose of the FOIA, there is little to suggest that disclosure ofbooking photos
would inform citizens of a government agency's adequate performance of its function" or "would significantly assist
the public in detecting or deterring any underlying government misconduct"); Karantsalis v. Dep’t of Justice, 635
F.3d 497, 504 (11th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (holding "the general curiosity of the public in [the subject's]facial
expression during his booking photographs is not a cognizable interest that would ‘contribute significantly to public
understanding ofthe operations or activities of the government' " (quoting Reporters Comm. for Freedom of Press,
489 U.S. at 777).
128 Favish, 541 U.S. at 172.
129 Blethen, 2005 ME 56, ¶ 46, 871 A.2d 523 (Saufley, C.J., concurring) (relying on Favish).
130
Petrucelli v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,51 F. Supp. 3d 142, 164 (D.D.C. 2014) (“In determining whether this
exemption applies to particular information, the Court must balance the interest in privacy of individuals mentioned
in the records against the public interest in disclosure.”); See also Am. Civil Liberties Union v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
655 F.3d 1, 6 (D.C. Cir. 2011).

32
public release or inspection of the record would . . . [c]onstitute an unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy.”131
Put simply, if the asserted public interest in disclosure outweighs the privacy interests,
then the information should be disclosed. Conversely, if the public interest does not outweigh the
privacy interests, then the information should be withheld.132 This balancing test involves
focusing on the content of the information sought to be disclosed to determine the extent of the
private versus the public interest. “The privacy interest at stake belongs to the individual, not the
government agency . . . and ‘individuals have a strong interest in not being associated
unwarrantedly with alleged criminal activity.’ ”133
When balancing an individual's privacy interest against the public interest in disclosure,
it is important to remember that “the only public interest relevant for purposes of [the exemption]
is one that focuses on ‘the citizens' right to be informed about what their government is up to.’
”134 It is a FOIA requester's obligation to articulate a public interest sufficient to outweigh an
individual's privacy interest, and the public interest must be significant.135 If they do not, then the
131 16 M.R.S. § 804(3); see U.S. Dep’t of Defense v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 510 U.S. 487, 495 (1994);
Reporters Comm. For Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. at 762 (discussing balancing in Exemption 7(C) context,
which generally employs same balancing test applicable in Exemption 6 cases); Rose, 425 U.S. at 372.
132 See U.S. Dep’t of Defense v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 510 U.S. at 497 ("We must weigh the privacy interest . .
. in nondisclosure . . . against the only relevant public interest in the FOIA balancing analysis – the extent to which
disclosure of the information sought would 'she[d] light on an agency's performance of its statutory duties'or
otherwise let citizens 'know what their government is up to'" (quoting Reporters Comm. For Freedom of the Press.,
489 U.S. at 773) (1989)); Multi Ag Media LLC v. Dep’t of Agriculture,515 F.3d 1224, 1228 (D.C. Cir. 2008)
(noting that if requested information falls within Exemption 6, the next step in the analysis is to determine whether
"disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personalprivacy . . . [by] balanc[ing] the privacy
interest that would be compromised by disclosure against any public interest in the requested information"); News-
Press v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 489 F.3d 1173, 1205 (11th Cir. 2007).
133 Petrucelli, 51 F. Supp. 3d at 164 (D.D.C. 2014) (quoting Stern v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation,737 F.2d 84, 91-
92 (D.C. Cir. 1984)); see Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. at 763-65.
134 Id. (quoting Davis v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 968 F.2d 1276, 1282 (D.C. Cir.1992)).
135 Id.; see Favish, 541 U.S. at 172.

33
presumption will be in the favor of disclosure, as “something, even a modest privacy interest,
outweighs nothing every time.”136 This concept has been illustrated in the following cases.
In U.S. Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the
Court held that, in balancing the public’s interest in disclosure against the intrusion on personal
privacy that would occur from disclosure, an agency can only consider the public’s interest in
knowing what the government is “up to.”137 That is, if records are not informative of the
operations and activities of government, then there is no public interest in their release.
In National Archives and Records Administration v. Favish, the Supreme Court exempted
death-scene images as a result of the privacy interests of close relatives.138 The Supreme Court
stated that “the concept of personal privacy . . . is not some limited or ‘cramped notion’”
recognizing that even surviving family members have substantial privacy interests in sensitive,
graphic and personal details surrounding an individual’s death, “acknowledging a family’s
control over the body and death images of the deceased.”139 In Favish, the Court held that the
surviving family members of a former Deputy White House Counsel had a protectable privacy
interest in his (the victim’s) death-scene photographs, based on the family’s fears of “intense
scrutiny by the media” among other things.140 The Court held that, “where there is a privacy
interest protected by Exemption 7(C) and the public interest being asserted is to show that
responsible officials acted negligently or otherwise improperly in the performance of their duties,
the requester must establish more than a bare suspicion in order to obtain disclosure. Rather, the
136 Nat'l Ass'n of Retired Fed. Employees v. Horner, 879 F.2d 873, 879 (D.C. Cir. 1989); see also Favish, 541 U.S.
at 175 (finding that requesterhad not shown existence of public interest "to put the balance into play"); Int'l Bhd. of
Elec. Workers Local No. 5 v. Dep’t of Hous. and Urban Dev., 852 F.2d 87, 89 (3d Cir. 1988); Carter, Fullerton &
Hayes LLC v. Fed. Trade Comm’n, 520 F. Supp. 2d 134, 144-45 (D.D.C. 2007); Seized Prop. Recovery Corp. v.
U.S. Customs and Border Prot., 502 F. Supp. 2d 50, 56 (D.D.C. 2007) ("If no public interest is found, then
withholding the information is proper, even if the privacy interest is only modest").
137 U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (1989)
138 Favish, 541 U.S. 157 (2004).
139 Id. at 165-170.
140 Id. at 167.

34
requester must produce evidence that would warrant a belief by a reasonable person that the
alleged Government impropriety might have occurred.”141
In Prison Legal News v. Executive Office for United States Attorneys, the 10th Circuit
held that death-scene images were appropriately withheld because disclosure could have been
reasonably expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy of the victim’s
family.142 The Court reasoned that the victim’s family did not waive their privacy interests in the
video and photographs as a result of the government’s use of the materials at trial.
In Mingo v. U.S. Department of Justice, the D.C. District Court held that video footage of
an altercation in a federal prison between over fifty different prisoners was properly withheld
under the FOIA exemption 7(C) for “unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” The court stated
that the Plaintiff–FOIA requestor “[did] not seek the withheld information to expose government
impropriety and, in fact, has made it clear that Plaintiff at no time alleged any ‘government
wrongdoing.’ . . . Hence, absent any claim of an overriding public interest, the Court finds that
the Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on its application of exemption 7(C) to the
withheld material.”143
In Maine, there have only been a few “unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” cases
in the context of law enforcement records. However, more are expected to come according to
Brian MacMaster, Chief Investigator for the State of Maine, and Christopher Parr, Staff Attorney
for the Maine State Police, as new technologies such as body-cams are introduced into use by
law enforcement.144
141 Id. at 174.
142 Prison Legal News v. Executive Office for United States Attorneys,628 F.3d 1243 (10th Cir. 2011).
143 Mingo v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 793 F. Supp. 2d 447, 456 (D.D.C. 2011).
144 Interview with Christopher Parr, Staff Attorney,Maine State Police, in Augusta,Maine (Apr. 14, 2016);
Interview with Brian MacMaster, Chief of Investigations,Office of the Maine Attorney General, in Augusta,Maine
(Mar. 29, 2016).

35
In Blethen Maine Newspapers, Inc. v. State of Maine, a newspaper sought review of a
denial by the Attorney General of a FOAA request for documents pertaining to sexual abuse
allegations by deceased priests. In that case, Maine Supreme Judicial Court (the “Law Court”)
held that the privacy interests of the deceased priests did not preclude disclosure of the records
and that there was a substantial public interest in disclosing them. Additionally, redaction of
names of individuals in the records other than the priests was warranted. There, the Court stated
that there was a “direct nexus between the records sought and a substantial government activity
involving a matter of great importance to an informed citizenry. The Court said that the asserted
public interest was “significant because the request [was] not for information for its own sake,
nor for information associated with an isolated case. . . . [but] for the sake of evaluating a
comprehensive investigation undertaken by the government in response to an alleged pattern of
conduct that spans several decades involving the sexual abuse of children by members of the
clergy.” Moreover, the Court said that the records were “likely to advance that public interest, as
demonstrated by the fact that the records were the basis for the Attorney General’s decision not
to initiate criminal prosecutions.”145
Blethen is an example of a strong enough public interest in some personal information in
a record to warrant disclosure, while allowing for the protection of other information within that
record that would not serve the public interest enough to overcome the privacy interests of those
individuals, through the process of redaction. As discussed earlier, redaction can be a solution to
these issues, and can allow for the segregation of records into those that warrant disclosure, and
those that do not, rather than withholding the entire record altogether. Blethen sets a standard for
the usefulness of redaction.
C. Maine’s Current Framework is Sufficient
145 Blethen, 2005 ME 56, ¶ 33, 871 A.2d 523.

36
An important question that follows is: are the current concepts found in public access
laws already capable of addressing the concerns brought to light by body-cam footage, or does
legislation need to limit access by adjusting the definition of a public record or by amending
public access exemptions to treat body-cams differently. Some say this change is necessary,146
while others call it a step in the wrong direction.147 The President’s Task Force on 21st Century
Policing has encouraged states to modify public access laws to protect individual privacy in
body-cam footage.148
Many of the issues that will be faced as a result of body-cam footage, such as their
novelty and entertainment value, have already been sufficiently worked through by the
legislatures and courts in the context of other types of records (e.g., crime-scene photographs,
dash-cam video, public surveillance cameras, etc.).149 The novelty of body-cams should not get
in the way—it is the same analysis, and the principles and framework have already been
established.
Legislators in some states have concerns for the integrity of law enforcement
investigations and proceedings as a result of public access to body-cameras, and believe
additional statutory protections should be in place. However, this is unnecessary in states like
Maine that already have adequate exemptions that allow agencies to withhold public records,
such as body-cameras, in situations where disclosure would jeopardize investigations or
proceedings, or would result in an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. In most situations
in Maine, body-camera footage will categorically fall within the purview of the Intelligence and
146 Brian Liebman, The Watchman Blinded:Does the North Carolina Public Records Law Frustrate the Purpose of
Police Body Cameras?, 94 N.C. L. Rev. 344 (December, 2015).
147 The Media Freedom & Information Access Clinic, Police Body Cam Footage: Just Another Public Record.
148 Interim Report of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, 36 (2015),
http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/taskforce/Intermi_TF_Report.pdf.
149 See Ward & Lee, P.L.C. v. City of Claremore, 2014 OK CIV APP 1, 316 P.3d 225 (2013); Fisher Broadcasting–
Seattle TV LLC v. City of Seattle, 326 P.3d 688 (2014); City of Seattle v. Egan, 317 P.3d 568 (2014); Paff v. Ocean
County Prosecutor’s Office, 2014 WL 5139407 (N.J.Super.L. 2014).

37
Investigative Record Information Act, which provides for a balancing test that has a natural
presumption in favor of non-disclosure.
“Maine is ahead of the curve.” Maine’s Chief of Investigations, Brian MacMaster says he
often receives calls from other states’ law enforcement agencies with questions about how Maine
deals with these issues. In Maine, law enforcement agencies are given a great deal of discretion
in setting their own policies. MacMaster and Parr both think this is a good thing, and that
Maine’s current framework for dealing with these issues is sufficient. Instead, changes should
come at the department policy level, where law enforcement “are better, more equipped to make
those determinations in their own communities.”150 Ultimately, whether writing legislation or a
department policy, drafters must keep in mind the true goal of body-cams, which is not to expose
an officer’s or civilian’s private life, or to record routine traffic stops, or o provide entertainment,
but rather to provide evidence of hostile situations, root out police misconduct and add
legitimacy to law enforcement.
One legitimate concern is that public access to the body-cam footage will reveal the
identify of the officer involved in the encounter and could jeopardize their safety if the public
were to retaliate, such as in Ferguson, MO, where the identity of the officer who shot Michael
Brown was initially withheld for that very reason.151 This is a very real threat, but the response
should not be more statutory exemptions out of a misplaced sense of fear. Instead, the current
framework of exemptions already protects law enforcement officers. Where there is a serious and
legitimate threat, law enforcement agencies have the discretion to withhold or redact the footage,
151 See Bill Chappell, Ferguson Police Release Name of Officer Who Shot Michael Brown, NPR (Aug. 15, 2014),
http://www.npr.org/blogs/the two-way/2014/08/15/340594634/ferguson-police-release-name-of-officer-who-shot-
michael-brown.

38
and the courts are in place to provide a check in the event of misconduct or misapplication of the
balancing test.
Some states that have proposed additional, categorical exemptions for body-cam footage
have done so out of concern for those who could be re-victimized or experience trauma from
public disclosure. These exemptions are unnecessary in states like Maine that already have
exemptions that protect individuals in situations where there would be an unwarranted invasion
of privacy in line with the federal FOIA. This exemption already protects our most vulnerable,
and law enforcement and the courts are already equipped to ensure its proper application. It is
also important not to politicize body-cameras to the point where lawmakers see it as an
opportunity to adopt new, redundant, legislation in an effort to appear privacy-conscious (e.g.
“the sexual assault victim exemption”). Courts need to have the discretion to weigh harms of re-
victimization, re-traumatization, embarrassment, and other harms against the public benefits of
transparency and accountability; and must be able to do so on a case-by-case basis.
Many of the privacy fears surrounding body-cams will already be addressed in Maine, as
the current legal framework already includes body-cam footage as an intelligence or
investigative record, automatically making it subject to the IIRIA exemptions, which already
address many of the concerns—interference with legitimate police work, and protecting
identities of witnesses, victims, confidential informants and innocent bystanders—that privacy
advocates have about body-cams. Only in cases where there a strong and legitimate public
interest that outweighs the privacy and other legitimate interests recognized by the statute, would
the body-cam footage be revealed. And even then, there is the possibility for redaction (e.g.
blurring of faces, etc.).
V. CONCLUSION

39
Do public records belong to the people, or to the government? Unless public access laws
are written in a such a way that allows the public, rather than law enforcement, to decide when
body-cam footage should be released, the potential benefits of body-cams will not be fully
realized. If needed, public access laws should be revised to include an exception to intelligence
and investigative records exemptions, in order to ensure that the public has a true right of access
to body-cam footage containing potential misconduct. At the same time public access laws
should allow for a true right of access to body-cam footage while also ensuring the privacy of
victims, witnesses, informants and innocent bystanders by excluding entirely footage that
threatens these privacy interests from public access.
Body-cam programs are being created to increase accountability and transparency,
improve law enforcement performance and legitimacy, repair trust and reduce tension in high-
policed areas. In order for these body-cam programs to be effective in achieving these aims,
however, lawmakers must allow room for public access. Lawmakers must therefore ensure this
right of public access with the right legislation. In many cases, such as at the federal level and in
Maine, these laws already exist and lawmakers should let them work as they were intended and
not pass additional legislation that would only add to complexity and reduce effectiveness.
Elsewhere, other states should look to the federal FOIA exemptions, as well as states like Maine,
that have exemptions for law enforcement records as a model.
Law enforcement agencies should consider proactive measures in order to limit the
effects of the impending floodgate of public access requests for body-cameras. It is imperative
that we continue to search for new and creative solutions to the problems body-cams seek to
remedy, as well as to the problems created by body-cams themselves.

40
The goal of body-cameras needs to remain in focus. They are taxpayer-funded tools for
transparency, accountability, legitimacy and improved performance. They are not novel gadgets
to be used for entertainment in our sensation-seeking culture. “This is not for YouTube. This is
not for TMZ . . . This is for maintaining the city’s safety. This for protecting people’s
constitutional rights and their rights to privacy.”152
152Kate Mather, A fight over access to video from LAPD body cameras is shaping up, Los Angeles Times (Feb. 5,
2015), http://www.latimes.com/local/crime/la-me-lapd-cameras-20150205-story.html#page=1.

Philbrook_Police Body-Worn Cameras and the Importance of Oversight in the Form of Public Access

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (10)

Similar to Philbrook_Police Body-Worn Cameras and the Importance of Oversight in the Form of Public Access

Similar to Philbrook_Police Body-Worn Cameras and the Importance of Oversight in the Form of Public Access (20)

Philbrook_Police Body-Worn Cameras and the Importance of Oversight in the Form of Public Access