ILNews

Supreme Court, Legislature leave police body camera statute as is

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
camera002-15col.jpg Indiana’s new police body camera law, which took effect July 2016, provides guidance on storing and releasing video. (IL file photo)

Indiana prosecutors’ concerns that they could face disciplinary proceedings if they release police body camera video will likely remain unalleviated by either the Statehouse or the Indiana Supreme Court.

Recently, court administrators and public officials met to discuss the body camera law passed by the Indiana General Assembly that took effect July 2016.

key-steve-mug Key

Hoosier State Press Association Executive Director Steve Key, who coordinated the meeting, was hoping the Supreme Court would allow the Disciplinary Commission to give an advisory opinion about the new law. However, the general consensus was to give the law more time to work before the Supreme Court or the Legislature takes any action.

Key said he wishes the concerns could be addressed now but he conceded the law is still very new and no problems have been reported with its implementation.

“If we can’t show the process is not working, then we can’t expect the Legislature to jump out there and say we need to make this change,” he said.

House Enrolled Act 1019 establishes policy for law enforcement agencies in Indiana on how long to store body camera video and who can see it. The law, authored by Rep. Kevin Mahan, R-Hartford City, was the product of an interim study committee and picked up bipartisan support in the Statehouse.

Yet after the bill was passed, the Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council said its members were worried that releasing the video before a criminal case was completed would violate Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct 3.6 and 3.8.

IPAC Executive Director David Powell was at the meeting with court officials but he could not be reached for comment.

“I’m disappointed that this issue didn’t emerge during the legislative process when maybe it could have been address at that time,” Key said.

bray-rodrick-mug.jpg Bray

Sen. Rodric Bray, R-Martinsville, said he is not sure the Rules of Professional Conduct “completely conflict with the law.” Specifically, he pointed to the language now included in Indiana Code 5-14-3-5.2 that outlines the conditions for releasing the video. He said the law’s provision tracks closely to Rules 3.6 and 3.8 that focus on ensuring a fair trial, which should help address some of the prosecutors’ concerns.

Bray, an attorney, was a sponsor of the body camera legislation and attended the meeting with Key, Powell and the court officials.

Indiana Supreme Court Chief Administrator Mary Willis, who also participated in the meeting, echoed the senator. She said the legislation was “well drafted” and provided a remedy for the prosecutors’ concerns. Namely, the state attorneys can ask for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the video should be released.

willis-mary-mug.jpg Willis

She conceded that provision could not shield all prosecutors from a disciplinary complaint. But because the concerns are still hypothetical, Willis said, “At this time the court does not anticipate any guidance being issued.”

Calling the meeting “pretty productive,” Bray emphasized the Legislature has to be careful to not overstep the separation of powers and encroach into the judiciary’s territory. The General Assembly cannot pass a law that impacts the rules of the court, he said, but the Statehouse and the judicial branch need to work together so as not to send mixed messages.

A fix for the law is difficult since at this time, it is still rather new and apparently has not yet been tested in court. Key did an informal survey of HSPA members and found no one had been denied access to the videos or knew of anyone who had been denied access. As he noted, there is not a body of evidence indicating the statute needs to be changed.

Still, he said it doesn’t matter whether the courts or the Legislature addresses the concerns. The point is to not have prosecutors always saying no to the release of video because they want to avoid any potential disciplinary action.

Bray does not believe the Rules of Professional Conduct will be used to prevent the release of all body camera videos. The goal of the bill was to improve transparency, but he wants to see how the law plays out before tinkering with it.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  2. MELISA EVA VALUE INVESTMENT Greetings to you from Melisa Eva Value Investment. We offer Business and Personal loans, it is quick and easy and hence can be availed without any hassle. We do not ask for any collateral or guarantors while approving these loans and hence these loans require minimum documentation. We offer great and competitive interest rates of 2% which do not weigh you down too much. These loans have a comfortable pay-back period. Apply today by contacting us on E-mail: melisaeva9@gmail.com WE DO NOT ASK FOR AN UPFRONT FEE. BEWARE OF SCAMMERS AND ONLINE FRAUD.

  3. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  4. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

  5. From the article's fourth paragraph: "Her work underscores the blurry lines in Russia between the government and businesses . . ." Obviously, the author of this piece doesn't pay much attention to the "blurry lines" between government and businesses that exist in the United States. And I'm not talking only about Trump's alleged conflicts of interest. When lobbyists for major industries (pharmaceutical, petroleum, insurance, etc) have greater access to this country's elected representatives than do everyday individuals (i.e., voters), then I would say that the lines between government and business in the United States are just as blurry, if not more so, than in Russia.

ADVERTISEMENT