National rights group gives Aurora mixed marks on cops’ use of body cams

AURORA | A sprawling study of police body cameras released last week gave Aurora police low marks on how they use the devices but said few large large American police departments are using the devices particularly well.

The report, “The Illusion of Accuracy,” from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, looked at 75 big-city departments around the country, including Aurora, Denver and Colorado Springs. It judged the department on a variety of factors, including how clear the department’s camera policy is, the rules for when officers should turn them on, and how people recorded on the cameras can access the footage.

In the forward to the report, Vanita Gupta, President and CEO of The Leadership Conference on  Civil and Human Rights, said the cameras have the potential to “enhance transparency, improve accountability, and foster greater public trust in local law enforcement.”

But after several years of widespread usage, that isn’t always happening, she said.

“The promise of these cameras is not guaranteed; in fact, in many jurisdictions, it is not being realized,” she said. “Without carefully crafted policy safeguards in place, there is a real risk that body-worn cameras could be used in ways that threaten civil and constitutional rights and intensify the disproportionate surveillance of communities of color.”

Aurora police received high marks for posting their body camera policy clearly on the department’s website.

They received a neutral score because the department doesn’t require officers to clearly explain why they opt not to turn the device on.

The report also gave neutral marks to APD’s policy on protecting the privacy of people recorded.

“The policy mentions the importance of personal privacy, but either offers vague guidance on when not to record, or does not require informed consent from vulnerable individuals,” the report said.

In Aurora, the department’s policy received low marks on five of the report’s eight categories. Aurora police were dinged for allowing police to review footage before they file reports and for not having a clear policy about when un-flagged material should be deleted and how biometric data is stored.

The report also criticized Aurora police because they said the department does “not expressly allow individuals who are filing police misconduct complaints to view relevant footage.”

Aurora police spokesman Officer Bill Hummel said that isn’t really true. In general, Hummel said, if a person is recorded on an officer’s body camera, the department will provide that recording once the police investigation is complete or the criminal case has worked its way through the courts.

To get the video in a case where charges aren’t filed — say a traffic stop where the driver has an issue with the officer — Hummel said people only need to file a Colorado Open Records Act request with the department.

“We would guide them through the CORA request process,” he said.

If charges are filed, the defendant would have access to that footage as part of the standard discovery process, he said.

There are cases where APD won’t turn over the video, Hummel said. If the person asking for the footage isn’t the subject of a video — say they are a friend or relative of the person recorded but they weren’t there — APD likely won’t give that video to them, he said.

Other instances include places where the camera could pick up private information, such as hospitals.

Hummel said almost 500 Aurora police officers have the cameras today, including every officer who works patrol.

Hummel said the department doesn’t have any plans to make immediate changes to the program, but they are constantly reviewing the way they use the cameras and trying to improve the program.

“We are always looking into best practices and if there are better ways we can utilize them,” he said.

Denver police received similar marks to Aurora but received praise for their privacy policy, which Aurora earned a neutral score for.

Colorado Springs received low marks across the board, except a neutral mark for their privacy policy.