Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Are there any further comments, those in favor of confirming the appointments vote? I. I those of those opposed vote. No. Motion carries and the appointments are confirmed. These are either part of the Gender Equity Safe Communities and New Americans Committee.
Speaker 6: The Report of the Gender Equity So Communities and New Americans Committee General 12 Cancel 118904 relating to appropriations for the Seattle Information Technology Department and many audience 125207, which adopted the 2017 budget, lifting a proviso in ratifying confirming certain prior acts. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thanks very much, Councilmember Gonzalez.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Council Bill 118904 effectively lifts a budget proviso that was documented in Green Sheet 2071b1 2017 concerning some additional need for a community engagement prior to the release of funds for the Seattle Police Department to move forward with its procurement and operation of a department wide program related to body worn video, commonly referred to as body cameras. Just really quickly, as a refresher around what the conditions of the proviso were that that were imposed upon the department, I just wanted to run through the four components that were documented in that 2017 proviso that were approved by this body. In our last budget cycle, the proviso had four parts to be completed by February 1st of 2017 by the Seattle Police Department. In conjunction with and in consultation with the Community Police Commission, one SPD had to reconvene. The Stakeholder Work Group formed the prior year 2005. And excuse me, 2016 ents and they needed to seek out their advice regarding any outstanding issues or community concerns related to body worn camera protocols and policies to speed in consultation with the stakeholder work group and Council needed to develop a detailed action plan for community engagement on body worn video by December 2nd, 2016, that included a plan for regularly sharing with my committee a status update on community engagement efforts. Three. Speedy needed to submit to the Council a final report that summarized the results of the Department's community outreach that would describe how the draft body worn video policy would was responsive to community input and the operational needs of the department. And the report also needed to identify any unresolved questions or issues related to the body worn video policy and implementation protocols. And lastly, the Department was required to document how it would continue to engage and seek the advice of the stakeholder work group on the use and deployment of body worn video equipment in a sustainable manner well into the future of the deployment of this new technology into our community. So before us today is and before my committee last week was a consideration of whether or not the 127 page report submitted by the police department to full council in my committee was effectively in compliance with those four different criteria that were articulated in the 2007 2017 proviso. After deliberation, the committee determined that the the the requirements of that proviso were met. I do want to note that we heard in public comment both at committee and here today and have received some email correspondence related to what the what I think could be confusion as to what the proviso was intended to do versus what it wasn't intended to do. And I just want to be really clear that the proviso clearly was a requirement and a directive to the police department to engage in additional community outreach, which I think at the end result had been approximately two years worth of community engagement. I'm not saying that it was an entire two years worth of community engagement. It was certainly in fits and starts, I would say. But the proviso was not intended to relitigate the issue as to whether the city should or should not pursue the body worn video program. And I wanted to be really clear, is the drafter in the generator of that proviso that the intent of the proviso was to make sure that as as the city moves towards deployment of body worn cameras into our community, that it was being done so in a manner that was informed by impacted communities. So that that, I think, is what the actual intent was. And I just wanted to say that given that the the committee recommends that the full council approve the ordinance lifting the body worn video proviso and before I end my comments in hand and answer any questions or open up the floor for others to add their comments , I just wanted to add that in public comment. Again, both in committee and here, we've heard a lot about about whether or not body cameras are desired within our community. And I just wanted to point out to a report that was issued just last year that was commissioned by the Federal Monitor, by the city of Seattle, to take a look at not just community confidence, particularly within communities of color, but also looked at where people were at in terms of their receptiveness to wanting body cameras here. And I'll just read the final conclusion from the report which says, quote, Seattleites overwhelmingly want to see body cameras on their officers. This is almost universally popular, 92% support, 5% oppose like it was in 2015, in which 89% support, 7% oppose. It's again impossible to find a statistically significant population in this city who supports this by any less than 80%. This is similar to the 87% of people who think it's a good idea nationally, according to Pew Research's December 2014 poll. Close quote. So I think the challenge before the department and the challenge before this council is to thread the needle and strike that balance as much as we can between operational needs and legitimate, reasonable policy concerns that have been expressed by a variety of stakeholders, including the department. And I think that right now what we have before us is, is a policy that has that striving to do that it is currently being considered by the. It will monitor and I believe will have a result or reaction from the federal monitor in early March. So with that being said, I just wanted to lay that out and assure folks who have concerns that this is an iterative process, that we will continue to look at the implementation and deployment of this particular technology in our community, and that that will be done in a transparent way, primarily by virtue of having quarterly reports in my committee. And I've gotten assurances from the department that to the extent that there are increases in use of force in the field after the point for deployment, that there will be an opportunity to revisit this and consider suspending the program.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Gonzalez. Any further comments? Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Councilmember Gonzales, I appreciate your work on this in the Dow lining and where we are today. I'm going to be voting against this and I want to just walk through where my concerns stem from. So be clear on that. I think it starts from the general concern that I think folks share is the balance between these cameras. Are they going to be used for surveillance or are they going to be used for police accountability? And there's no doubt that a camera could be used for both. But how we set up a policy that ensures that the predominant preponderance of the work done here is to achieve the police accountability outcomes that I believe we're all working for and to be careful that the surveillance aspects of it, to the extent that they exist, are done in a way that are consistent with our commitment, ongoing commitment to privacy. I do believe that the the the folks in charge at the police department are trying really hard to get this right. It's a challenging it's a challenging effort to balance this. And yet when I look at where we are today, I feel like there's some work that needs to be done before we proceed to a full deployment citywide. I want to say that I trust our police department, that they're intense and all my work with them, I believe that their intent is outstanding. But that said, I don't believe it's appropriate to pass policies based on my personal trust with the people who happen to be in charge at the moment. I think it's critically important that we have policies that hold up under any set of people that are occupying different positions. And specifically, my concern is around the amount of discretion that officers, I believe, will continue to have. In light of the report that came out. And what that discretion may mean. I believe folks have seen the New York Times article that talked in detail about what's happening here in our city around police body cameras from I believe it's from last October. There's a data piece in there that it's important to repeat. I know folks here have heard it, but when referring to a study by Ariel and Sutherland, it found that police use of force actually went up by an astonishing 71% when officers to turn on their camera, to turn their cameras on or off at will and went down by 37% only when they recorded nearly every interaction with public from start to finish. That's one data point, but it's a pretty big data point with a pretty big spread of outcomes depending on how this can be implemented. And so when I look at the I'm specifically looking at attachment F to the report and under Section five, where will Seattle fall following that? Is it a place, a system where they're intended to record every interaction or when they can turn them on and off at will? And it's hard for me to tell, frankly, when I'm looking under Section five, see discretion in recording. It starts off by saying that employee is acting in good faith. To exercise discretion in this policy will not be subject to discipline for the decision to record or not record. That's a pretty big caveat that I think carves out, like, hey, as long as you're trying, we're going to give you a fair amount of leeway. And that feels like it's pretty broad. Then when we look at some of the areas where folks have discretion, there may be a odd circumstance. I'm looking at five F here. There may be limited circumstances when respect for an individual's privacy or dignity outweighs the need to record an event when skipping to the bottom. When an employee believes such a circumstance exists. Employee may deactivate the body worn camera. I won't go into detail to repeating this, but there's numerous places where there's a lot of discretion, and it's hard for me to figure out how we will enforce those rules and say, was it appropriate use of discretion or not? And then we come back to the caveat, well, as long as they're acting in good faith, we're not going to discipline them. It feels like I worry that we are going too far in the direction of the of the study where folks, police officers, will have a significant amount of discretion to turn on and off the cameras at will. So my one issue is with the Seattle Police Department, not, again, their intent. I believe they're trying very hard on a very challenging thing, on a challenging issue. But I'd like to see more work around that. I also have concerns about other levels of government and how that interacts with our ability to implement a law that if it were just up to Seattle, I think we could do much better. Specifically around states, public records, disclosure rules. We've heard that there is an effort, an ongoing effort to change these. But that's an effort that's out of our control. I mean, we will certainly weigh in on that and lobby and have in the past. It's not clear to me that we're significantly closer to resolving that, and there's no certainty that we will resolve it in a way that meets our needs. I appreciate that. In the the police department's response to the ACLU's letter, they highlight that if things don't go the direction we want them to go, that they would certainly be opening to revisit this. But I think that ultimately highlights the uncertainty around it. And finally, setting this, the police department in the state aside, I have serious concerns about federal government's use of data, concerns that frankly, even two weeks ago, I don't know that I would have felt as strongly about we will be collecting immense amounts of data on people in our community. And I don't see any way at the moment how we can shield the federal government from having unfettered access to that one way or the other. And when we have a federal government that is doing things like having immigration agents, board domestic airlines to check IDs of everyone on board, it causes me grave concern about what this amount of data on people in our city being well, not willingly handed over, being made available because we have no alternative to the federal government does. And again, the urgency of moving forward on accountability is important to me, but weighed against these other factors. My preference would be to not deploy body camera citywide at this time and take a little more time to both see what evolves at the state and federal government and work on our policies internally to see if we can do a better job to eliminate some of that discretion. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Bryant. Any further comments? Council members. Back then customer accounts from the question, but yours are just questions. Okay. We'd like to answer it now or later. Okay. Customers want.
Speaker 2: Thank you, President Harrow. I wanted to thank the. Public Defenders Association, the ACLU, the NAACP and the Council on American-Islamic Relations of Washington State for not only testifying, but also specifically talking to the NAACP and the ACLU for engaging with my office as we sought clarification of many of these questions that were emerging as Councilmember O'BRIEN You know, one went over many of them. I think the council members who are advocating for this particular ordinance have cited the support for BODYCAMS and the consent decree and made the case that it's an important part of police accountability reforms. But that is the question that emerges in my mind. Will these cameras be used for police accountability, or will they be used to increase warrantless surveillance of all our communities, particularly our immigrant and black communities who are systematically targeted by law enforcement agencies around the country. I think John Gardner, own of the ACLU, posed that question quite well in his email to council last Wednesday. He said, and I quote, A policy geared towards surveillance and prosecutions looks very different from one geared towards accountability. We should not ignore data that suggests rolling out cameras with the wrong rules may lead to an increase in violence and may decrease community trust in law enforcement at a time when the trust is particularly fragile. It is for this reason that simply rolling out cameras with the stated intent to adjust the policy on the fly is not a cost free decision. And Gordon and Gordon Brown had a really good quote that was in The New York Times about the some of the information we have. So what policy has the SBT put in place for the deployment of body cams? Well, the fact that discretion for turning the cameras on and off and control over what happens with the footage is fundamentally in control of the speed. Makes it clear to me that this policy cannot, despite intent, be primarily designed to be a tool for accountability. For accountability. There is to be some other independent agency whose mission is accountability of the speed and who are empowered to make those decisions. Otherwise, it's simply a case of the fox guarding the henhouse. Brian Massey, the chief operations officer of the LAPD, was here year, sent this letter. To all council members except for me objecting to the ACLU opposition to their body cam policy. My office will get into the serious failure of communication from a city department or city council member leader. But for today, I would like to focus on the substance of his letter. Brian Maxey admits, quote, The policy does not allow officers discretion to turn the cameras on and off under specific circumstances, but is not nearly as nefarious as the ACLU letter suggests, unquote. I have to ask, how can this be an effective accountability tool if officers have that discretion in the first place? He goes on to concede that, quote, The federal government can request and receive data from the department, unquote, but justifies this by saying that, quote, the speedy currently audio and video records the same sort of events that the current body worn cameras policy instructs officers to capture. The department has almost a petabyte of ICB information, unquote. And by the way, what is a better bite? I don't know. And I think I know a lot about that stuff, but I don't know what a petabyte is. But I would like to quote Sean Garner own again, who said that as to privacy, body cameras record far more video in far more places, including the interior of buildings than in-car videos. So it is disingenuous to suggest that simply because SBT currently audio and video recorders the same sort of events, the body cameras would also have the same rules apply. Also additionally in the the newest letter from the ACLU talks about a specific concern, I think that should be highlighted. The potential result is that body camera footage, combined with the availability of that footage to the federal government and with facial recognition searches could compromise an individual's immigration status in direct contravention to our city's status as a welcoming city. For example, day laborers often gather in the parking lot of Home Depot in West Seattle, which is located next to the Speedy West Precinct, with officers wearing body cameras. Recordings showing the faces of those individuals would be open for the federal government to run facial recognition searches, possibly triggering deportation actions. I don't think these these concerns should be taken lightly, especially at a time when Trump is a Donald Trump has made it very clear his administration is going to systematically go after a whole host of immigrants, not just as he claims, you know, criminal immigrants with criminal records. I think this is of a great concern. And I think that given all of the concerns that have been raised by the various organizations, I will have to vote no on this legislation.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Council members want. Any further comments from any of my cast cast members?
Speaker 2: QUESTION And Councilmember Gonzales, maybe you can address this because I was with you in the committee last week after the committee, Reverend Walden, someone who we all know and has been very engaged in the CPC, said to me that she felt that we had not addressed how we were going to protect people in domestic violence situations, that their faces, if the cameras are on, could be a problem. I wonder if that's something that you can address if right now if we could ask for clarification at another time. So I appreciate hearing a little bit because I really want to make sure that people are protected in those situations and that they can call and feel that they will their privacy will be protected and retained throughout.
Speaker 5: If if.
Speaker 0: Go ahead.
Speaker 5: If it's okay with Councilmember Banks, I'll answer that question in my comments if that's acceptable. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Councilmembers speak now.
Speaker 5: Yes, thank you. So body worn video is another step toward greater transparency of policing in Seattle. And as Councilmember Gonzales has accurately relayed, our action today lifts a proviso that allows these cameras to be distributed to more officers. Beyond the initial pilot, which was conducted last year in the East Precinct and then the equipping of our downtown bicycle officers at the beginning of this year. But a video and audio recording is not new to the police department. It goes back 12 years. In December of 2005, the police department first began using in-car videos, often referred to as dash cam videos. And they were deployed then in 2006. And today, all uniformed, deficient divisions of Speedy are equipped with the in-car video systems for recording, video and audio. The patrol officers. Traffic officers. Gang Unit. SWAT team. The only uniform. Unit that does not have the in-car video systems or motorcycle traffic officers. The in-car video system or dashcam videos are required to be turned on by officers any time an officer takes law enforcement action, including street stops like Terry stops on the street. Any time they arrive at a location of a dispatched call. And once they turn them on, the in-car video cannot be turned off according to a state statute. If an officer has not manually turned on the in-car video system, it automatically comes on when the officer activates their emergency lights or their siren. In addition to in-car video systems, our detectives commonly record interviews with witnesses and crime suspects. Now I want to address this issue of discretion. And it's interesting when we read selectively from the policy that that guides the use of body worn videos, it's it's actually quite explicit. Section five B lists when employees are expected to use the body worn videos. Dispatched calls are very similar to the in-car video system. Traffic in Terry stops, same as in car video. On view infractions and criminal activity. Same as in car video. Arrests and seizures. Same as in car video searches and inventories of vehicles, persons or premises. Sometimes that's the same as in-car video. Sometimes it's not. Transportation of individuals in their cars. Vehicle pursuits or chasing of criminal suspects. And questioning of victims, suspects and witnesses unless the individual does not want to be recorded. But even if an individual tells an officer, I don't want you to use your body worn video to record me, the officer cannot turn off their in-car video, so the audio from that is still going to be recorded. And if they're within visual range of the in-car video system, that will be video recorded as well. Officers do have some limited discretion. They can turn off their body worn videos in bathrooms inside of jails. Interiors of medical, mental health counseling or therapeutic facilities. Unless they're engaged in a direct law enforcement purpose, such as viewing a crime in progress, they're also required to ask consent before they record inside of a private residence. If a person denies consent, they still have to notify that person that the audio is still going to be recorded because of the in-car video system that will be running. Even though the video may not be available. They're also allowed to protect the privacy and dignity of individuals. And it lists in the section that Councilmember O'Brien read it. It explains where officers may be able to make that kind of a discretionary call. At natural death scenes. When they're giving a death notification. Child assault victims or sexual assault victims? Cultural or religious objections to being recorded. And where use of the body worn video would impede or limit the cooperation of victims or witnesses. It's been suggested that. We shouldn't approve this continued expansion of. Body worn videos because it is not limited just to police officer accountability that it could be used for collection of evidence. This is an issue that the Washington legislature considered last year in 2016 and soundly rejected any notion that these videos could only be used for officer discretion and could not be used as evidence of criminal activity. If we were to pursue a policy that would say we could only use these videos for officer accountability, we would be saying to our police officers, we can use this body worn evidence against you if you engage in misconduct, but we cannot use it against the individual who may assault you. And that's just a crazy idea. So I think we should continue with the. Distribution of the body worn videos. It is sound policing policy. It is supported by the American Civil Liberties Union nationally. It is supported by police reform advocates across our country. And it's used in literally hundreds and hundreds of police departments around the United States, including 40 or 50 right here in Washington State.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Burgess. Excuse me. Any further comments from any of my colleagues? Well, I guess I'll just say a few. And that is the very simple issue in front of us, is whether the terms of the proviso have been listed. As Councilmember Gonzalez pointed out, number one, have convened a stakeholder group of the number two developed a title Action Plan for Community Engagement. Have they issued a final report summarizing that work? And it was indeed a lengthy report. And have they documented how they will continue to engage and seek the advice of a stakeholder workgroups? And I think under undisputedly my mind, they have complied with the letter of that proviso, and I'm certainly supporting the lifting of the proviso for those reasons. It's always sort of a natural. I suppose. Inclination to get caught up in the pros and the cons of body cameras to begin with. And I respect the opinions that we heard from some of those opposing today and certainly not new objections and very respectful objections. But in 2017, I think we are living in a country and in a city where video technology has changed the landscape of this country. That had it not been for video recordings throughout this country, we would not be having probably probably the intense both demonstrations and intense focus on what is happening to particularly African-Americans. But many people who have unfortunately suffered at the. At the hands of police officers. In 2016, over 250 African-Americans were killed by police officers. Not not all unjustified, but these are staggering numbers when you look at what's happening without body cameras. Look at our criminal justice system. We have a lot of data that would support. And I have all of the citations that. African-Americans are clearly arrested, as we know, at six times the rate of white people in our country, that a black person is 3.7 times likely to be arrested for marijuana possession, when in fact the usage in these groups between blacks and whites are the same. African-American drivers are about 31% more likely to be pulled over than a white driver. Black drivers are three times more likely than white drivers to be searched during a traffic stop. That is our criminal justice system in this country. And while I'm not suggesting that. Body cameras will do away with this institutionalized. Injustice. What I am suggesting is that there's already a record of what's happening out there in the field. The record is what an officer records on his or her report. What I am personally looking for, and I've been looking for since 2010, when I discovered the advent of body of camera technology, is objective evidence and a record, if you will, of what's happening. And this concern that the ACLU expressed that violence would go would could possibly go up. Is completely inconsistent with the statistics where body cameras are put in place. We have over 50 cities in the state where body cameras are already in place. We have over a thousand police departments in this country where body cameras are in place. A study in Rialto, California, which is a very statistically valid study that was done and very in-depth study, clearly showed that the use of force. Against people dealing with the police had gone down 60%. People tend to act differently and often times more responsibly when they know they are being recorded. And this argument that the cameras must be on at all times, and we are concerned that officers have discretion to turn them off, and therefore the answer is to keep them off . That to me is entirely inconsistent. That. The office. We already know that officers have incredible discretion in what they're already doing. And again, we have countless examples in this country that justice would not seen even closely the light of day had it not been for body cameras. And so while certainly it is not the end all to be all in terms of the issues dealing with us, I think it provides one more tool, again, to let us evaluate what's happening in the field such that we can learn. And together the police department is a learning organization and the city is a learning organization can learn from the deployment of this technology. And as I said earlier, we're sort of getting behind this. Technology is evolving. These policies will change. And again, to me, we have to begin the deployment such that we can learn and improve and modify the policies. Last. I'd also say that. Council bill rather House Bill 2362 there was an Olympia very recently, you know, which deals with of course, to the costs associated with archiving and the costs associated with public disclosure request had several other aspects. On the use of body cams as well. And there was a lot of talk in Olympia about that process. And I'll just read one letter that was written by Reverend Walden and cosigned by many organizations, including the representatives from the Philip Randolph Institute Seattle chapter from Partner for Youth Achievement, Mount Zion Missionary Baptist Church and others Mothers for Police Accountability. But they clearly said in this letter that. That people of color were involved in the process of drafting House Bill 2362 and that the city of Seattle had already convened a process. I got to tell you, I attended on March. On March on January 19th, I believe it was the African-American Police Advisory Council, January 19th, where this matter was discussed. I've had debates at the University of Washington. I've had legislative districts where they've endorsed use of body cams. As Councilmember Gonzales said, there were several polls or or surveys taken where this is overwhelmingly supported by the public. So I think it's time to actually deploy it. The technology continues to grow the community on modifying the policies as we see. But again, this sort of endless process of that, we seem to get stalled. I think it's time to move on. Okay. Well, let's wrap up. I think we're trying to vote. Please call the role on the passage of the Bill O'Brien.
Speaker 4: I know it's. You got a record. I know. Thank you.
Speaker 1: So aren't they. Hi, Burgess. Hi, Gonzalez. Johnson. Whereas I. President Herrell I. Five in favor, two opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The bill passed and Cheryl signed it. Please read the next agenda item.
AN ORDINANCE related to appropriations for the Seattle Information Technology Department; amending Ordinance 125207, which adopted the 2017 budget; lifting a proviso; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.