City Council - Public Safety & Criminal Justice Committee Hearing on Docket #0638

Thank you.

Thank you for watching!

Thank you.

Thank you for watching!

and many more.

Thank you for watching!

Thank you.

Thank you.

and many more.

and many more.

Thank you.

Thank you for watching!

and many more.

Thanks for watching!

Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Henry Santana, At-Large City Councilor, and I'm the chair of the Boston City Council Committee on Public Safety and Criminal Justice. Today is May 22nd, 2026. The exact time is 1018 a.m. This hearing is being recorded. It is also being livestreamed at boston.gov slash city-council-tv and broadcasted on Xfinity Channel 8, RCN Channel 82, and Files Channel 964. Brain comments may be sent to the committee email at ccc.ps at boston.gov and will be made part of the record and available to all Councillors. Public testimony will be taken at the end of this hearing. individuals will be called on in the order in which they signed up and will have two minutes to testify. If you are interested in testifying in person, please add your name to the sign-up sheet near the entrance of the chamber. If you are looking to testify virtually,

please email our central staff liaison shanepack at shane.pack at boston.gov for the link and your name will be added to the list. Excuse me. Today's hearing is on docket number 0638. Order for a hearing to examine the Boston Police Department's protocols for releasing police body camera and dashboard camera footage. This matter was sponsored by Councilor Menor Culpepper, and Brian Worrell, and was referred to the committee on March 25th, 2026. Today I am joined by my colleagues in order of arrival, Councilor Culpepper and Councilor Fitzgerald. I would now like to give the opportunity to my colleagues to give opening statements. I'll introduce today's panelists and we'll go into questions. So, Councilor Culpepper, you have the floor.

Good morning and thank you, Chair Santana. Thank you to my co-sponsor, Councilor Worrell. Thank you, Commissioner, for Thank you, Commissioner, and for the Boston Police Department leadership and Members of the public for being here today. And good to see you, Commissioner. I'm glad that we can have this conversation, in my opinion, a very important one. Some time ago, Boston made the investment in body-worn cameras, and I believe we have done so for the right reasons. To strengthen accountability, to build trust, and to create a clear record of interactions between officers, and the public. We have a system that is strong when it comes to recording footage, but far less clear when it comes to releasing it.

Under state law, decisions about whether footage is released are largely made on a case-by-case basis. And under Boston Police Department Rule 405, that authority is with the commissioner. At the same time, there is no to find time for releasing footage after critical incidents and no mandate that it be released to OPAC even upon their request. There's no public-facing framework that explains how those decisions are made, and there's no guaranteed access for oversight bodies and or elected officials. So when we're left with a system where transparency I've said it before and I'll say it again when footage is delayed or withheld especially in moments of crisis it creates confusion

I will end with this quote. Boston Police Commissioner William Evans discussing release policies of body-worn cameras footage after the 2015 police-involved shooting death of Angela West. This is what Commissioner Evans said. Can't have it both ways. It can't happen when things are good, and we're going to have to do it when things are bad, too. So, Commissioner... When Commissioner Evans made that statement, that was when Angelo West was involved in that police-involved shootout. I think Angelo was shot and killed at that time. But my point, and I guess

The point from Commissioner Evans is you can't release the video with police involved shootings when it shows that the police officer acted appropriate or and you can't have it when things will show that they didn't. And we'll talk more about 405 and the release of bodygants. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Councilor Culpepper. Councilor Fitzgerald, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. I just want to thank you guys for being here, for agreeing to come in. It's an important thing. Really, this is, to me, an education hearing about just what the protocols are and make sure everyone has an understanding. of what we can be asked, what cannot be asked, and what the answers to those questions are. So I thank you guys here for coming to explain that today.

Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Fitzgerald. I would now like to introduce today's panelists. With us today we have Michael Cox, Commissioner of the Boston Police Department, Nicole Toob, Chief of Staff with the Boston Police Department, David Frederick, General Counsel with the Boston Police Department, and Paul McLaughlin, Superintendent with the Bureau of Investigative Services with the Boston Police Department. Really appreciate you all being here this Friday morning to answer our questions. I'll turn it over to you all for any opening remarks or presentation you want to give and I'll turn it back over to My council colleagues for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. I don't have any open remarks. I just wanted to make sure we were here to answer any questions that weren't previously answered in the other hearing. We always want to make sure we're clear to the public around expectations that they might have from us, so feel free. Awesome.

Well, thank you, Commissioner. Again, we really appreciate you being with us here today and your team. We've also been joined by Councilor Louijeune. We're going to start with Councilor questions. We're going to do seven minutes per Councilor. We'll do a second round if needed, starting with the lead sponsor, Councilor Culpepper. You have seven minutes. Lujan, if you have an opening statement. Sure.

Just quickly. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for being here. I know that you have very busy schedules and also that this is a very important topic. So we're happy that you were able to make it, that we were able to collaborate and work together. The City Council and the Administration to find a date and time that is appropriate for you to be here with us. I think it's important for us to make sure that we know what the procedures and policy are regarding police who embody camera footage, and I'm looking forward to the conversation today. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the sponsor, Council Culpepper.

Thank you, Councilor DeGene. We're going to go to Councilor Questions. Seven minutes, starting with the lead sponsor, Councilor Culpepper, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner, under... National Laws, Chapter 38, Section 4, dealing with death investigations. It says that the district attorney or his law enforcement representative shall direct and control the investigation. of the Death, and shall coordinate with the Office of the Medical Examiner and the Police Department with whose jurisdiction the death occurred. And so from Chapter 38, that gives the district attorney the authority to direct and control the investigations, and he coordinates with you, isn't that correct?

I think what's correct is in any investigation, there has to be a lead. Certainly the prosecutor, the DA, is the lead for the Commonwealth, at least in Suffolk County. Anything to do with homicide investigations. So we're part of a criminal justice system. He's the lead on homicide cases. I work in conjunction with him to make sure that they can prosecute cases, but there can only be one lead.

Right, right, but you're coordinating with him. Whether he's the lead or not, you are coordinating with him. Yes. And so you have your own set of guidelines or authority within 38, Chapter 38?

As I described it prior, that he is the lead, certainly, authority for all homicide investigations in the county. We work with him to help him facilitate doing his job as a prosecutor.

As part of a team?

Yes. Is that fair to say? He is the lead because he has the authority.

And under 405... Is that based on any law under Boston Police Rule 405? Is that based on law? Are you talking about a department rule? Right, right, right.

What part of the rules, sir?

Just four or five. I'm going to get to the specific part. If it's something in here that is based on a lot, I just wanted to talk about. Whether there is or not.

I don't know specifically what you're asking if there's a part of that. If there's another agency in control of an investigation, that's a reference to 38-4. They would dictate whether or not somebody could review the book. So there are references to it. But it's a pretty expansive.

But I didn't see any references in 405 to Chapter 38. And my question is, Chapter 38 is the Boston Police Department's rule that they created Independent of Chapter 38. Yes, sir. And 405 is the commissioner's Responsibility and authority within dealing with body cameras. That's the policy that deals with the body cameras.

Are you asking about our internal rule and regulation?

Yeah, 405, right. In 405, there's no timeline for releasing body cam footage, is there? There is not. There's not. When an investigation is ongoing, the decision whether a body cam is released or not is determined on a case-by-case basis.

On request, they're all determined on a case-by-case basis. Yes, sir.

And to go back to your previous question.

Yeah, Councilor Culpepper, just on the point of when the body cam footage is released, Section 8.2 of the rule states specifically addresses public information requests and notes that public information requests submitted under Mass General Law Chapter 66, Section 10, which is the state public record statute, will be complied with in accordance with all applicable state laws and regulations. So it ties directly the release of body camera footage upon request to the state public records law as to what can and cannot be released and when.

I understand that part. Let's turn to 6.2 since we're looking at 405. Under 6.2, 6.2 deals with an officer involved either Discharge of a weapon, an officer that may have witnessed an incident, or an officer who was involved in the incident. Is that correct? Commissioner. Now, who's answering? The commissioner or attorney?

Or both of you? So, when we come to the hearings, we bring our, you know, basically the authorities in the areas which you might ask questions. to help assist me certainly.

You mean your lawyer? No, that's, I, look.

So Dave is certainly. He can, yeah, he can show me. That is our chief, is our, you know, certainly our counsel. Nicole is my chief of staff. and Paul McLaughlin is the superintendent in charge of Bureau of Investigative Services. And so I will say this for the public. The police department has department heads that actually run the day-to-day activities, and I'm overall responsible for those. The authority rests with you. But those are the subject matter experts in each particular area.

With regard to body cams, you're the one that has the authority to either release it or not to release it. Yes. And when you look at 6.2, it deals with officer access to footage following an officer-involved death, officer-involved shooting, or the use of deadly force. Number 6.2. So what's the question? That's what it deals with. It deals with officer-involved deaths, officer-involved shootings, or involves officer's use of deadly force.

Yes, 6.2 refers to the access to the footage.

Right. And if we move down to the third paragraph, it talks about how the body-worn footage is allowed for the officer to either review it or to review it with his attorney. The third paragraph. At the request of attorneys, The officer's attorney may be present when the officer views the video. Mr. Commissioner.

So are you referring to when it says at the time determined by the supervisor in charge of investigation officers who were one, involved in the incident, two, discharged their weapon, or three, witnessed the incident, may view their own video before giving a statement? Right, right. The officer's request, the officer's attorney may be present when the officer views the video.

Right, so my question is, the officer can come in and review the body-worn footage after Whether there's a death involved or not a death involved, either way, the officer can come in and review the footage of the body cam.

As determined by the supervisor in charge of an investigation at the time. Or your designee. as determined by the supervisor in charge of the investigation at the time.

Well, the supervisor is your designee. My question is, the officer can come in, review the video. Am I correct? If the supervisor says he can come in.

Yes, there he goes.

And he can bring his attorney with him also, can't he? If the supervisor says that he can bring his attorney in. That's what it says. The officer's attorney may be present when the officer views the video. My question is, the officer can also bring his attorney in, his private attorney, to view...

if under the circumstances it's deemed appropriate by the investigative supervisor who would be probably in the fitted team in conjunction with the DA's office who would be there at the time.

Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. Pick up on my second round of questioning. We're just getting started.

Thank you, Councilor Culpepper. Councilor Fitzgerald, you have seven minutes. Thank you, Chair. Again...

Sorry about that. Again, thank you all for being here. The protocols for releasing the body camera and dashboard camera footage in total, I think Reverend Culpepper's gonna do a great job at getting in the middle of that. I'd like to provide sort of a larger spectrum so folks understand what happens. Could you please tell me, 4 body cams and dash cams. When does a police officer turn them on, turn them off? When they give them back at the end of the shift, what happens to these cameras? How are they charged? How long does that take? Just sort of the basic protocols prior to anything being released.

So I don't believe currently we don't have any dash cameras in the apartment. Certainly with body camera, they're issued. Certainly they're supposed to have them when they come to work, at least patrol officers. When they go to calls, they must turn them on. upon receiving the call while driving there, and they remain on until they are finished with the activity or the call. Also, they would turn them on if they encounter any type of police citizen encounter where certainly their police powers are being used around that. Again, to keep it on until the end of the interaction. and many more. Thank you.

Our system where that information is kept and the office is tagged that information with a number, an incident number, so that they can reference it for future.

And that stays permanently? It's not a, you know, after 30 days or after you like some things that there's no, is there a delete timeline or anything on anything?

There is a retention schedule in Rule 405, Councilor. Great. And it would delete automatically, I think, the... Shortest timeline is a year, and we follow the state guidelines for the retention of video in that. and every officer every patrol officer has two cameras early on one of the issues was the battery life of these cameras a lot of times these officers are ordered to work a second an overtime shift and the battery life wasn't long enough so now The battery lives have improved, but they also have two cameras, so one can be charging while they have the other one on while they're working.

and so does it depends how it is tagged in terms of the the deletion deadline I mean there are certain and and how is that decided what stays permanent and what says after a year What is the protocol of saying, oh, this incident or this video specifically, nothing happened, it can be gone in a year, or this one, depending on X, is why it will be stayed permanently?

I think you've answered the question. It's what type of call it is. For instance, if there's an arrest, if there's not an arrest, and if it's a felony, there's different categories it falls in for the retention. I think if it's a felony arrest, it's actually kept indefinitely until manually deleted. The others are on more of a retention schedule.

In the rule, specifically Section 9, lays out from one year to indefinite and the specific categories of incident that fall within those.

Great. All right. So if I want to look up detailed, I can check that out. And what rule is that? Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Fitzgerald.

Councilor Lejeune, you have the floor.

Thank you and thanks again for coming here. I wanted to have several different threads that I want to sort of explore. Just the policy of being able to review body-worn camera footage in general, under what circumstances? So let me not do that. Let me just read what it says. If an officer requests access to footage be made available Officer access to their own footage. Officers may review their own BWC recording when they are involved in an incident for the purpose completing an investigation and preparing official reports. So there are times like if they're writing a police report, there are times when they can review the body worn camera footage before they complete that police report. Have you ever looked at a situation where I'm sure there have been some studies done because I think that you probably would want to do some studies here where you have a control group and a non-control group.

Where you look at what does that police report look like in the situation where the officer did not review the footage? And what does a police report look like when they review the footage? Has there been any sort of studies to look at what the difference is between what the reports

So, I'm not familiar with what a study where it shows what the report would look like versus what it wouldn't. There is some research out on, particularly through, I think, police research. The executive perf, yeah, the research form, I'm sorry, where they looked at actual having officers write police reports and then actually have them look at the body camera footage That's sort of what I'm getting at. Correct, to do that. And yes, there are some studies or research around that particular area. And what do those studies show? I mean, it's different theories around it where one thing that I don't know people understand from time to time that You know, depending on the trauma involved and what have you that your memory sometimes is impacted.

Right, that's why eyewitness testimony is often deemed to not be the most reliable form of

Certainly, there's, you know, there's some issues.

Police officer or not.

It doesn't matter.

It's humans, right?

Exactly. We hire from the human race, so this applies to everybody, which I... I try to emphasize all the time that you can be impacted by trauma with your memory and things of that nature.

and many more. Thank you. I just wanted to state that it's not directly related to this I think it's, we've, you know, Oftentimes, police reports are treated as truth, and I understand how reviewing of the body camera could help to get to that truth. But allowing for police reports that are just based on memory can help us. both expose issues when it comes to how we remember and how we accept certain authority or not.

Like who is the truth teller in the situation? depending on that camera to get there I think has some sort of a level of unfairness in it. I don't know if I'm making sense, but it has like a level of unfairness in it that makes me uncomfortable.

I would probably add that human memory and things of that nature is a whole other research area. But the fact is, this is not just about is the officer telling the truth. They make reference to it because they're having long conversations with people. People are making witness statements. They might not be able to note down all the things that are there. So reviewing it actually helps them and so on. So it's fairly, you know, I don't think it's an accurate depiction of what someone said, what happened, A little bit more complex about what you capture in body video and things of that nature, but the fact is overall, Thank you. Thank you. You know, you could be distracted when people are talking.

And it happens quite often, particularly when emotions are high.

I only have two more minutes left. I forgot that I actually have a lot more questions. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm actually not debating the reliability of the video. I think you understand what I'm getting at. It's not the reliability of the cameras, because I understand that. But I think that could be helpful in the work of policing generally. to have those before and after police report. What does a police report look like before you review the footage? What does a police report look like after you review the footage? I think it could be helpful. Yes, you may, as long as the chair gives me more time.

Just to add to the... I understand. Yes, I understand. In any time that someone is fatally shot or likely to die, the DA's office would exert their death investigation authority and change that.

Yeah, I remember that. We teased that out at the last hearing and made that clear. But I do appreciate sort of reiterating that point. Just a few other questions that I had regarding this policy. What circumstances currently allow officers to deactivate cameras during an active scene, victim interviews, Hospital Encounters, Private Residences, or any Sensitive Investigations.

Just those exceptions you just said within the rule. If you're in someone's home and they ask for it to happen, although if it's a hostile scene, things of that nature, The Office has discretion to keep it on, but certainly when you're going in the hospital settings, settings where it's probably not appropriate to have it on, we have carve-outs for it in our room.

Section 2.8 of the rule lays out the circumstances in which an officer can deactivate the camera, and then there's also a requirement if you deactivate, there's a reporting requirement that comes along with it to explain the reasoning behind it.

Thank you. Oh. The next question is about OPAT access. OPAT has indicated that there are circumstances where access can be limited because of ongoing criminal matters. Are there events that automatically trigger OPAT review access? And if not, should we consider independent viewing authority during critical incidents. That's also a question I think that some folks have been asking in media reports.

So, you know, what's the CR? Which would be the, what's the one? What's the one? Yeah, the Internal Affairs Oversight Panel, when they certainly review our cases that we have seen, they have access to everything that we have access. and so certainly high profile events, things of that nature. They would absolutely have access to that through that portion of it. The other portion of OPAT, if it's a case, I don't think, believe, outside of cases that they've started and worked with us, I don't know if we have a mechanism to show them.

If OPAT through the CRB is investigating a complaint where there's body camera footage, production of the footage to OPAT follows the same criteria as to whether or not it would impact O'Neill. Thank you. Thank you.

Yeah, and then the ensuing question is, should there be a separate level of access that is not separate from, right, that is as the police accountability or some sort of independent authority that has review powers in a way that is different than the public? I know what your answer is, but I mean.

So as I may have mentioned before, you know, previous, like there's another subsection of OPAC, which I think is important when they review our internal affairs work. They have total access to what we do, how we do it, video, things of that nature. Previous Cypress and Charlie Fitz a while ago, before this version of OPAP was there, We worked quite well with that review, and so certainly high-profile cases, when we did them, we let them review the work that we did after the fact, and I thought it was quite productive, and usually they We reviewed it just as they do now to determine whether it was fair, thorough investigations that occurred. And it usually worked quite well back then.

Thank you. You are moving on. I'll wait to the next round. It's fine. I know. Thank you, Councilor Weber. I'll wait to the next round. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Louijeune. Councilor Weber, you have the floor. We've been joined by Councilor Weber as well.

Okay. Okay. It would be strange if I was asking questions that I Okay, so just in terms of the rules promulgation process, how do these rules get developed? And then I guess my follow-up would be, This rule in particular, Commissioner, when you came on, did you revise this? Has it changed? The body one camera rule? Yeah, sorry. Yeah, rule 405. Yeah, so it has been updated.

Yeah. Updated January 15th, 2025.

Okay, what parts?

which parts now I can't, you know, describe.

Anything relevant to this discussion that, I mean, so I assume the police commissioner has to sign off on the rules in some way.

I don't know, correct me. Section 1, General Considerations. Third paragraph was edited. Section 2.2, Camera Activation and Incident Use. Fourth paragraph was edited. Section 2.8, Body 1, Camera Deactivation. Bullet number 5 is new. Section 2.9, Special Activation Factors have been retitled and bulleted. Numbers 12 through 15 are new. Section 2.10, Officers Assigned to Federal Task Force, that's a new section. Section 3.1, Officer's Responsibility, third paragraph is new. Section 5, Supervisor's Responsibility is a new section title with unit commanders being added. Section 5.2, District and Unit Commander Officers. The last sentence is new. Commanding Officers shall ensure that the Ordnance of the Act. That's it.

And just for reference, that list can be found on our website, police.boston.gov, under our rules and procedures section. If you download the body camera rule, The preceding order will delineate the changes.

Okay. I guess just so I mean this rule was in place before you know generally it's been revised but like does the does every new police commissioner and I'm almost So I would say this probably should look at it to review it just to make sure that rules are up to date.

That they're not outdated in some way, particularly if you change any of your protocols around it or any aspect of it, you have to revise the rule.

OK. I guess so. In that, like, 6.2 section on, you know, there was an incident, officer involved death, or I can't remember the words. So, again, like... What is the reason why the officer who discharges their weapon should review the footage before making their report?

Why is it in the rule?

Yeah, like, what, just, you know, like, what's the, there's the policy reason why we want that.

So it's in the rule that was in there for contractual reason? That wasn't the commissioner when that portion was put in?

So that's from collective bargaining?

That's part of that section about their access to it, yes.

Okay. I mean, to me, I feel like the reason would be somebody's potential, like, you know, potentially criminally and before, you know, sort of like give them due process or something, you know, but I, from, so that might be a reason that to me that, you know, maybe you just bargain it, but it's like somebody may be going to Prison. So maybe they want to be represented throughout that entire process.

I can speculate, but I wasn't there for the ruling. Well, the rule says that the investigator in charge of the investigation will make that determination. If there's a possibility that somebody is going to be, police officer is going to be criminally charged, I think a conversation would be had at that point of whether or not that person is going to be able to see the video before they make a statement.

But that, I just, yeah, again, so that's bargained in the collective bargaining agreement and that's something that you're just, That's why that's in there.

It's part of the rulemaking. The bargaining with the collective bargaining units is part of the rulemaking process. If it's got any impact on... The employees, we have an obligation to bargain. So that's one part of the formulation of the rule is our obligation to sit and talk with the unions.

And I'll clarify, I just want to make this clear. We have an obligation to bargain, but we do make the rules for our officers. If it impacts them, We absolutely have an obligation to bargain around that. But we own the rules and regulations of the police department.

Well, aside from that, if I'm just my guess is, I mean, there may be a Fifth Amendment issue. There's something, you know, with somebody writing a statement that might result in criminal conviction. But to what I don't... The second part of that, or the third subpart of that, is that witnesses to the discharge of the shooting also get to review the video before that. I don't get the justification other than, I don't see the policy reason for why we'd wanna witness to view the video before they made a statement. If you look at the rule, I think it says the people who can review the video before issuing their statement includes, and it's three, it's like anyone involved.

Anyone who discharged their weapon and any witness, right, am I, witnessed the incident, you know, is number three, may, may view their own video before giving a statement. I'm trying to just make an argument for why you... But it's their own.

They don't get to view anybody else.

They get to just view their own. You were saying something that was not there, so you had me there. I was like, oh, was that in there? But it's not in there.

But they view their own. But also, I don't. If they're witnessing it, they're not. There's not the same Fifth Amendment. I mean, there's not implicating their own criminal liability if they're just a witness.

The purpose of allowing them to see it is to review their statements and things that they've done, not someone else's.

Okay, just lastly, before my time runs out, do any of these rules contemplate a grand jury involvement? In this King incident, Did you, like, were the rules, did they provide you any guidance for how to deal with this question of what do we do during a grand jury investigation? In which way? I don't understand. In terms of there is some sort of confidentiality that comes with the grand jury investigation that is not your policy. It's not necessarily governed by your rules.

I just want to make clear, are you referring to release of body camera? Are you referring to statements of officers?

I'm not sure. We're here talking about body camera, so I'm talking about police and body camera. I mean, do the rules need an update? Do the rules contemplate a situation where in an officer-involved shooting, the officer before the grand jury for that shooting at the same time.

So in a particular case, particularly if it's, you know, An incident certainly where there's a death involved, the officer doesn't have access or would not review their body camera footage.

Well, I meant the public. The public. The public having access.

I'll say this, and this hopefully clarifies it a little bit more. You know, the criminal justice system is a pretty high level of accountability. When we're enforcing laws, there's no higher level of accountability that there is. Our primary purpose when we're investigating is that The accountability piece that we're trying to get to. If there's anything that's going to and a few potentially jeopardize our ability to hold people accountable in the criminal justice system. That is not going to be released. It is not going to be shown. It's not going to be shared because the accountability piece is the primary Thank you. Thank you.

Because when you bring someone into the criminal justice system, all of those other things, the transparency comes forward. All of that information comes out and is shown in it. But the fact is we need to make sure that we do all we can to hold whoever it is accountable for whatever laws that might have been broken around that. And so that is the purpose of You know, when you see those carve-outs for that current investigation, Will this get in the way of our ability to hold people accountable for whatever charges that may have been violated? And we don't want anything to impact the investigation to do that.

Yeah, just one quick follow-up. Thank you, Chair. I mean, I guess, after recent events, do you want to... Do you think the rules need to be revised or do you think the rules gave you the framework to make your decisions or whatever decisions had to be made?

So I think we always have to look at our rules and policies and to see if they reflect the best practices of what's going on in the world. Investigations, particularly death investigations, I think the rule is fairly appropriate for what we're trying to do. The investigation is paramount about what we're, you know, as far as making sure we're holding whoever it is accountable for potential violations of the law. Everything that we do, particularly around the release of body cameras described before, Our policy is based, and it's already been mentioned multiple times, is based on the Public Records Laws around that. And so if there's an active investigation that might interfere, it won't be released. The second that we're done with that, it will be released. And so remember, the primary purpose is to hold people accountable.

And if there's something that might jeopardize that or our ability to do it well, then we're going to hold back and not release it until that's been determined that the investigation is fairly sure about that.

Okay, thank you, Chair, for letting me go over. I'll make sure to afford you the same courtesy.

Thank you, Councilor Weber. We'll now go into a second round of questions. Starting with the lead sponsor, Councilor Culpepper, you have seven minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner, I just wanted to follow up on the question by Councilor Weber with regard to officers involved in a A police involved death. That the officers have the right to come in to review the body on camera footage. Am I correct? An officer involved? Yeah. That involves the death? Let me just read this back to you. At a time determined by the supervisor of the investigation, officers who were involved in the incident, and this is a section dealing with an officer involved death. Officers who were involved in the incident, officers who discharged their weapon, or officers who witnessed the incident may view their own video before giving a statement.

And so from that statement, the officers can come in and review their video before even giving a statement. Isn't that correct? That's what it says here, Mr. Commissioner. Further, at the officer's request, if an officer says I want my attorney in there to review the footage too, this says that he can have his attorney with him when the officer Views of video. That's what it says right here. Isn't that correct? At the bottom, the last paragraph. under 6.2. 6.2, the bottom paragraph.

It's actually the third, not the bottom paragraph.

It's the last paragraph on the page.

My page is another paragraph. It's 6.2. We're not reading from the same page, right?

That's all. Right. You're in 6.2, right?

Yes. Paragraph 3, you're referring to.

Right.

On my page, it's the last one. But there's a fourth paragraph to that 6.2.

Not on my page, but we've got different pages. But the question is... It says at a time determined by a supervisor.

Right, right. But if the supervisor says to the officer involved, I approve you coming in to view... The officer can come in and review his video before giving a statement. Isn't that correct? They could. They could. And his attorney can also come in with him. to review the footage. According to the rule, if all... According to the rule, if the...

But that would not be the case.

In this case, we realize that the Boston Police Department controls all evidence. Is that correct?

Well, certainly if we're investigating the scene, we would probably- Mr. Commissioner, is that correct? You control all evidence. No, wait a minute. A death investigation, again, is under the purview of the district attorney.

But you control the evidence with regard to a death investigation. Is that correct? And we work in conjunction with the district attorney. But you control the evidence according to 405. In fact, the district attorney has to request that you release the body cam in order for the district attorney to get the body cam. Is that correct?

If your question is do we retrieve it, yes, we're investigators, so we actually retrieve the evidence in conjunction with the district attorney so he can review all the evidence.

But my question is, because you control all the evidence, Any law enforcement personnel, including the district attorney, has to come to you to make a request to get the body cam. It's right in 405.

We share, certainly, the evidence that we retrieved on behalf of the district attorney with him. But it's not that simple because, remember, there's search warrants involved where you have to go to a judge. There's other...

It says right here under 8.1, prosecutorial law enforcement access, federal, state, local prosecutors shall make requests for body-worn camera footage. directly to the video evidence unit. So they have to come to you, the district attorney, to even view body cam footage.

It's our system, so yes, we would have to share it.

In the case of Mr. King, and I'm so happy that the family finally got a chance to review the body cam footage, but you agreed that The District Attorney could show it to Mr. King's family. Isn't that correct? If you had said no, he could now. Because you have the final authority with regard to who views the body, can't put it. Isn't that correct?

No, as again, we retrieved the information for the prosecutor for the purpose of prosecution.

You even have rules in here regarding how long it's kept, where it's kept, when it's released under 405. Isn't that correct?

We have, you know, evidence around body camera footage, yes.

And there's no timeline for releasing it with regard to any of the prosecutors. There's no timeline in here whatsoever with regard to releasing the body cam footage. I'm not really sure I understand your question now. Well, let me move to another topic. Let me move to another topic. Let me try to explain it.

Let me see if I can make it clearer. Particularly if there's a public out there listening. If something happens, we as police officers go to a scene and retrieve the evidence. I'm just trying to get to the... and give it in conjunction with the prosecutor.

Mr. Commissioner, let me see if I can make it clear for you.

It was not for me, but I think it's important that people who are listening understand what's happening.

No, I'm trying to make it clear. In an article in the Huntington News, this is what it says. A review of body camera programs across the United States reveals wide variance across policies, and the policy landscape is constantly evolving. While no one policy is perfect, some are better than others. Chicago Civilian Officer Police Abundability is an exemplary model of solid policy with regard to body cameras and offers guidance for Boston, whereas And this is going right to 405 in the Huntington News, where in Boston Rd. 405, it stipulates that the body cameras is a sole property of the Boston Police Department, and shall not be released without authorization of the commissioner. Astonishingly, even Boston's own police oversight has been denied access to the footage of King's killing. And so my question is simply this.

There's no timeline when the body camera can be released. So that rule in reference to the sole authority by the commission. No, no, no. Here's my question, Mr. Commissioner. Can I just please be able to try to explain something?

Can I just? Because it's important because I don't want to.

I think it's all important, I really do. But my question is, it's in 405, I understand that.

That's an internal rule for all the people that work in the police department that they cannot Take pictures, body camera stuff, and send it out to YouTube and things of that nature. So it's a rule saying no one has authorizations. to release body camber other than police commissioner. Sharing evidence with the prosecutor is a whole other thing.

My question is, is there a timeline? For example, New York releases body cam footage in 45 days. In 405, is there any timeline with which body cam footage can be released?

Not within that rule, but I told you our policy is within the public records law. So basically,

Mr. Commissioner, can I get a yes or no to my question? I don't need to give an answer.

I need to give an explanation that people can understand.

So if you just give me an opportunity, I will try to do that. Ask a question to try and get a quick answer because my time is up. How about a thorough answer? Is there a timeline in 405 where body cam footage can be released?

We release our body cam footage using public record law. So there's no exceptions. People can request the body cam footage and then we will release it according to the public records. If there's a current investigation, then there will be an exemption for not releasing it until that is done.

When it's completed, then we will release it. 8.1 doesn't refer to the state law at all. 8.1 says that The law enforcement access, whether it's state, federal, or local, that they come to you to make a request. That has nothing to do with the state law in releasing public records. And my question is, Simply, is there a timeline anywhere in 405 where body and foot cameras can or cannot be released?

Similar to what I just described in 8.2, it says public information requests Video Evidence Unit shall respond to public information requests submitted under Mass General Law 66 Section 10 in accordance with all applicable state laws and regulations. It's making reference to the fact that we use public records law as our standard for issuing out requests. We'll have a third one.

Which has its own timelines in general. But that's not what this says. And I'll come back to it in a minute. I want to try and make it a little clearer for you.

Thank you, Councillor Culpepper. We've been joined by Councilor Worrell. I want to go to Councilor Legend for seven minutes, and then we'll go to Councilor Worrell, and then we'll do a third round. Councilor Legend, you have the floor.

Thank you. I don't know if I'm going to need all of my time because I think a lot of my questions were answered in the first round, but we'll see. I have a question regarding how footage requests So BBD reportedly received about 800 body camera release requests last year and fulfilled about 500. What were the prime? Nicole, I see you shaking your head, is that not correct?

No, no, go ahead, I apologize.

Okay, what were the primary reasons for denial? And how much of a backlog is there in the legal department in reviewing how to fulfill those requests?

I missed the end of that.

What were the primary reasons for denial? So 800 requests, 500 fulfilled, and what does the backlog look like, and what are the reasons for backlog?

The primary reason for denials for?

Of access to footage.

In general?

Yeah, yeah, body camera footage.

There's no general answer. The investigative would be one that would come up a lot. Privacy is one that would come up a lot. It's depicting something of an individual, not privacy for the police officer, but privacy for the people in the video. For instance, if somebody's Thank you, Mr. Chair. and then statutory would be another one. For instance, when we're talking about death investigations, the district attorney says that can't be released, that would be a statutory exemption under A.

So of the 1,273 requested, 722 were released and 551 were denied.

OK. When do people have an opportunity to appeal the denial?

There's two ways they can appeal. Whether it's a denial or redactions, they can go to the supervisor of public records. They could also file a lawsuit in the Superior Court to get the records and the legislature actually changed the statute about in 2017 to allow for attorney's fees and court costs now if you go to Superior Court if you weren't able to get your records.

And then there are some jurisdictions where like the release of the footage is required even when there is an investigation. Have you reviewed those policies and how they're balancing what you're trying to balance here as well? Not trying to prejudice the investigation, but there's still a requirement in those jurisdictions to release body-worn camera footage.

So we do release the footage. So, you know, which people maybe don't understand what an investigation involves. It involves a lot, you know, with the statements. You're trying to determine what went on and what occurred. and the footage could impact that. Sometimes people see things and all of a sudden they're witness to something that they didn't see. There's a lot that goes on around

I mean, that's actually a very good, I mean, it relates back to my earlier point about police reports prior to seeing a video and after a video. But, I mean, you're saying police officers are humans as well, and so I just wanted to point that out, that I think that's I agree with that statement.

No, but thank you. But the point is that when you're in an investigation, we're trying to determine what happened, the facts of what happened around that. And until you determine stuff, The release and other people having footage and seeing all this muddies that up. It makes your case less provable or lessens our ability to actually bring a case forward. And so until the investigation is over, it's about us accumulating the facts to determine what happened.

I understand that. I guess what I'm asking, because I have not done it.

But when we're done, it's released outside of some other exceptions. The fact is, I don't. We don't give the impression as though, you know, it's indefinite. We're never going to release that.

I know. I understand that. But I'm just saying that there are jurisdictions when, even when there is an impending investigation, that they're required to release body-worn camera footage. Yes.

Can I just add? Yep. I just want to make clear that the exemption is not just, oh, there's an investigation, we're not going to release it. It has to prejudice that investigation.

I stated that. Right.

And so there are plenty of things that we have released on cases. Even though there's still, the investigation is not complete, signed off and over. But as you can imagine, if it's a, If it's a document and a report somehow, it's very easy to go in and redact that to take out things that might prejudice and release it. Much more difficult with the video. The video shows so much more. That's why video is a little bit of a different animal when it comes to redacting out what might be prejudicial and prejudice that investigation as opposed to documents.

And you made mention of other places. Yeah, there are many other jurisdictions that say they put timelines 30, 60, 90 days on it, but virtually all of them have exemptions for investigations. You know, we put out a timeline and said we'll release it in 90 days, but yet if we say we have a cover for investigations, you're in the same position we are right now. So it's actually more transparent what we're doing in the sense we're saying, you know, put a public records request in. If we could release, in other words, if that's an impact in our ability to do it, we will do it within that timeline, which is far faster than any of these other jurisdictions' timelines that you hear out there. And virtually all of them have these exceptions. So I just want the public or people who are out there to think that we have a guideline around when we release it. If there's no impact to an investigation, We will release it according to public records laws.

If there is, then we won't until that investigation is done, or at least it won't impact it in that way. And I just don't want folks to to think that it's this indefinite thing that goes on forever and ever.

Thank you. And if I may, I have one last question regarding secondary use of surveillance footage uses, especially when it comes to First Amendment rights, whether religious gatherings, Demonstrations, protests, make sure that we're not using any sort of footage or surveillance technology to infringe on someone's First Amendment rights. And here we're talking about specifically body-worn cameras.

We don't infringe on people's First Amendment rights. Is that it? Does that answer your question?

There is policy in Rule 405 that talks about that. So if anyone would like to speak to what's in Rule 405.

We don't surveil People's First Amendment protected rights, but if criminal activity happens during a Demonstration or the body camera is expected to be activated when there's an arrest that's going to be made or an interaction like that. It doesn't... The First Amendment Protective event that's going on does not prevent the officers from turning on their body camera when they have to conduct an arrest or something to that effect.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Those are my questions.

Thank you, Councilor Lujan. Worrell, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you for being a commissioner and team. One of my first questions is around My understanding when I was watching the hearing is that we updated or the Boston Police Department updated the Camera, BWC, body worn camera rules in 2025. What was the process? Can you talk to me who was at the table? Was it just an internal process? Who was that done with? So all our rules are internal.

They're meant for our police department. We usually have a subject matter expert go through our rules and see what requires updating in general.

For instance, when federal agencies started to use body cameras, it impacted us because there's certain members of the police department who are assigned to these federal task forces. And so we had to now update our rule to address that. So a lot of times, circumstances that happen outside of the department, Different laws might get passed. For instance, when we updated the body-worn camera rule with the retention policy, just because the state had changed their retention policies. Okay, okay. So there are sometimes laws and circumstances that dictate A rule update. Right, for you to update your rules.

Yeah, and it's important that we do look at all our rules in general. You mentioned about the federal one because we have federal agencies to sign the task force, things of that nature. and that was important that we update that regarding body cam footage because I think prior to that they didn't allow us to have body cameras when we worked with them.

And then I know there was a task force that was implemented to review body-worn camera in the footage, I think in 2020, and I believe they released a report. In August of 2022, the task force, from what I'm reading here, was Wayne Budd, Reverend Jeffrey Brown, Allison Cartwright, Eddie Crispin, and a whole host of other people. And they released a report that said law enforcement body camera task force recommended regulations for the procurement and use of body-worn cameras by law enforcement. And the date on this is August 2nd of 2022. Was there anything in this task force recommendation? I guess the first question is, do you remember the report? that I'm talking about? Off the top of my head, I do not. I wasn't police commissioner in August. Yeah, he wasn't there yet. No? Okay.

Well, there is some recommendations from this report that have not been implemented in the rules. One of those, or a few of those, let's go to my list right here. is access, give recorded individuals and Mexican access to their own family member or footage. That was one of the rules that the task force thought should be implemented. One of the recommendations. The other one was allow broad public access to body-worn camera footage via FOIA. Which is what we do. Yes, I guess the way that they wrote out the recommendation, it wasn't fully implemented into the rules on how the task force recommended it.

because that's how we follow that. I mean, the public records law in Massachusetts, the FOIA is the federal, but somebody makes a request.

I get that. And then also part of it was... Clear Procedures and Consequences, Progressive Discipline Tears, Effective Promotions and Salaries Around Body Worn Cameras. But I guess, which we also do.

Which we absolutely do. Matter of fact, I know for a fact we do. There's automatic discipline in relation to a violation of body-worn camera. That was not a thing before August 15th of 2022. Okay. And that's without receiving that report. I can absolutely, there's absolute accountability around body one camera wearing.

Okay, and it might not be fully to what the recommendation was in the report. but it could be implemented in a way that you have addressed it. I think the report might have went a little further than what's currently in the rules.

I think we actually do address it. There is a discipline, an automatic discipline, if you violate the body camera, and if you do it a second time, it will be progressive. So I think from what you read, is if you do the same thing a second time, the discipline is going to be higher. Because the commissioner has... put out the message that body camera is important and you have to use them. Got it.

And then my last question, Chair, is, I know that there are some exemptions on when you don't have to release a body or camera, but does that request need to be made again after like let's say an active criminal investigation is done yes so you have to make it again so you don't automatically release it once no there's not a there's not a rolling obligation once it's denied or released with

with redactions, that's closed out for the purposes of the Boston Police Department. They can appeal that. If they don't like the answer, they can appeal to the supervisor or to court. If they don't, They have every right to come back at a later time and make that same exact request. If there's no longer an investigative exemption, they would most likely get there.

And how many of those Where the exemption was active investigation, where we denied public requests. How many of those? That have now been closed. I don't have that number. I guess through the chair.

Because it's closed, our record keeping ends then.

Right.

They would have to request it again, yes.

No, no, I understand that point.

I just kind of want to know from my knowledge. And just from... from personal knowledge, I can't name the case, but there are people that have come back at a later time and then bought the records because the exemption that was used no longer applied.

No longer applied, right. Yeah, I guess I just want to know for my For my sake. All right. Well, thank you for the questions.

Certainly, Asta. Thank you, Councilor Worrell. We're now going to do another round. Councilor Culpepper, you have the floor.

Thank you. Commissioner, we were talking about The King family being shown the video by the district attorney. My question was, did you talk with the district attorney about whether the King family should see the video? No, not particularly about that.

I knew he would show it. But you knew he would show it. Yeah, it's part of the district attorney's protocols in general.

And you approved of him showing it?

I mean, I totally understood, you know, that he would at some point, yeah.

But you didn't disapprove it. And let me just turn to OPAC for my remaining time. You received a letter from OPAC recently dealing with The Internal Affairs Division reviewing recommendations from OPAC, is that correct? Yeah, OPAC is in the number of letters, yes. Mr. Commissioner, I'm trying to get through these questions. You received a letter from OPAC raising issues about the Internal Affairs Division Reviewing OPAC's recommendations to you. Is that correct?

I received a letter from OPAC saying I don't know why that that happens, but we have an obligation to investigate all allegations of misconduct by our employees.

Right, right. But, Commissioner... The recommendations that come from OPAC are independent of any internal affairs investigation. Am I correct? They certainly seem to be. They have their own area of authority under the law. to review cases that come to the Internal Affairs Division and also to OPEC and to make their own recommendations to you. They can make their own recommendations. And they have been making recommendations to you. Yes, and you've been responding to some of the investigations except for eight cases. Why are you still holding those eight cases that OPAC is waiting for a decision on. I believe I responded to every case. No, OPAC, here's a letter right here, Mr. Commissioner. Let me just review it for you.

I responded to all cases that OPAC has.

There's eight cases that OPAC is still waiting for a decision on. Let me read the letter from the letter they sent to you. There remain eight cases.

Is this for body and camera cases or just general cases? Are these specific to body-worn camera cases? No, these are general cases. These are general cases.

Thank you. In the May 1st letter, it says there remain eight cases of sustained findings for which your office continues to be unresponsive. The department's pattern of delay and non-cooperation with OPEC Remain a major tender.

We have to stay on topic of the hearing topic, so on body worn cameras, unfortunately.

I thought we, well, okay, well, let me bring in to body worn cameras, if you want.

That's, yeah, we have to keep it on topic. Happy to have another hearing on OPLAT itself.

I know some councillors... You can ask it, I mean, they can...

Okay.

There's been a dispute of whether the Internal Affairs Investigations can review the decisions of OPAC. And in the letter, it disputes whether the internal division has the authority to even make a decision with regard to what OPAC recommended. It further points to these eight cases that the department's pattern of delay and non-cooperation with OPAC remain a major hindrance to our work. It's time to speed up the work. And they're talking about those eight cases where they sustained findings and made recommendations to your office.

My question is, why is it that OPAC, number one, their decisions are reviewed by the Internal Affairs Division, and number two, for these eight cases, do you Do you think without some kind of timeline requiring you to respond to them would be helpful to you in terms of making sure that OPAC decisions are responded to?

We respond to their decisions. Some of those cases have perhaps to do with us investigating to verify the facts and circumstances so I can make a finding on their recommendation. and that's usually where most of that comes from.

But do you understand their position is that there's no need for you to investigate their investigations that they've concluded with recommendations to you

Yes, I'm the commissioner of the Boston Police Department. I'm responsible for all discipline for the people that work here. I have to be able to verify The reason why someone is being disciplined, I have to be able to prove it, never mind all of the contracted obligations that we have to I can't... Mr. Commissioner.

My question is, OPAT has their own area of authority with regard to doing the investigation and responding with findings and recommendations to your office. These are eight cases that have yet to have been responded to. My question is, when will you respond to them, or are you going to respond to them?

I will respond to all cases. By the way, we have responded. I don't want to give the impression we haven't. I believe that there probably is the investigation is still ongoing to determine the factors.

And that's my question, Mr. Commissioner. Why do you have to investigate What OPEC has already investigated. Mr. Commissioner, let me finish my question. Why do you have to investigate, and that's what the dispute is about, that you are investigating The cases that they have investigated, made findings on, and made recommendations to you. Why do you think it's necessary for you to investigate what OPAC under the law has already investigated made findings on and made recommendations to you.

If it's the letter I think you're talking about, sir, they were asking for legal justification, so if I can respond to that. In the May 2nd letter? Legally speaking.

No, no, no. Mr. Counsel, they weren't... Their position was they were disputing whether your Internal Affairs Division has the right to investigate cases that they have already investigated, made findings on, and submitted recommendations

for the commissioner to implement. In my legal opinion is we have an obligation to investigate those under both The collective bargaining agreements under both what's going to happen with those cases going forward, whether they go to arbitration, whether they go to civil service, whether they end up going to superior court. There's a lot of legal issues that go with that, that the commissioner needs to do his own investigation to make sure that we can sustain any sustained findings and move forward with those cases. So there is a very big legal component to that that We do not get in the way of OPAC doing their job. They do their job. They come up with findings. They make recommendations, and that's what they are. They are recommendations to the commissioner. and with those, if they are sustained recommendations, then we have an obligation and a duty to reinvestigate those to make sure that we can sustain that moving forward. Even though OPAT's authority is to investigate.

Actually, it's my authority. Mr. Commissioner, let me finish. They have their own set of authority, OPAT's authority. is not your authority. I know you got a lot of authority. No, actually... But, Opet, Mr. Commissioner, let me finish. Actually, my authority consumes all of that. No, Mr. Commissioner. For all the discipline and recommendations for all police officers. Let me be... Let me be clear on something. I'm just trying to get when you will answer these eight cases and whether we should work with an ordinance that requires you to respond to OPAC within a certain period of time.

And so I do respond back to OPAC, as we've mentioned before, but I think it's important for people to understand that there have been police departments that have been put under consent decrees for not investigating allegations of misconduct, and it doesn't matter where they come from. So we always have a responsibility to investigate our personnel for the activities that go on to make sure that we verify that the allegations are true or not true. And that's my responsibility. It can't be delegated to someone else.

My question to you, are you going to respond to them on those eight cases?

And if so, when? I've already answered that when the investigations are completed.

No further questions, Mr. Jay. Thank you, Mr. Commissioner.

Thank you, Councilor Culpepper. I also just want to, I know many of my councillors have asked different questions. I do want to stay on topic on the docket. Order for a hearing to examine the Boston Police Department's protocols for releasing police body camera and dashboard camera footage. So if we can stay on that topic, happy to have another hearing on any other topic that my colleagues want. Worrell. You have the floor.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I'll do my best to stay on topic. Timeline on rules. When do we go back and update it? I know sometimes it's... You know, determine about what federal or state laws, but is there a timeline on when, you know, you update? Is it like in the beginning of the year, end of the year, or is it at any time of the year, you know, the department chooses to?

It's a constant. Anything could change at any time during the year.

Got it.

Ideally, you get it done as quickly as possible. Sometimes there's an impact that needs to be bargained with the union. Sometimes there's not. And so things can change that timeline a little bit.

Awesome. Can you clarify the roles and the differences between the video evidence unit, the body worn camera unit, and then the audit and review team?

The body-worn camera unit and the video evidence unit, I would think are one and the same. I think they're just the terminology. It's the video evidence unit is the unit in the Boston Police Department. that the majority of the job is a lot of the job is dealing with the body one camera video and that. The audit and review unit is under the Bureau of Professional Standards and they will They have many different functions throughout the department. I believe that the body worn cameo audit review is just one of many functions that they have.

All right. Awesome. And then I guess my last question or request to the chair is requesting a working session to review the task force recommendations, compare it to rule 405, and then possibly create a list of updated recommendations based off of what the task force has already said to propose to the commissioner. Councilor, I'm happy to work with you in your office to make that happen.

Thank you. Awesome. Thank you, Councilor Worrell. We've been joined by Councilor Flynn. Thank you for being here. We are on, I think, our fifth round of questions at this point. Subject at matter is order for adherent to examine the Boston Police Department's protocols for releasing police body camera and dashboard camera footage. I'm going to give you seven minutes, Councilor Flynn, to ask your questions right now.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to apologize. I was at a Memorial Day event with fallen heroes in Gold Star families this morning. Commissioner before before we begin I had a hearing here earlier on staffing levels we're gonna have to reschedule it I guess but is this some Thank you.

Thank you.

Did we already participate in that already? No, we had a hearing. The chair had it this week. You were invited, or a member of your team were invited, but Lisa did an excellent job, but I I think it would have been helpful for me to have the commissioner there.

And I apologize, unfortunately, to my scheduling. And it's getting pretty busy every day. I understand.

I understand. I'm trying to do my job to support the police and support our rank and file police. When police officers work 16 hours a day, I tried to support them and their families. I do think we place them in a difficult position when there's mandatory overtime and then a police officer is working on a 15th hour or 16th hour. and we're putting them in harm's way. I do think it has an impact on them and it has an impact on their families. That's what I'm concerned about is the health and wellness of our police officer families. And I'm a person, on the council for the last eight years. I support the police. I consistently support the police, probably more so than any city councilor here.

So it can be frustrating to me when I call for a hearing and the police department leadership do not show up.

Well, actually, there was someone from my department, so we have multiple.

Yes, Lisa was here, and she did an outstanding job, but there were questions that I didn't necessarily want to ask her. because it wasn't really in her lane. But she showed up. She was professional. She was outstanding. So, Mr. Chair, now I'm going to get back to my questioning. Is that okay? That's fine. You've got four minutes. Okay. You can have your ticket time. Thank you. And again, I didn't hear you. The public testimony. I'm going to hear the testimony you provided, so I'm going to have to review that later today when I have the opportunity. And I'm sure some of my questions might be have already asked, but here's my question. Commissioner. There is a policy of when to release body camera for a police officer, when not to release it.

But is it selective? Does it depend on the situation? Does it depend on the police commissioner? Does it depend on the scenario where some police commissioners in the past have brought elected officials and clergy members to to the police commissioner's office to review body camera, review video, I should say. And then other times, that's not the policy. But is there a policy that's consistent or is the policy depending on the situation and the commissioner? And is there some leeway in terms of When the video can be released and not released, regardless of what the policy states.

So thank you for the question. So I would say this, that we use public record law as our policy, our main policy, to release a body on camera. If there's an exception to it at the time involving investigations, then we would not release it while that investigation is ongoing. But at some point when all investigations conclude or there's no other exemption that would cover it at the conclusion of of that investigation, we would release the body-worn camera or any evidence that public record law says that we would have to release. And it doesn't matter who is here.

So a police commissioner has the authority to release or to show elected officials or members of the clergy body camera in selective cases.

So now you're talking about something different. You're talking about just picking a random group of people and showing them video.

No, not a random group of people. Maybe well-respected clergy members, maybe City Councils, our state legislators, and maybe a family member that was somehow impacted in a situation where the body camera impacted their loved one. Not to the general public, but to selective people, as I mentioned.

If you're asking, could that occur? Yes, it could occur.

Depending on... Depending on who the police commissioner is or depending on the scenario?

Both. My problem is that scenario-based around, you know, the facts and circumstances of something might dictate For emergency reasons that we might need public trust in some way where it might impact the investigation, but the reality is there's a public safety need to do this right now. would the impact of

The video having an impact on potential media coverage or potential impact on how the community reacts, were those two be considered as a factor in terms of not showing it to a selective group of clergy or city councillors?

So that is not routine. That would be obviously a really, really special circumstance. I'll say this. Our given policy is that we will release it. And when we're not releasing it, there's an exception to it. But that exception doesn't last forever. And when the investigation is over, the exception is over, then they're going to release it. So transparency is the goal around it. But the reality is if it impacts our investigation, our ability to hold someone accountable, then we're going to postpone that until we do our primary function, and that is holding whoever is violating some law or law enforcement issue around that body of war crime accountable. And then when we're done with that investigation, then it will be released.

Thank you, Commissioner. I also want to recognise Superintendent McLoughlin who is very responsive and providing a lot of good feedback to the residents of Boston. So I want to acknowledge Fenton, Superintendent McLaughlin's professionalism as well. Mr.

Chair, I'm out of time. I have no further questions. Councillor Fenton, are you going to have further questions? Do you need more time right now? You're going to wrap up. I have to call Councilor Culpepper, so I want to give you the opportunity if you have any other questions. Mr. Chair, out of respect for my colleagues, I'm not going to ask any questions. All right. Thank you, Councilor Flynn.

Thank you.

Appreciate you being here. Worrell, do you have any further questions?

Yeah, just one last question for your request. I think Councilor Louijeune might have asked this, but if we could get a list of I guess it's FOIA requests or public records requests. And then the ones that have been denied so we kind of could see which, you know, what are the exemptions and what are the most common exemptions being used for denial.

We can certainly put that request in through the committee. Thanks. Thank you, Councilor. Is that okay? Great. And then we're going to go back to Councilor Culpepper. I'll give you four minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner, is it fair to say that the way decisions are made on these body cams are on a case-by-case basis? Yes. Is it fair to say that when you look at how the decisions are made that the BIS bureau chief has the authority to release or make a decision that the commander of the video evidence unit The Supervisor has access and that's under 6.5 that can approve or disapprove the request that the Commander on the scene has the authority to approve or deny the request. So when you look at the different bureaus that have the authority to approve or deny the request.

It comes down to that form 26. Are you familiar with form 26? I know what form 26s are, yes. Let me just read this to you. In accordance with the current practice, should an officer receive a subpoena for body worn cameras footage, the officer shall direct the subpoena to the supervisor with a Form 26. So when the officer directs the officer with the subpoena to a Form 26, Can you explain the procedure for when a form 26 is approved or not approved? Just tell us a little bit about what the form 26 is.

It's basically a report where a formal way of the officer reporting something internally. And what that report would be is basically someone is making a And then under that FOIA,

I was just going to say, Councilor, the section that you're reading from is specifically from Section 8.1, which is about law enforcement access. So if an officer... If an officer in the course of a criminal prosecution likely resulting from an incident that they responded to receives a subpoena from either the district attorney's office or defense counsel, For footage that may be evidence as part of a criminal case, not an officer involved shooting, but a criminal case, the process for that officer to get the footage to ensure that it is released appropriately is to submit that request. with a Form 26 through the chain of command.

So Form 26s are not used at all in an officer involved shooting?

Form 26 is a general term for a document used internally in a variety of circumstances.

No, but there is a Form 26, right? The Form 26 is just an internal form that all officers use. to communicate internally here. That's what we refer to as Form 26. It's not specific to body-worn cameras.

Correct.

Some people call it a memo in other industries or whatever.

I'm asking with regard to body-worn cameras because that's what it says here. It says... Local prosecutors shall make a request for body-worn camera footage directly to the video evidence unit. So there's a video evidence unit, right? that controls all body-worn cameras in the video evidence unit, right?

They're the keeper of those records.

Right, right. And it says... The officer shall direct the subpoena to the supervisor with a form 26 regarding So my question is, when there's a request for the body-worn camera footage, they're directed to use a Form 26. Am I correct? I just read it to you.

Yes, because it goes and explains. It's just a report.

No, no, no. The question is, you use a Form 26, right? And the Form 26 then goes through what process? Once... It's just an internal form. No, I understand. I understand that. Saying that someone is requesting this. What's the process once you get a Form 26 that's requesting body-worn camera footage?

I think you have to, if you look at that sentence in its entirety in the context of the section.

No, no, no. I understand that. I just want to know, what's the protocol? I'm going to try to answer your question. What do you do with it?

I'm going to try to answer your question. So the policy dictates that prosecutors shall make requests directly to the video evidence unit. Right. But should an officer receive a subpoena directly for footage, the officer shall then forward the subpoena along with the Form 26 to the supervisor. The 26 notifies the supervisor that the officer received a request and is passing it along. and then that goes to the video evidence unit for response to review to ensure that under the policy release of the footage is appropriate and that would include the exemptions that we have talked about earlier.

Right, and the video evidence unit does what once they receive that Form 26?

It's not the Form 26. It would be attached to a subpoena. Mr. Lawyer, the question is, what do they do with it? Once they give it to the video evidence unit, what's the protocol? It depends on what the request is and who's requesting it. You might have a subpoena from a police department in Springfield. Right, right. And so... What then happens? That's what I'm trying to get to. What's the protocol of how it's processed? Then that subpoena with the Form 26 from the officer goes to the Vita Revenue Unit. Right. We would most likely get a call in my office We received this. Is it okay to release this to that department? And if it's for a law enforcement purpose, the answer would be yes, release that. When you're talking with the Suffolk County DA's office and local, they're partner agencies and they're set up automatically on cases. Outside departments all over the state or in another state aren't set up like that.

So my final question

The only offices that will use a Form 26 for body worn Cambridge footage are law enforcement.

It's an internal form.

No, I understand, I understand. But that's the procedure that they would begin with to make the request a body-worn camera footage.

And that limited thing that they're describing where they got something directly to them, that's how they would make it Move it into the video of its unit.

Can I give you an example, sir? There may be a civil case going on. Civil lawyers have the right to subpoena things. They might subpoena a police officer directly. That police officer writes a Form 26 saying, I've received a subpoena to show up and testify and bring this video.

And if it's body worn camera footage, it would then go to the video evidence unit. That's the only way the officer could get that. Right, and the video evidence unit would then send it to you?

They potentially might bring it to my attention.

If it doesn't come to your attention, my question is where does it go? Does it work its way up to the commissioner to approve it?

That would be highly unlikely. That would not happen.

Councilor, can I just clarify one thing? You mentioned the section on the BIS bureau chief and allowing people access.

I've got a list of all the...

I just want to make sure you understand what that means. Okay, but I just want to make sure you understand. When a firearms discharge investigative team goes out and investigates any discharge of a firearm, The officer's body-worn camera is immediately taken and it's uploaded. And the video evidence representative who comes to the scene immediately restricts access to that to a very limited group, usually the fitted investigative team What that says there when it mentions the BIS chief is that I have the ability to expand that group if perhaps they added investigators or someone else that had a need and right to know within the investigative team I can add to it so that's what that access means in that case it doesn't mean anything publicly or anything else it means who can who can see it within the investigative team and the idea is to keep it a very small group so that we're able to work the investigation

without outside interference, without other people within the department having access to it and the risk that goes along with. But that's what anybody want, Cameron. They bring it in to upload it. But no, what I'm saying is in an officer-involved shooting, that is uploaded and then immediately restricted. If I wanted to go watch a body-worn camera from an incident yesterday, not an officer-involved shooting, and I wanted to go in there, I could go in and look under the incident number, I could look under the officer, and I could pull that video up and I could watch it. In the case of an officer-involved shooting, that is immediately restricted so that nobody in the department can look at it except for people that are given access as investigators or, again, Under my authority or the commissioner, if he told me to say we're going to add a couple people because of a particular reason. Maybe the investigative group got bigger. Maybe there's some reason that we have to add somebody in there. I just want to clarify that.

That's not about releasing. That is only about a limited access on officer-involved shootings. To upload it. No, it's uploaded. It's uploaded and it's locked down. Okay, and then it's just as I said, small group of people can see that. Outside of that, nobody in the department can see.

Well, let me ask you this. If an officer based on 4.2 wanted to then see his own Body-worn camera footage, would he be able to see it with his lawyer?

The officer, not without being given access. So the people that are included in that group that have access on an officer-involved shooting, is very small.

Does that include the supervisor in charge of the investigation? Yes, it does. And so the supervisor in charge of the investigation could then say, officer, now you can... Go in with your attorney to look at the body-worn camera of the shooting that you were involved in.

Well, according to this rule, the way it's written, yes. But as I said to Councilor Louijeune, in the case of a fatal or are likely to die where the district attorney's office is exerting their authority as the overall lead of the investigation. Their policy is, in those cases, that the officer is not allowed to watch their video before they give a statement. So there is an exception. It's not written in our rule because it's their policy. So I said it earlier.

So, Councilor, you do bring up a good point. You talked about rules and stuff. Sometimes when things are highlighted, I can tell you the rule is going to be changed for clarity. I can tell you that right now.

Is this one that's going to be changed for clarity?

For clarity, because the fact is when you go and read something and it's not clear sometimes internally, we think things are clear all the time. Externally, it might not be. So we will absolutely review it, which I said before, We review all our rules and regulations. We're in the process of getting accredited. Part of accreditation is that you have to review all your rules and regulations, make sure they're up to date, best practices, things of that nature. and it takes time to go through rules. And so we've been going through a few of them. We're gonna review this one and absolutely try to make it clear because it was really internally written for our internal audience. but we're trying to make them a little bit clearer for external audiences.

Commissioner, I appreciate you. I love your counsel and I appreciate Deputy Superintendent because I think these are the goals of these kind of sessions to weed out what needs to be worked on. You heard Councilor Worrell call for a working session and to look at what's not clear So it can be clarified. So in future cases, we know exactly how the Boston Police Department is going to operate. So I appreciate you. And we've got a few things we're going to work on ourselves with regard to ordinances. Just appreciate your time. I know you're busy. I know you got a million things to do. And I really appreciate you answering my phone call every time I call you. You answered my phone call. I appreciate you. Because that speeds through some of the things that...

I don't know how accurate that is, but... No, no, no, no. I appreciate you. Thank you. You appreciate me when I answer it, so thank you.

Yeah, yeah. I know, but you always do, so you score 100 on that one.

My wife would say the same. I don't know if I answer for anybody. I'm in a lot of meetings. But the intent is good.

Yeah, I think Yeah, I think our goal is just to try and figure out what needs to be worked on, whether we need some ordinances, whether we need, and we'll be talking about some of the things that we discuss in our working session. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Councilor Culpepper. I've been informed by central staff that we don't have anyone who has signed up to public testimony. So I want to thank my colleagues. I want to thank the lead sponsors, Councilor Culpepper and Councilor Worrell. for bringing this hearing order. And I want to thank our panelists for being here this morning with us. Thank you, Commissioner. As I guess my colleagues mentioned, we know you're busy and running a department, so we really appreciate your time. here this morning. This hearing on docket number 0638 is adjourned.