City Council - Regular Meeting

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 05/22/2026. The exact time is 10:18AM. This hearing is being recorded. It is also being livestreamed @boston.govslashcity-council-tv and broadcasted on Xfinity channel eight, RCN channel 82, and Files channel 964.

Written comments may be sent to the committee email at ccc.ps@boston.gov and will be made part of the record and available to all counselors. 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 Shane Pack at shane.pack@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 dash dashboard camera footage. This matter was sponsored by councilor Meniere Culpepper and Brian Morell and was referred to the committee on 03/25/2026. 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. Counselor Culpepper, you have the floor.

Good morning, and thank you, chair Santana. Thank you to my cosponsor, constable Rao. 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. 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've 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. Understate law decisions about whether footage is released are largely made on a case by case basis. And under Boston Police Department rule four zero five, that authority is with the commissioner.

At the same time, there is no defined time for releasing footage after critical incidents and no mandate that it be released to OPEC 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 are left with a system where transparency often depends on discretion rather than clear policy, that matters. 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, frustration, and a loss of trust in the very institutions we are working to strengthen.

I will end with this quote from then Boston Police Commissioner William Evans discussing release policies of body worn cameras footage after the twenty fifteen 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 gonna 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 shooter.

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 04/2005 and the release of bodyguins. Thank you, mister chair.

Thank you, counsel Culpepper. Counselor Fitzgerald,

do you

have the floor?

Thank you, chair. No. I just wanna thank you guys for being here, for agreeing to come in. It's 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 and what the answers to those questions are. So I thank you guys here for coming to explain that today.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Fitzgerald. I would now like to introduce today's panelists. With us today we have Michael Cox, commissioner of the Boston Police Department Nicole Tube, chief of staff with the Boston Police Department David, Freddy, 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 counsel colleagues for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Don't have any opening remarks. I just wanted to make sure we're 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. Feel free. Awesome.

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

Just quickly. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for being here. I know that you have a very busy schedules and also that this is a very important topic. So we're happy to that you were able to make it, that we were able to collaborate and work together, the city council and administration to find a date and time that's 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 are embodied camera footage, and I am looking forward to the conversation today. Thank you. Thank you, mister chair, and thank you to the sponsor, council Culpepper.

Thank you, councilor Legion. We're gonna go to councilor questions. Seven minutes. Starting with the lead sponsor, councilor Culpepper. You have

the floor. Thank you, mister chair. Commissioner, under, national laws chapter 38 section four 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 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 this in any investigation, there has to be a lead. Certainly, the prosecutor, the DA is the lead for the Commonwealth Police 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. He's like, 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

Yes. Set of guidelines or authority within 38, chapter 38?

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

As part of a team?

Yes. Is that

he's say yeah.

He is the lead because he has the authority.

And and under four zero five, is that based on any law under

Well, you just quoted it

rule four zero five. That based on law? Are you talking about a department rule? Right. Right. Right.

What what what part of the rule, sir?

Just four zero five. I'm gonna get to the specific part. I just wanted to if you had if it's something in here that is based on a law, just wanted to talk about whether there is or not.

I I I don't know specifically what you're asking if there's Counselor. There's a there's a there's a part of that if there's another agency in control of an investigation, that's a reference to 384. They would dictate whether or not somebody could review the so there are references to it, but it's a pretty expansive

But I didn't see any references in four zero five to chapter 38. And my question is, 38 is the Boston Police Department's rule that they created independent of chapter 38.

Yes, sir. And

four zero five is list that the commissioner's responsibility and authority within dealing with body cameras. That's the policy that deals with the body cams.

Are you asking about our our internal

rule and regulation? Five. Right.

Yes.

And in four zero five, there's no timeline for releasing body cam footage, is there? There is not. There's not. And when an investigation is ongoing, the decision whether a body cam is released or not is determined on a case by case basis.

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

And the Counselor

To go back to your previous question. Go ahead.

Yeah. Counselor Culpepper, just on the point of when the body cam footage is released, section 8.2 of the rule 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 understand that part. But I want to let's let's turn to 6.2 since we're looking at four zero five. 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 in 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 in the air in the 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

he can certainly Definitely is our chief is our you know, certainly our counsel. Nicole is my chief of staff, and Paul McGaughlin is the superintendent in charge of the Bureau of Investigative Services.

And

so I I 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. You

But those are the subject matter experts in each particular 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.

Miss 6.2. So what's the question?

That's what it deals with. It deals with officer involved deaths, often involved shootings, or involve involves officers use of deadly force.

Yes. Refers to the access to the to the footage. Yes. And

if we move down to the third paragraph, it talks about how the body worn foot footage is allowed for the officer to to either review it or to review it with his attorney. The third paragraph. Yep. At the request, the attorneys, the officer's attorney may be present when the officer views the video. Mister commissioner? So I'm gonna

are you referring to when it says at the time determined by the supervisor in charge investigation who are one, involved in the incident, two, discharged their weapon, or three, witnessed the incident may view their own view, I mean, video before giving a statement.

Right.

The officers request the officers' attorney may be present when the officer views the video.

Right. So 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 investigation at the time.

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

In involved in one one of these incidents?

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, If to view

under the circumstances,

it's If deemed the

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

Thank you, mister commissioner. I'll pick up on my second round of questioning. We're just getting started. Okay.

Thank you, counsel Culpepper. Counselor Fitzgerald, you have some 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 is gonna do a great job at getting to know that. I'd like to provide sort of a a larger spectrum, so folks understand what happens. Could you please tell me, you know, for body cams and dash cams, when does a police officer turn them on, turn them off? When when 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 used

in

the apartment. So certainly with body camera, the issue certainly that's supposed to happen when they come to work, police 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 are are being used, around that.

Again, with to keep it on until the end of the interaction, when they're actually leaving, the area. At the end of the day that their body worn cameras are docked and the information from those cameras are uploaded, into our our system where that information is is kept and officers tag that information with a with a number or incident number so that they can reference it for future.

And that that stays permanently? It's not a, you know, after thirty 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 four zero five, Counselor. Great. So and it would delete automatically. I think the the the shortest timeline is a year, and we follow the state guidelines for the retention of video in that. And every officer every control officer has two cameras. Early on, one of the issues was the battery life of these cameras. A of lot 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 the the other one on while they're working.

And so does it depends how it is tagged in terms of the deletion deadline? I mean, are certain and and how is that decided? What stays permanent and what says after a year? Is there any like, just what is the protocol of saying, oh, this incident or this this video specifically, nothing happened. They can be gone in a year. Or this one, you know, depending on x is why it'll be stayed permanently.

Yeah. I I think you've answered the question. Like, it's what type of call it is. For instance, if there's an arrest, if there's not an arrest. Okay. And, you know, if it's 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 Okay. Until manually deleted. The others are on more of a retention schedule.

Awesome. Just if it's helpful, counselor, in the rule, specifically section nine lays out the from one year to indefinite and the specific categories of incident that fall within

Great.

Alright. So if I if I if I wanna look up detailed, I can check that out. And what rule is that?

Rule four zero five.

Rule four

zero five.

Awesome. Thank you very much. I won't need the remaining part of my time. I'll I'll lead yield that back. But thank you, chair. And, again, thank you guys for coming here.

Thank you.

Thank you, counsel Fitzgerald. Counselor Bodhi Jen, you have the floor.

Thank you, and thanks again for coming here. I wanted to I have several different threads that I wanna sort of explore. Just the policy of being able to review a body worn camera footage in general. What under what circumstances? So I'm I'm 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 of completing an investigation and preparing official reports. So there are times like, if they're writing 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 I'm sure there have been some studies done because I think that you probably would wanna 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 the police report look like when they reviewed the footage. Has there been any sort of studies to look at what the difference is between what the reports look like?

So I'm I'm not familiar with what, you know, study where it shows what the report would look like versus what it wouldn't. There is some research or out on particularly through I think police the executive

perf.

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 cam footage to see if the

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 where, around you know, one thing that I don't know people understand from time to time that you know depending on the trauma involved or 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. Exactly. This applies to everybody which I try to emphasize all the time. Yes. Yes. That you know it's you can be impacted by trauma with your memory and things of that nature where a video recording records what it records.

Yeah. I'll just just be on the record that I don't I'm not a fan of this policy that allows for review of the footage prior to completing the police report because I think that it's important for us to know how to work what biases or what issues we need to work on if people are able to people, not officers, are able to review a video to jog their memory of what happened. And so I just wanted to to state that. It's not directly related to this issue, but I think it's we've you know, oftentimes police reports are treated as, you know, 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 both expose issues when it comes to how we remember and how we accept certain authority or not. Like, who is who is the truth teller in the situation? And depending on that camera to get there, think, you have some sort of a level of unfairness in it. If I don't know if I'm making sense, but it has, a level of unfairness in it that makes me uncomfortable.

I I would probably add that, you know, human memory and things of that nature, that's a whole another research

Right.

Area. But the fact is this is not just about, you know, is the officer telling the truth. They make reference to it because they're having long conversations with people. People are making witness statements.

Mhmm.

You know, they might not be able to note down all the things that are there. So reviewing it actually helps them you know portray an accurate depiction of what someone said, what happened, the events that occurred that have nothing to do with the police officer. It just has to do with all the stuff going on around them and people witnessing it. So it's it's fairly, you know, a little bit more complex about what you capture in body video and things of that nature but the fact is you know overall it is probably you know more helpful than not than not having it out there when you're totally relying on trying to take notes, trying to remember what someone said. You know, you could be distracted when people are talking. Yeah. And it happens quite often particularly when emotions are high.

And I have two more minutes left. I forgot that I actually have a lot more questions. Oh, I'm sorry. It's I'm I'm actually not debating the reliability of the 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 the police report look like before you review the footage? What does the police report look like after you review the footage? I think it can be helpful.

Yes. Yes.

May. As long as the chair gives me more time.

Just just add to the the situation where in in our rule, it addresses their ability to to look at the video. But in fatal fatal

Yes. Accountants There's agency. Yeah.

The the district attorney's office policy is that they do not look at the video. Yep. In 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. Remember that we teased that out at the last hearing and made that clear, I do appreciate sort of reiterating that point. Just a few other questions that I had regarding this 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. She just said within the rule, in someone's home and they ask for it to happen. Although if it's a, you know, hostile scene, things of that nature, it's the office has discretion to keep it on. But certainly when you're going in hospital settings, you know, you know, settings where it's probably not appropriate to have it on, we have it, you know, carve outs for it in our rule.

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.

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 should we if not, should we consider independent viewing authority critical incidents? That's a that's also a question I think that some folks have been asking in in in media reports. So,

you know, what's the CR? 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, you know, certainly high profile events, things of that nature, they would absolutely, you know, have access to that through that portion of it. The other portion of OPAP, if it's a case, I don't think believe outside of cases that they've that they've started, you know, and worked with us. I don't know if we have a mechanism to show them other than regular FOIA requests like the regular world.

Yeah. If 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 an ongoing investigation or fall within one of the other exemptions. So they don't have any special status that gives them access to footage that would differ from if a member of the public or a member of this body were to inquire.

Yeah. And then the the ensuing question is, should there be a separate level of access that is not separate from, right, that is as a 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

I I so as I may have mentioned before, you know, previous, like this subsection of OPAP 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. Previously I was in charge of internal affairs a while ago before this version of OPAP was there. We worked quite well with that review and so certainly high profile cases, you know, when we did them, we let them review the work that we did after the fact. And it was, know, I thought it was quite productive and usually they 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.

Okay. Thank you. You are moving on. I do have I'll wait till I'll wait till the next round. It's fine. But I know. Thank you, Councilor Webb. I'll wait till the next round. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Lujan, Councilor Weber. You have the floor. Oh, we've been joined by Councilor Weber as well. Okay. Councilor Weber. Minutes.

Okay. Would be strange if I was asking questions and I wasn't here. But, okay, so just in terms of like the rules, like promulgation process, like, you know, how do you how do these rules get developed? And then I guess my follow-up would be, you know this rule in particular commissioner when you came on as a committee did you revise this? Has it has it changed?

The body worn camera rule?

Yeah sorry yeah rule four zero five and yeah.

Yeah so it has been updated. Yeah updated 01/15/2025.

Okay what parts?

Which parts now I can't you know just provide.

Anything relevant to this discussion that I mean so when I assume the police commissioner has to sign off on the rules in I some don't know correctly.

So a chap on section one general considerations third paragraph was edited. Section 2.2 camera activation and incident use. Fourth paragraph was edited. Section 2.8, body worn camera deactivation. Bullet number five is new. Section 2.9, special activation factors have been retitled and bulleted numbers 12 through 15 are new. Section 2.1 officers assigned to federal task force. That's a new section. Section 3.1 officers responsibility. Third paragraph is new.

Section five supervisor's responsibility is a new section title with unit commanders being added. Section 5.2 district and unit commander officers, the designee last sentence is new. Commanding officers shall ensure that the ordinance Yeah. 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 proceeding order will delineate the changes.

Okay. I I guess just so the I mean this rule was in place before the you know generally it's been revised but like does the does every new police commissioner and I'm almost asking your other people on the panel just take a revise the rules or at least have that opportunity.

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 aspect of it you have to revise the rule.

Okay. I guess so in that like 6.2 section on, you know, where there was a incident if officer involved death or I can't remember the the term the words. So, again, like, what is the reason why the officer fire who who discharges their weapon should review the footage before making their report?

Why it's in the rule?

Yeah. Like, what 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. I wasn't a commissioner when that portion was put in.

So so that's from collective bargaining?

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

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

I I can speculate, but I wasn't there for the ruling.

Well, the rule says that it's 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 gonna be criminally charged, I I think it a conversation would be had at that point of whether or not that person's gonna be able to see the video before they make a statement. But

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

It's part of it's part of the rule making the the bargaining with the collective bargaining units is part of the rule making 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 they, you know, we do make the rules for our officers. Yeah.

But I mean

But if it impacts them, we absolutely have a a obligation to bargain around that. But you know, we we own the rules and regulations of the

police department.

Well aside from that, if if I'm just my guess is I mean there are there may be a Fifth Amendment issue or something, you know, with somebody writing a statement that might get get, you know, result in criminal conviction. But to what I don't the the the second part of that or the third sub part of that is that witnesses to the the discharge of the the shooting also get to review the video before that. I don't I don't get the justification other than I you know, I don't see the policy reason for why we'd want a witness to view the video before they made a statement.

You mean witness police officer?

It's if you look at the rule, I think it says the people who can 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 is number three, may may view their own video before giving the statement. And it just seemed like the I'm just I'm trying to, like, just make an argument for why you'd

But it's their own. They don't get to view the other anybody else. They get

to just view their Yeah.

That's that's he was saying something that was not there.

Okay. So I was

he had me there. I was like, oh my was that in there? No. But it's not

But they view their own. But I also I don't I I I I they're 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 The purpose

of the access that of of allowing them to see it is to review, you know, their statements and and things that they've done, not something Okay.

Just lastly before my time runs out. Do any of these rules contemplate like the a grand jury involvement? Like, did do in in this, you know, in in this King incident did you like were the rules did they provide you any guidance for how to 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 the there there is some sort of confidentiality that comes with the grand jury investigation that is not your policy. It's not it's not necessarily governed by your rules. How

I just want to make clear. Are you referring to release a body camera? Are you referring to statements of officers? I'm not sure.

I'm we're here talking about body camera. So I'm talking about release a body camera. I mean, do the rules need an update for mean, do the rules contemplate a situation where the in an officer involved shooting, the officer was before the grand jury for that shooting at the same 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 cam footage.

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

I'll say this, this is, you know, hopefully clarifies it a little bit more. So, you know, the criminal justice system is a pretty high level of accountability. When we're enforcing laws, there's no high level of accountability there is. Our primary purpose when we investigate it is the accountability piece that we're trying to get to. If there's anything that's going to interfere or 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 purpose that you're trying to do, right, around that. And that's why when you see carve outs for investigations when there's a current investigations, it's because the investigation is the primary factor around the accountability piece that you're there for. Because when you bring someone in 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 where that current investigation, will this get in in the way of our ability to hold people accountable for whatever you know charges that may have been you know violated and we don't want anything to impact the investigation to do that.

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

So, because I'd say, well I think we always have to look at our rules and policies and to see if they reflect the best practices of what was going on in the world. Investigations particularly death investigations, I think the rule is it's 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 and around release of body cameras described before is, you know, our policy is based on, it's already been mentioned multiple times, based on the on the public records laws around that. And so if this active investigation 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 is fairly sure doc sure doc.

Okay. Thank you chair for letting me go over. I'll I'll make sure to afford you the same courtesy.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner, I just wanted to follow-up on the question by council Weber with regard to officers involved in a police involved death, that the officers have the right to come in to review the body on camera footage. Am I correct?

Can an officer involved Yeah. That involves in the death?

Let me just read this back to you.

If he if it's If it's about a death, you just said that the answer is no.

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 your 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 review their video before even giving a statement. Isn't that correct? That's what it says here, mister commissioner.

Further, at the officer's request, if an officer says, want my attorney in there to review the footage too, this says that he can have his attorney with him when the officer views a 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.

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 three, you're referring to.

Right. On my on my page, it's the last But there's

a fourth paragraph to that 6.2.

Not on my page, but we've got different pages. But the

question is says at a time determined by a supervisor in charge.

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

But that would not be the case.

And in this case and we realized that the Boston Police Department controls all evidence. Is that correct?

Well, certainly, if we're investigating the scene, we would

probably Mister Commissioner, is that correct? You control all evidence.

No. Wait. So a death investigation again is under the purview

of But you you control the evidence with regard to a death investigation.

And we work in conjunction with the district attorney.

But you control the evidence according to four zero five.

Do you when you 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. Isn't that correct?

If your question is do we retrieve it, yes. We are 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, as certainly, the evidence that we retrieved on behalf of the district attorney with him. But it's not that simple because, remember, you know, there's search warrants involved where you have to go to a judge. There's other means and and things that we have to do to

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.

Correct. Because it's

our 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.

And in the case of mister King, the and and I'm I'm so I'm I'm happy that that family finally got a chance to review the body cam footage. But but you agreed that he could the district attorney could show it to mister King's family. Isn't that correct? He's he's If you had said no, he could now. Is that because you have the final authority with regard to who views the body, Cam Fulich. Isn't that correct?

No. As again, we retrieve the information for the prosecutor for the prosecution. Once it's in their hands, it's you know, their their evidence

You even have rules in here regarding how long it's kept, where it's kept, when it's released under full fire. 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 let me move to another topic. Me move

to another topic. Let me

see if I can make it clearer.

I mean, particularly if there's public out there listening. If if the commission happens, we as I'm not talking

about the public right now.

And retrieve I'm

just trying to get to

the And and give it in in conjunction with the prosecutor.

Mister commissioner, 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 No.

I'm trying to make it clear. The 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 other. Chicago's civilian officer police of vulnerability is an exemplary model of solid policy with regard to body cameras and offers guidance for Boston.

Whereas and this is going right to four zero five in the Huntington News. Whereas in Boston, rule four zero five, it stipulates that the body cameras is the 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 sole, you know No.

No. Here's my question, mister commission. Can I just There's no explain something? Can I just

Because it's important because I don't want I think it's

all important? I really do. But my question That's is internal internal rule

for all the people who 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 authorization to release body camera other than police commission.

Right. Sharing

evidence with the prosecutor is is a whole

My question is, is there a timeline for example, New York releases body cam footage in forty five days. In 04/2005, 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, if there's

nothing Mister commissioner.

If there's nothing prohibiting Mister commissioner,

can I get a yes or no to my question? I'm trying to Is there a timeline

I don't need to give an answer.

I need to give

an that people can understand. But but but but mister commissioner, But will try to do that.

Let me let me ask a question to try and get a quick answer because my time is up. How about a thorough answer? There a timeline in 04/2005 where body cam footage can be released?

We release our body cam footage using public record law. So if 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. It's completed, then we will release it.

Eight point one eight point one doesn't refer to the state law at all. Eight point one says that the law enforcement access, whether whether it's safe, 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 04/2005 where body foot cameras can or cannot be released?

Similar to what I just described at 8.2, it says public information request video evidence unit shall respond to public information request 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 record law as our standard for issuing

out requests for public records. We'll have a third

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 wanna try and make it a little clearer for you.

Thank you, Councilor Culpepper. We've been joined by Councilor Worrell. I wanna go to Councilor Lee Jen. It sounds for seven minutes, and then we'll go to Councilor Worrell, and then we'll do a third round. Councilor Lee Lee Jen, you have the floor.

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

No. No. Go ahead. I'm 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'm sorry. Go for it.

I'm I just missed the 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. Body camera footage. I

there's 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 that, you know, it's depicting something of an individual, not privacy for the police officer, but privacy for the people in in the video. For instance, if somebody's being depicted in a very unflattering way, there's a privacy exemption that we don't think that their privacy rights would trump the public's right to see that. 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 stat for exemption under a.

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

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

There's two ways they can appeal. Whether it's a denial or redactions, can go to the supervisor of public records. They could also file a lawsuit in 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.

Okay. And then there are some jurisdictions where, like, the release of the footage is required even when there is an investigation. Can you have have you reviewed sort of those policies and and and how they're balancing what we are what what you're trying to balance here as well, which is not trying to prejudice the investigation, but still there's still a requirement in those jurisdictions to release body worn footage.

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

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, I mean, are you're saying police officers are humans as well. And so I just wanted to point that out that I think that's it's very I agree with that statement.

No. But thank but thank you. But the point is is that when you're in 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 your case, you know, less provable or less 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, and because I have not done it.

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

release it. I 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 that Yep?

I just wanna make clear that the exemption is not just, oh, there's an investigation. We're not gonna release it. It has to prejudice that investigation.

Yeah. I I I stated that.

Yes. 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 if you can imagine, if 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 produce and release it. Much more difficult with the video. The video shows so much more. So, that's why video is a is a is a little bit of a different animal when it comes to redacting out what might be prejudicial and and prejudice that investigation as opposed to documents.

And and you made mention of other places. Yeah. There there are many other jurisdictions that say they put timelines thirty, sixty, ninety days on it, but virtually all of them have exemptions for investigation. So, you know, we put out a timeline and said we'll release it in ninety days, but yet to invent if we say we have 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 record records request in if we could release it.

In other words if that's an impact in our ability to do it we'll 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, you know, that investigation is done or at least it won't impact it in that way. And, you know, I you know, I just don't want folks to to think that it it's it's this indefinite thing that goes on on forever and ever.

Thank you. And if if I may, I have one last question regarding like secondary use of surveillance footage uses, especially when it comes to First Amendment rights, either 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 the there in rule four zero five that talks about that. So if anyone would like to speak towards

But if rule it

four zero five.

We we don't Exactly. Surveil people's first amendment protected rights. But if criminal activity happens during a demonstration or a First Amendment protected, the body camera is expected to be activated when there's an arrest that's gonna 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, mister chair. Those are my questions.

Thank you, councilor Wu Jung. Councilor Worrell, you have the floor.

Thank you, chair, and thank you, for being commissioner and 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 bot body camera BWC, a body worn camera rules in 2025. What was the process? Like, can you talk to me who was at the table? Was it just an internal process? Who who who was that done

with?

So all our rules are internal. They're meant for our police department. So we we usually have a subject matter expert, you know, go through our rules and see what requires updating in general.

For instance, there was when when when federal agencies started to use body cameras That's right. Yeah. It it impacted us because there's there's certain members of the BOTS Police Department who are 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 that happen outside of the department, different 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.

Got it.

And so we have so there are sometimes laws and circumstances that dictate a rule. Right.

For your for you to update your rule.

Okay. Yeah. And and it's important that we do look at all our rules in general. Yeah. 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 work with them. Awesome.

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 2022. The task force, from what I'm reading here, was, you know, Wayne Budd, Reverend Jeffrey Brown, Alison Cartwright, Eddie Crispin, and a whole whole host of other people. And they 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 08/02/2022. Was there anything in this task force recommend well, I I guess the first question is, do you remember the report that I'm talking about?

At the top of my head, I do not. I wasn't at

the police commissioner in August. Yeah. Yeah.

He wasn't there yet. No? Okay. Well, there there is some recommendations from this report that have not been implemented in the rules. One of those or few of those let's go to my list right here. Is access. Give recorded individuals a Mexican access to their own family member or footage. That was one of the rules that the task force thought should be implemented or one of the recommendations. The other one was allow broad public access to body worn camera footage via FOIA. And then

Which is what we do.

Right.

That's exactly They said well, they 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.

Yeah. Because that's how we follow that's I mean, the public records law in Massachusetts, the FOIA is the federal, but

Yep.

I question.

I get that. And then also part of it was clear procedures and consequences, progressive discipline tears affecting promotions and salaries around body worn cameras. But I guess Which we Which we absolutely do.

Matter of fact, I know for a fact we do. This automatic discipline when it when any relation or violation of body worn camera, that that was not a thing before 08/15/2022. Okay. And that's what I received receiving that report. I can absolutely there's there's there's absolute accountability around body worn camera wearing.

Okay. And it 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. Right? I think the report might have went a little further than what's currently in the rules.

I I think we actually do address it. It's there is a 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 Oh, it is progressive. From what you read Okay.

Yeah.

Is if you do the same thing a second time, the discipline's gonna be higher.

Got

it. Because the commissioner has put out the the message that body camera is important and you have to use them.

Got it. And then my my last question, chair, is I know that there are some exemptions on when you don't have to release a body worn 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. 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. Right. 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 and and how many of those, right, where the ex where the exemption was active in investigation where we denied public request? How many of those? That that had now been closed.

I I I don't have that. Okay. I

don't know. I guess to the chair.

Well, I wouldn't because it's closed, it's our record keeping ends then. So Right. They would have to record

You have to request it again. Yes. No. No. I understand that. I just kinda wanna know disclosed. From my knowledge. Yeah.

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

Right. Yeah. I guess I just wanna know for my for my sake. Alright. Well, thank you for the questions.

Certainly asked that. Thank you, counsel Gorell. We're now gonna 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 I knew he would show it.

But you knew he would show

it? Yeah. It's part of the district attorney's And you approved of

him showing it?

Mean, I totally understood, you know, that he would at some point. Yeah.

But you didn't disapprove it? No. And let me just turn to OPEC 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 Mr. Of Commissioner, I'm trying to get through these questions. Please. You received a letter from OPAC raising issues about the Internal Affairs Division reviewing OPAT's recommendations to you. Is that correct?

I received a letter from OPAT, yes, saying I don't know why 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 OPEC are independent of any internal affairs investigation. Am I correct?

They they they certainly seem to be

They have their own area of authority under the law to review cases that come to the Lieutenant Affairs Division and also to OPAC and to make their own recommendations to you.

They can make their own recommendations.

Yes, 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 OPEC is waiting for a decision on?

I believe I responded to every case.

There's no OPEC there's a letter right here, mister commission. Let me just review it for you.

I responded to all cases that OPAC has.

There's eight cases that OPAC is still relay 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 camera cases or just general? Are these specific to body worn camera cases

or No. These are general

cases. These

are general cases. Thank you. Thank you. In in the May 1 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 hindrance.

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

I thought we Well, okay. Well, 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 OPAT itself. I know some Well, counselors

start asking questions but You can ask it. I mean they can Okay.

They don't have to necessarily

Okay. Answer. There's been a dispute of whether the Internal Affairs and 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 OPEC recommended. It further points to these eight cases that the department's pattern of delay in non cooperation with OPEC 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 OPEC, 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 OPEC 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 and circumstances so I can make a finding on their on their recommendation. And that's usually where most of that comes.

But do but do you understand their position is that there's no need for you to investigate their investigation that they've concluded with recommendations to you Yes. Because their recommendations Boston Police Department responsible

for all discipline for the people that work here. I have to be able to verify the reason why someone is being disciplined and I have to be able to prove it. Never mind all of the contracted obligations that we have through our personnel around it. They have multiple ways to appeal and multiple court procedures that I would have to go through. So I can't basically delegate my responsibilities to someone else. So I am actually fulfilling my obligation by doing that.

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

We'll respond to all cases. By the way, we have responded, but I don't wanna give you information. These eight? I believe that probably it's the investigation that's still ongoing to determine the factors that, you know

And that's my question, mister commissioner. Why do you have to investigate what OPEC has already investigated made mister commissioner, let me finish 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 OPEC under the law has already investigated, made findings on, and made recommendations to you.

If 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, there's In the in the May 2 letter? Legally speaking

No. No. No. Let mister mister 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 we have an obligation to investigate those

Yeah.

Under both collective bargaining agreements, under both what's gonna 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 OPAT 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.

Mister 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 OPAT, mister commissioner, let me finish.

Actually, my authority consumes all of that.

No. For all the discipline Mister commissioners,

let me

be For all police officers.

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 mentioned before, but I think it's important for people to understand that there have been police departments that have been put on the 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 our 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 My question to you, you gonna respond to them on those eight cases? And if so, when?

I've already answered that when the investigations are completed.

No further questions, mister judge. Thank you, mister commissioner.

Thank you, councilor, Culpepper. I also just wanna I I I know many of my councilors have asked different questions. I do wanna stay on topic on the docket order for a hearing to examine the Boston Police Department's protocols for releasing ball 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. Counselor Morell, you have the floor.

Thank you. Thank you, chair. I'll do my best to stay on topic. Timeline on rules. Like how when do we go back and update it? I know sometimes it's you know determined about what federal or state laws. But is there a timeline on 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

It's to 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. And then can you clarify the roles and the differences between the video video evidence unit, the body worn camera unit, and then the audit and review team?

The the body worn camera unit and the video evidence unit, I would think are On

the same? Okay.

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 worn camera video in that. The audit and review unit is under the Bureau of Professional Standards. Okay. And they will they have many different functions throughout the department. I believe that the 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, you know, review the task force recommendations, compare it to rule four zero five, and then possibly create a list of updated recommendations, you know, based off of what the task force has has already said to propose to the commissioner.

Yep. Councilor, happy to work with you in your office to make that happen. K.

Thank you.

Awesome. Thank you, councilor Morell. We've been joined by councilor, Flynn. Thank you for being here. We are, I don't know, I think, our, like, fifth round of questions at this point. We're gonna the subject of matter is order for a hearing to examine the Boston Police Department's protocols for releasing police body camera and dashboard camera footage. I'm gonna give you seven minutes, councilor Flynn, to ask your questions right now.

Thank you, mister chair. Want to apologize. I was at a Memorial Day event with fallen heroes and 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, guess. But is this some opportunity for you to come and testify about staffing levels?

Sure. I just do a little bit of coordination of scheduling. Know, I don't determine when you pick the dates for those. Okay.

Only reason Did I said

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 have the commissioner there.

And I apologize unfortunately to my scheduling. It's it's and it's getting pretty busier busy every day.

I understand. I'm I'm trying to do my job to support the police and support our rank and file police. You know, when police officers work sixteen hours a a day, I try to support them and their families. Think I do think we we place them in a difficult position when there's mandatory overtime, and then a police officer is working on a fifteenth hour or sixteenth hour, and we're putting them in harm's way, I I do think it has an impact on them and it has has an impact on their families. That's what I'm I'm concerned about is the health and wellness of our police officer families.

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

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

multiple Lisa was here and she did an outstanding job. But I there were there were questions that I didn't necessarily wanna ask her. Okay. Because, know, wasn't really in her in her lane. But she's she showed up. She was professional. She was outstanding. So, mister chair, now I'm gonna get back to my questioning. Is that is that okay?

That's fine. You got four minutes. Okay. Can now just take your time, counselor

Thank you. And again, I didn't hear you the public testimony. I'm gonna hear the testimony you provided, so I'm gonna 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 cam body camera for a police officer, when not to release it. But is it is it selective? Does it depend on the situation? Does it depend on the police commissioner? Does it depend on the scenario where, you know, some police commissioners in the past have brought elected officials and clergy members to to the police commissioner's office to to review body 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 is the policy depending on the situation and the commissioner? And is there some leeway in 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 I would say this that we we use public record law as our policy, our main policy to release a body worn camera. If there's an exception to it at the time in in involve 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 that investigation. We would, you know, release release the body worn camera or or any evidence that that public record law says that we would have to release. And it doesn't matter who who is here.

So a police commissioner has the authority to release or or to show 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 then showing them video?

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

If you ask it could that occur? Yes it could occur.

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

Both. I probably would say scenario based around you know, you can give you facts and circumstances of something might be 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 that's far greater than what we're looking into. So sometimes facts circumstances dictate, you know, people going outside of those policies. Yes.

Would the impact of the video having a impact on potential media coverage or potential impact on how the community reacts, would those two be considered as a factor in terms of not not showing that you were a selective group of clergy or city councilors?

So that is not the routine, you know, that would be probably for a really, really special circumstance. I'll say this, our our given policy is that we will release it. That's that's and when we're when we're not releasing it, there's an exception to it. But that exception doesn't last forever. And then when the investigation is over, if the exception is over, then they're gonna 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, you know, law enforcement issue around that body worn camera accountable. And then when we're done with that investigation, then it will be police.

Thank you. Thank you, commissioner. I also want to recognize superintendent McLaughlin who is is very responsive and providing providing a lot of good feedback to the residents of Boston. So I want to acknowledge superintendent McLaughlin's professionalism as well. Mister chair, I'm out of time. I have no further questions.

Councilor Ferdinand, are you gonna have further questions? Do you need more time right now? We're gonna wrap up.

You're gonna wrap up.

I have to call councilor Culpepper. So I wanna give you the opportunity if you have any

other questions.

Mister chair, out of respect for my colleagues, I'm gonna I'm not gonna ask any questions.

Thank you, Councillor Flynn.

Thank you.

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

Yeah. Just one last question for you.

To a request. I think

Councillor Louie Jen 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 kinda could see

which, you know, what are

the exemptions What are the most common, exemptives being used for denial? We can we can certainly put

that request in through the committee.

Thanks.

Thank you, councilor. Is that

Yeah.

Okay. Great. And then we're gonna go back to councilor Culpeper. I'll give you four minutes.

Thank you, mister 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. And 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 approves or denies request, that 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. And 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 20 sixes are. Yes.

And let me just read this to you. In accordance with the current practice, should an officer receive a subpoena for body worn cameras put it, 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 a it's a basically a report where the officer a formal way of the officer reporting something internally. And what that report would be is basically someone is making a FOIA request and is moving directing it to our section to make the decision about whether or not it's gonna be released.

If if And and then under that for you go

go on. I was just gonna say, councilor, the section that you're reading from is specifically from section 8.1, which is about Right. 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

20 sixes are not used at all in an officer involved shooting?

Form 26 is a it's 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 a form 26.

It's not specific to body worn cameras.

Correct. Some people call it But I'm asking

I'm asking with regard to body worn cameras because that's what it says here. It says

This is not

Local prosecutors hold on, deputy super Local prosecutors shall make a request for body worn cameras 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 are the keeper of those records.

Right. Right. And it says the officer shall direct the subpoena to the supervisor with a form 26 regarding body worn camera footage. 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 it explains it's just a report. No no no I was saying I received the receipt.

You use a form 26 right? And the form 26 then goes through what process?

Once once It's just an internal form

No, understand. I understand that. Understand

Saying that someone is requesting this.

What's the process once you get a form 26 that's requesting body worn camera footage? So I

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

section No.

No. No.

Policy the policy I requires just wanna know what's the protocol

I'm gonna do you do your

What do you do with it?

I'm gonna 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.

Right. And the video evidence unit does what once they receive that form 26?

It's the form 26. It would be they it would be attached to a subpoena. You could

mister Lawyer, the question is what do they do with it once they give it to the video It depends. Evidence unit. It depends what What's the protocol?

It depends on what the request is and who's requesting it.

No. No. No. You might have a subpoena from

a a law from from a police department in Springfield.

Right. Right. And so What then happened? 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 Bureau of Evidence 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 it's for if it's for a law enforcement purpose, the answer would be yes. Release that. When you're talking with

the Suffolk County's needs office phone calls. What we send those to you?

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 so my final question, the only offices that will use a form 26 for body worn cameras footage are law enforcement.

I don't I don't

It's an internal form.

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

And and that and that limited that limited thing that they're describing where they got a 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?

Like No. No. He this is the