In response to your request, I undertook an exhaustive review of the following: (1) the Body-Worn Camera Amendment Act of 2015, and its legislative history (2) MPD General Orders GO-SPT-302.13 (Body-Worn Camera Program) and GO-OPS-304.19 (Video Recording, Photographing, and Audio Recording of Metropolitan Police Department Members by the Public) (3) the OAG’s April 10, 2019, opinion, “Requests for Body-Worn Camera Footage” (4) Executive Office of the Mayor’s (“EOM”) decisions regarding D.C. Your request raised the following concerns: (1) that MPD’s definition of details to redact from BWC footage is too broad and cost prohibitive (2) that there is inadequate information publicly available concerning MPD’s guidance to the contractors who redact BWC footage and (3) that MPD has an unknown legal basis for redacting the faces of anyone involved face (plus identification or badge) of any officer any house number or name of residences any vehicle license plates, and any audio with references to such items. This correspondence responds to your request for an advisory opinion from the Office of Open Government (“OOG”) regarding the Metropolitan Police Department’s (“MPD”) redaction of body-worn camera (“BWC”) footage before releasing the footage under the D.C. MPD District of Columbia Freedom of Information Act Compliance Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) when it releases redacted body worn camera footage to FOIA requesters. This Advisory Opinion addresses the Metropolitan Police Department's compliance with the D.C.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |