by Spencer S. Hsu, Washington Post
District police yesterday released a draft of proposed internal regulations on video surveillance, but a key lawmaker said that the guidelines are too vague and that legislation is needed to govern law enforcement use of the expanding technology.
In a four-page document circulated to D.C. Council members, police officials propose limits for a computerized video monitoring system that is emerging as one of the nation’s most extensive.
The closed-circuit television network is capable of linking up eventually to 1,000 government cameras that monitor streets, subway stations, schools and federal facilities in the nation’s capital. D.C. police have cameras of their own at 12 sites and can access those of other government agencies with their permission.
The system, first activated during the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, also was used during a terrorist alert issued by the federal government in February. The cameras will be used again during antiwar demonstrations scheduled for April 20 in downtown Washington, police officials said.
The regulations proposed by police would allow them to activate the system for traffic control, “critical incidents,” heightened states of alert or special events that pose a potential threat to public safety.
The guidelines say police may record over any material they videotape after 72 hours, though they do not require that step. They also bar camera operators from monitoring individuals arbitrarily or based on race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability or other classifications protected by law.
And the regulations prohibit camera operators from focusing on handbills or fliers being carried, to prevent violations of the First Amendment.
But D.C. Council member Kathy Patterson (D-Ward 3), who chairs the panel’s Judiciary Committee, said clearer rules are needed on activation of the system, retention of video records and sanctions for violators.
“We are in fact going to write legislation. . . . Regulations are only the first step,” Patterson said. “They probably aren’t specific enough in a few areas.”
A spokesman for Rep. Constance A. Morella (R-Md.), chairman of the House Government Reform subcommittee on the District, who also had expressed misgivings about the reach of the camera network, agreed that the proposed police regulations are too spare.
For instance, the police plan is silent about who may access the video records, whom the chief can designate to oversee surveillance operations and what disciplinary penalties will befall violators, said Morella spokesman Rob White. “It definitely needs to be clarified,” he said.
Executive Assistant Police Chief Terrance W. Gainer said in an interview that videotaping could be authorized by Chief Charles H. Ramsey or his designee, such as a police commander or an assistant chief.
Gainer acknowledged that police must specify that recording will not be allowed in places out of public view, where there is “reasonable expectation of privacy.” He said police are still thinking through issues of public access.
Johnny Barnes, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union-National Capital Area, said he has forwarded a copy of the draft regulations to the NAACP’s Metropolitan Police and Criminal Justice Review task force.
“The position of the ACLU remains against cameras altogether,” Barnes said. But he withheld further comment pending review by the task force, which monitors District prisons, courts and prosecutors. The group did not return a telephone call for comment.
Gainer said he respected the political process but hoped that police tactics and enforcement would not be legislated.
“I will not lose any sleep if we are forbidden from using cameras, but I do think we’ll be less protected,” he said. “Sometimes there are mixed messages we send to the police: ‘I want higher police visibility. I want you to prevent crime. . . . I don’t want people to run red lights -- but I also don’t want you to use technology.’ ”