MEMORANDUM

TO: The Senate of Pennsylvania

FROM: Andy Hoover, Legislative Director, ACLU of PA
DATE: December 4, 2013
RE: OPPOSITION TO SENATE BILL 1168 (POLICE BODY-MOUNTED CAMERAS)
In the near future, the Senate is likely to consider Senate Bill 1168. This legislation amends the
Wiretap Act to allow municipal and state police officers to use body-mounted cameras in the
course of their duties. The use of these cameras can be an effective tool to provide
accountability to all persons involved in a police encounter. However, SB 1168 does not provide
the proper protection necessary to ensure that accountability is truly achieved through the use of
these cameras. It places too much power in the hands of officers and not enough in the hands of
the public. Therefore, the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania opposes SB 1168.
On behalf of the 20,000 members of the ACLU of Pennsylvania, I respectfully urge you to
please vote no on this legislation.
To be clear, body-mounted cameras can both protect Pennsylvanians rights in police encounters
and provide a level of protection for officers, if used properly. The cameras provide a third
observer to a situation, ensuring that disputes over facts do not breakdown into a he-said, he said
impasse. Mobile phone cameras are now being used effectively by citizens to observe police
behavior.
In addition, it is noteworthy that SB 1168, and the current law on dashboard-mounted cameras,
does provide for some privacy protections for citizens. Particularly, the bill prohibits the use of
the cameras in a private residence. In addition, if officers use the cameras, they must inform
persons in the vicinity of the recording as soon as reasonably possible. Both of these boundaries
are vital if the legislature is going to approve police deployment of body-mounted cameras.
However, the legislation falls short in several key ways. Perhaps most critically, SB 1168 is
silent on when officers may turn the cameras on and off. One presumes then that the decision on
powering the cameras is left to the individual officers. This places a great deal of control in the
officers hands and leaves citizens rights vulnerable to creative editing of video.
This is not hypothetical. In Seattle in 2010, two men filed a claim of excessive force and
wrongful arrest. Part of the arrest was captured by a dashboard camera. However, critical
moments of the arrest were mysteriously missing from the video. 1 In Oakland, California, in

Newcomb, A. (2012) Seattle arrest questions cops use of dash cams. ABC News, February 14, 2010. Available at
http://news.yahoo.com/seattle-arrest-questions-cops-dash-cams-194643944--abc-news.html.

ACLU-PA Opposition to Senate Bill 1168

December 4, 2013

2011, an officer powered off his colleagues body-mounted camera during an encounter with
protesters. 2
It is ironic that the General Assemblys motivation for passing this legislation comes from the
city of Pittsburgh, which apparently purchased body-mounted cameras before realizing that the
Wiretap Act must be amended before the cameras can be deployed. In September, 2009, the
Pittsburgh Police Department (PPD), in tandem with federal agents, eviscerated the free speech
rights of protesters during the G-20 summit. 3 PPDs behavior during the 2009 G-20 summit is a
perfect example of why SB 1168 needs further amending to ensure that body-mounted cameras
are used at all times during all encounters with the public and that police officers cannot engage
in creative editing.
SB 1168 falls short in other ways. The bill is silent on citizens access to video of incidents
involving themselves and delineates no requirements on data retention. When is a department
required to delete the data it captures via body-mounted cameras? At the end of a shift? At the
end of the month? Never? While local departments can certainly implement effective policies on
these issues, citizens rights are better protected through a statewide standard.
As stated previously, police use of body-mounted cameras can be very effective in protecting
peoples rights and in providing protection for police officers. With proper policies in place, the
ACLU of Pennsylvania can not only drop its opposition to this legislation but, in fact, support it.
However, SB 1168 fails to implement protections that ensure that these cameras are used in a
way that provides accountability for everyone involved and places too much power in the hands
of police. Please vote no on SB 1168.

Winston, A. (2012) A new way to punish Oakland cops? East Bay Express, February 15, 2012. Available at
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/a-new-way-to-oakland-cops/Content?oid=3125656.
3
Armstrong, et al. v. City of Pittsburgh, et al. Available at http://www.aclupa.org/ourwork/legal/legaldocket/armstrongetalvcityofpittsb/; G20 2009: Police attack students at the University of
Pittsburgh Available at http://youtu.be/etv8YEqaWgA.