citmedialaw
Bryce Newell
For the past few years here in Seattle, a fascinating debate has been brewing about the balance between government transparency and citizens' privacy, particularly at the intersection of the state Public Records Act and the state Privacy Act.
The current controversy involves a lawsuit for declaratory relief filed in January by the City of Seattle against local attorney James Egan, after he submitted a public records request for 36 Seattle Police Department dash-cam videos (see the complaint here). Egan requested the videos from the SPD under the Washington Public Records Act in relation to his representation of clients with misconduct claims against the police. (Egan has publicly posted prior videos that he received from the SPD under earlier Public Records Act. The 36 videos at issue in the new request don’t necessarily relate to police interactions with Egan’s clients, but rather to the officers involved in the earlier incidents.)
The city refused to produce the videos, citing a potential conflict with the state’s Privacy Act and the department's concerns over potential liability for turning over videos that might violate the privacy of the individuals depicted in the footage. Days later, Egan filed a second request for the video footage, this time requesting the visual footage only, without audio, which was also rejected. He has also moved to strike the City’s claims under the state anti-SLAPP statute.
This whole controversy is especially interesting to me as a researcher interested in government transparency and as a supporter of proper policing. A close reading of the statutes at issue is enlightening.
Washington's Public Records Act heavily favors public disclosure, but City Attorney Pete Holmes is concerned that one provision of the Privacy Act, RCW 9.73.090(1)(c), limits the city’s ability to disclose the videos to anyone except the individuals involved in the recorded incidents. (Holmes recently posted his thoughtful take on the issues here, and I applaud his willingness to discuss the matter publicly.) The provision of the Privacy Act that most concerns the city reads in part:
Bryce Newell
The current controversy involves a lawsuit for declaratory relief filed in January by the City of Seattle against local attorney James Egan, after he submitted a public records request for 36 Seattle Police Department dash-cam videos (see the complaint here). Egan requested the videos from the SPD under the Washington Public Records Act in relation to his representation of clients with misconduct claims against the police. (Egan has publicly posted prior videos that he received from the SPD under earlier Public Records Act. The 36 videos at issue in the new request don’t necessarily relate to police interactions with Egan’s clients, but rather to the officers involved in the earlier incidents.)
The city refused to produce the videos, citing a potential conflict with the state’s Privacy Act and the department's concerns over potential liability for turning over videos that might violate the privacy of the individuals depicted in the footage. Days later, Egan filed a second request for the video footage, this time requesting the visual footage only, without audio, which was also rejected. He has also moved to strike the City’s claims under the state anti-SLAPP statute.
This whole controversy is especially interesting to me as a researcher interested in government transparency and as a supporter of proper policing. A close reading of the statutes at issue is enlightening.
Washington's Public Records Act heavily favors public disclosure, but City Attorney Pete Holmes is concerned that one provision of the Privacy Act, RCW 9.73.090(1)(c), limits the city’s ability to disclose the videos to anyone except the individuals involved in the recorded incidents. (Holmes recently posted his thoughtful take on the issues here, and I applaud his willingness to discuss the matter publicly.) The provision of the Privacy Act that most concerns the city reads in part:
No sound or video recording made under this subsection [which allows police to record dash-cam video] may be duplicated and made available to the public by a law enforcement agency subject to this section until final disposition of any criminal or civil litigation which arises from the event or events which were recorded. (emphasis added)The city also claims that the Privacy Act allows them to keep the dash-cam videos sealed from the public for three years. Reportedly, this is also the timeframe for when Egan says the videos are "slated for deletion" from the SPD’s electronic video system. If true and the Privacy Act does bar the SPD from releasing the videos, it would appear that SPD dash-cam videos would be effectively exempted from public records requests in the future.
Posts
