As London cops roll out body cams, public should temper expectations about what they'll see
Release of footage has to abide by strict freedom of information rules, experts say
All frontline London police will soon be deployed with body-worn cameras that will film their calls for service, a major change to local policing that will spur a deluge of daily video footage from the department.
Cameras began rolling out Monday for some patrol, canine and emergency response officers, with the aim of having all frontline members equipped in a year's time.
Just don't expect to see much of that footage anytime soon.
Unlike south of the border in the U.S., where police body camera footage has been abundant for years, Canadian privacy law makes it harder for the public to access police-filmed video, particularly if it doesn't involve themselves.
Most police departments are subject either to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, known as FIPPA, or its municipal equivalent, MFIPPA, said Kirsten Thompson, a Toronto-based lawyer with Dentons specializing in cybersecurity and privacy.
As a result, they and other organizations subject to the laws are prohibited from disclosing someone's recorded personal information, with exceptions.
"That would include any video or audio that contains personal information, so that's going to be body cam footage," she said.
Anyone can file a freedom of information (FOI) request under MFIPPA to request footage. The department says it will apply a $50 fee for video per camera.
Whether that request is granted isn't a guarantee. Under MFIPPA, individuals can request access to their own personal information, and once they obtain it, can do whatever they want with it, Thompson said.
Members of the public have a "right of access" to a record in the control of a public institution, although exemptions exist that can limit access, including if the institution deems a request "frivolous or vexatious."
Police also have the discretion to refuse a request if doing so may, among other things, interfere with an investigation from which a "law enforcement proceeding" is active or is likely, deprive someone of a fair trial, or endanger someone's life or safety.
If there were body camera video that could be released, but it contained members of the public who hadn't given prior consent, police would have to edit them out first. As a result, much of the footage would likely be blurred or muted aside from the responding officer and the requesting party, granted they were in the video.
That means curious neighbours looking to get video from a recent drug bust near their home will probably find themselves out of luck, either due to an active court case, or because the video will be missing information.
"When an FOI request is made, if [body camera] footage is available, it will be redacted and disclosed using the same principles as are currently applied to all other forms of written/audio/video material," London Police Sgt. Sandasha Bough wrote in an email to CBC Tuesday.
Any voluntary release of footage by police would need Chief Thai Truong's approval, said deputy chief Treena MacSween, adding she couldn't immediately recall a time when an Ontario force had done that.
"If we, as the police service, decided we wanted to release some footage — let's say we wanted to identify someone — the chief would approve that request," she said.
Because of tougher privacy laws, family members and next of kin have run into the same challenges getting police body camera footage involving their loved ones. Requests by the media also face roadblocks, and need to have a compelling public interest case, Thompson says.
"There is an established body of case law through various privacy commissioners and courts about when public interest override is met," she said.
"It's not impossible for the media to get it, but simply walking into court saying, 'Hey, we think the public is going to be interested in this,' is probably not going to get you there."
WATCH | Resource bump needed to review deluge of RCMP body camera video
London police have added additional civilian positions to keep up with disclosure and redaction requirements, MacSween said.
With more departments using body cameras, the Ontario Crown Attorneys' Association has expressed concern that Crown staff have been swamped with body camera footage to review for court-ready evidence packages.
"Every case is now much more complicated to prosecute and involves so much more data than it used to," said Donna Kellway, OCAA's president.
Body cameras, in-car cameras and smartphones all provide valuable evidence, but proper resources are needed to review and prepare it for trial. It's important the footage be vetted properly by police, so work isn't downloaded to them, she said.
"If we don't have the proper resources, that puts cases at risk and then, obviously, public safety would be put at risk."
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
