County is working out fees to be charged for Sheriff’s deputy bodycam videos

The Thurston County Board of County Commissioners held a Public Hearing yesterday to ask for the public’s feedback on an ordinance that will change Section 2.130.030 of the Thurston County Code to allow charging fees to those who would request footage from Sheriff’s deputy bodycam recordings.

Charges for body-worn camera recordings

Commissioner Tye Menser discussed adopting an ordinance to amend the said county code, setting forth that the charges for body-worn camera records shall be authorized in the Public Records Act.

Undersheriff Ray Brady gave the background information on the proposed ordinance and discussed the written comments he has received, “Specifically, the amendment addresses fees that would be charged in relation to body-worn camera footage. So earlier this year, the Commission approved funding for body-worn cameras. Our offices are in the progress of doing all of the behind-the-scenes things that are needed for that in order for that to be a successful program.”

Brady added that although they want everything to be transparent with the public, there are also several concerns the body-worn cameras may pose especially regarding the identities and residences of victims.

“Any kind of interviews with certain groups of victims, specifically sexual assault victims or other sensitive areas, anything dealing with minors – there are just a lot of things that we want to be transparent to the public and what is being recorded on those videos, but at the same token, we still want to make sure that we are respecting the rights and the privacies of all of the citizens of the county that would be captured on those footages,” Brady said.

Brady also counted that the extra time to solve privacy concerns along with the other procedures are included in the costs of doing the business, stating that “accountability comes with a cost.” The charges would be for a staff person to edit videos to blur some faces or edit sections that would violate an individual’s privacy.

Specifically, the ordinance would enable the county to charge fees for “redacting, altering, distorting, pixelating, suppressing, or otherwise obscuring any portion of the body-worn camera recording prior to disclosure only to the extent necessary to comply with the exemptions in this chapter or any applicable law.”

“When I worked as an attorney in Alaska, everything was audio-recorded. Not quite the same, but a lot more recordings were made and it really just helped on both ends. What it showed the public was that you know, the vast majority of all the interactions were professional and appropriate constitutional,” Dye said in support of the undersheriff's discussion.

Menser also expressed the district’s support to the policemen in implementing their ordinances, and what they can do to ease the burden on the department.

“We're trying to do everything we can to help you guys implement it seamlessly. I know this is really difficult. When I think about the reduction effort that's involved for what you describe, it's gonna take a lot of time and effort,” Menser added.