- This page, Law Enforcement Body Camera Task Force Listening Session, is offered by
- Executive Office of Public Safety and Security
Public Hearing Notice Law Enforcement Body Camera Task Force Listening Session
Contact for Law Enforcement Body Camera Task Force Listening Session
Executive Office of Public Safety and Security
Overview of Law Enforcement Body Camera Task Force Listening Session
Pursuant to Section 104 of Chapter 253 of the Acts and Resolves of 2020, the Law Enforcement Body Camera Task Force is responsible for proposing regulations and establishing a uniform code for the procurement and use of body-worn cameras by law enforcement to promote consistency throughout the Commonwealth, should law enforcement choose to use body cameras. The Task Force must propose minimum requirements for the storage and transfer of audio and video recordings collected by body-worn cameras. To fulfill its mandate, the Task Force will be conducting public hearings to collect and consider testimony from the public regarding the use of body worn cameras by law enforcement.
Therefore the public is invited to offer their comments to the Task Force on:
- November 9, 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., and 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
- November 23, 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., and 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
*All public input sessions will be recorded*
If a member of the public is not available to attend these sessions, comments may also be submitted by December 1, 2021 on line for consideration by going to:
To assist the public with topics we would like to hear your thoughts regarding the following:
- This Task Force, in making recommendations, and by extension police departments who adopt body-worn camera programs, are likely to have to make difficult choices when addressing which units in a department should wear body cameras. For what types of police officers, units, or in what types of circumstances are cameras most appropriate?
- Storage expenses, privacy rights, and other concerns make police assigned body-worn cameras recording 24/7 prohibitively expensive and impractical. When, and for what types of police work, is it most important in your view for the recording to be on? When is it most important that they be kept off?
- Some individuals and organizations advocate that police officers should not be allowed to access their body-worn camera footage before submitting a report. Others say that police officers should be permitted or required to do so. What rule or policy would you want in this situation, and why? Should a police officer write a report, review the recording, then write a supplemental report? Should a police officer be required to disclose if they have or have not reviewed a recording prior to writing a report?
- Some observers say that police department policies should provide the ability to choose under some situations whether and when to record, or stop recording, from their body-worn camera. Others say that such options create suspicion because they elected not to record something, and so such choice must be limited or eliminated. There may be times where some locations such as hospitals, or situations such as domestic violence, minors present, or sexual assault could require a police officer to stop recording. What is your view, and why?
- Footage captured from police worn body cameras will likely be considered public record. It is likely that the privacy of anyone whose image is captured by the camera will be impacted. It may also be the case that an active criminal investigation would be jeopardized through disclosure of the footage and therefore the footage would be exempt from the public records law, at least in part. Determination of such cases, and redaction of video to follow disclosure rules, is likely to be expensive and may influence a municipality’s decision to require or not to require officers to wear cameras at all. For videos that may be requested as public records, who should be responsible for the time and resources used to sanitize and produce them? Would you support passing some or all of that cost to the requestor? What if the requestor’s ability to pay were taken into account?
- Are there any other thoughts that you would like to share?