West Lebanon
Newport, Hanover and Cornish police hope to launch body cameras later this year. If they do, they will join several other departments in the Upper Valley that already use them, including Enfield, Hartford and Haverhill, which was one of the first departments in New Hampshire to purchase such equipment.
Most police departments, along with activists who have been critical of police in several high-profile cases nationally, welcome body cameras as useful devices for reviewing officers’ conduct. Some questions remain about their use, though, and not all departments are rushing to purchase them. Neither the Vermont State Police nor the New Hampshire State Police, for example, have immediate plans to begin using body cameras.
“It is another set of eyes,” Haverhill Police Chief Byron Charles said of the small device that clips to the front of an officer’s uniform. “The cameras do not replace an officer’s instincts or what an officer sees or hears. It is another tool we use to investigate criminal activity.”
The Haverhill Police Department’s body cameras proved crucial to determining what happened after two Haverhill officers shot and killed Hagen Esty-Lennon, a 41-year-old New Hampshire man who was charging at them with a knife on Route 302 in Bath in 2015.
The New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office exonerated the officers in the incident, relying in part on the video footage in its decision. (Esty-Lennon’s mother recently sued the police department and three of its officers, claiming they mishandled the situation.) Charles declined to discuss body cameras in connection with that incident, but he did say they are beneficial for departments that have only one or two officers on duty at a time because they provide an extra vantage point.
The Haverhill shooting incident sparked questions about who could view the body camera footage after the dead man’s estate opposed release of the video. Several media organizations, including the Valley News, contended the footage was a public record and crucial to allowing the public to evaluate the officers’ conduct. A Superior Court judge ultimately ordered a partial release of the video.
Since that incident, New Hampshire has adopted a law that governs the use of body cameras, including when they should and shouldn’t be turned on. But police chiefs say some questions still linger. Vermont doesn’t have a similar law on its books, but it does have a model policy drafted by the Law Enforcement Advisory Board, a part the Vermont Department of Public Safety.
Despite some minor differences of opinion as to exactly how and when the cameras should be used, many police chiefs in the Upper Valley support body cameras and said they think the devices should be used by all in law enforcement.
“They give us good evidence of what happened and they give that transparency that the public is looking for,” said Enfield Police Chief Richard Crate, whose department started using body cameras last fall. “It has been a valuable training tool as well.”
Lebanon Police Chief Richard Mello concurred.
“I see the value in having them as a tool for transparency and accountability, along with the obvious upside of assisting in prosecution,” Mello said. Lebanon started rolling out body cameras about three weeks ago; the department’s body cameras went live on Thursday.
Hartford police have been using them for five or six years, said Deputy Chief Brad Vail. The department is on its second set after having issues with the first ones.
“They protect the public, as well as the officers,” Vail said, noting that his officers use them on a daily basis.
New Hampshire’s body-worn camera law, which went into effect in January, didn’t influence Mello’s decision to get the devices. Some chiefs, however, said the law did play into their decision and they are proceeding with caution given its newness.
The Newport, Hanover and Cornish police chiefs all have the ability to start using body camera equipment now, but are carefully drafting an internal policy to govern the devices, something that is required by state law. Mello has completed the policy for Lebanon.
Hanover Police Chief Charlie Dennis said his department purchased body cameras at the end of last year and he had hoped to have them in operation by now.
He still has questions, though, including about retention of the video, public disclosure of the footage and privacy concerns. For example, one chief asked, if an officer goes into someone’s house and a child’s face is captured, should it be blurred or redacted on the video?
“I support body cameras. I had them when I was in Arizona and North Carolina. They are a great tool,” Dennis said. “I am just concerned about making sure we have all of our I’s dotted and our T’s crossed.”
He isn’t alone.
Cornish Police Chief Doug Hackett is mulling similar questions as he writes an internal policy for his department. Voters at Cornish Town Meeting last month approved $3,000 for the purchase of three body cameras for the department. Hackett has until the end of the year to spend the money.
“We are in the middle of trying to figure out what we are going to do,” Hackett said, noting there are a lot of “shalls” in the law. “I’m trying to wade through the ramifications.”
For example, he said, the law states that an officer “shall” turn on the body camera when engaged in any law enforcement-related encounter. What happens if an officer were to forget, Hackett asked.
“I’d rather not rush into anything,” he said.
That aside, he said, he wished he had a body camera recently when he made an arrest in town and that person accused him of using excessive force. The county attorney investigated, he said, and found no wrongdoing.
“In my mind, it would have been over the minute we played the body camera back,” Hackett said.
Canaan Police Chief Sam Frank said he hasn’t considered purchasing body cameras because he doesn’t feel there are enough protections in place for the general public. More vetting must be done, he said.
“I don’t know if they are good or bad,” Frank said, acknowledging that he likely is in the minority. “We will find out eventually.”
New Hampshire’s law and Vermont’s policy state that uniformed officers with body cameras should activate them during all calls for services, such as during traffic stops or searches. Officers are trained to inform a person as soon as possible that he or she is being recorded.
Both states lay out some parameters of when an officer shouldn’t record.
In New Hampshire, officers are not to tape intimate searches; an interview with a crime victim unless given consent; an interview with someone wishing to report a crime anonymously; while on the grounds of an elementary or secondary school, except when arriving at a call for service; and while on break.
In Vermont, officers are instructed to avoid using body cameras to record individuals exercising their First Amendment rights through a picket or protest, and should use caution when recording a case that’s sensitive in nature, such as a sexual assault, after the suspect has been removed from the scene, among other provisions.
Vermont’s policy also states that all recordings are subject to open records requests, except those that are exempt under the public records act.
New Hampshire’s body camera law is less clear on that point, but the state’s Right-to-Know statute, RSA 91-A, addresses it. In New Hampshire, all body camera footage is exempt from release, with three exceptions, including use-of-force situations, when an officer discharges a firearm, and an encounter that results in a felony-level offense. If the incident constitutes an invasion of privacy or if the person is otherwise exempt from disclosure, the footage may not be available for release. In civil or criminal cases, court procedures may allow for release of additional footage.
James Lyall, director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Vermont, said the ACLU supports the principle of body cameras, but only if their use is governed by the right regulations. He said the organization has concerns about body cameras in Vermont because there is only a policy in effect, not a law.
Among his concerns are the public’s privacy and access to records.
“If you don’t put policies on the books and enforce them then the risk is body cameras do more harm than good,” Lyall said.
Meanwhile, the New Hampshire ACLU’s executive director, Devon Chaffee, appeared more comfortable, calling the state’s law “probably one of the strongest in the country.”
She said the law strikes a good balance between putting in place “solid” rules and regulations for body camera use while taking into consideration public interest and privacy rights.
“But laws are only as strong as they are enforced,” Chaffee said.
One topic of contention between the Vermont ACLU and Vermont policymakers is whether police officers should be able to review certain body camera footage when writing their reports.
That is something Lebanon police Sgt. Richard Norris said is attractive about having a body camera at his disposal. The footage is secure and cannot be erased or altered, only replayed.
“You are in a fast-paced situation and you are reacting, so when you are sitting down you can … click the play button and watch it,” said Norris, who has been in law enforcement for 12 years and started wearing his first body camera about three weeks ago. “It is definitely a nice thing.”
The Vermont law enforcement community at large “vehemently rejected” a push by the state ACLU to prevent officers from reviewing use of force situations prior to writing their reports, according to the Law Enforcement Advisory Board’s January report on body cameras.
In Vermont’s policy, and in New Hampshire’s law, if an officer is suspected of wrongdoing or is involved in a use-of-force situation, the agency may restrict an officer from reviewing the tape before writing a report. Other than that, officers are free to review it.
There are dangers to that, said Lyall, of the Vermont ACLU. An officer could alter his recollection of an event based on what he or she sees in the footage, he said.
Laws and policies aside, there is one other factor holding some departments back from obtaining body cameras: cost. A single camera can range between $400 and $1,200 depending on the model and vendor choice, and then there are additional costs to store the video footage.
“I see jurisdictions around me doing it and I want to but I just can’t right now,” Claremont Police Chief Mark Chase said, citing budget constraints. “I’d like to see them in my career. I think they are a valuable tool.”
The topic of body and cruiser cameras arose in Claremont last year when an officer fatally shot Cody LaFont inside his home after the 25-year old advanced toward him with a handgun drawn. The New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office also ruled that shooting to be legally justified.
Alex Scott, who was the Claremont police chief at the time, said then that the department didn’t have body or cruiser cameras, in part because of cost.
Chase, who took over as chief in December, hopes to build funding into the Claremont city budget for cruiser cameras. There is no guarantee the request will pass, though.
Vermont State Police officials have been studying the purchase of body cameras for two years but aren’t prepared to buy them yet, Lt. Garry Scott said. However, the Vermont State Police do have cameras on their police cruisers, though some of the equipment is older. The New Hampshire State Police aren’t actively pursuing body cameras, but instead are purchasing some new cruiser cameras.
Fortunately for a few departments, including Hanover, Lebanon and Newport, grant money and other funding has been made available.
The Lebanon police received a large donation to purchase the cameras, as did Newport, so there will be minimal upfront costs to taxpayers.
Newport Police Chief Jim Burroughs said the town often has a tight budget, forcing him to balance “wants versus needs.” The town caught a break with body cameras though, and Burroughs said the town will be “ahead of the curve.”
“We are very happy to be able to afford this level of security and protection for the officers and the ultimate transparency for the public,” he said.
“If it wasn’t for the generous businesses who donated that made this possible, we would not have them.”
Jordan Cuddemi can be reached at jcuddemi@vnews.com or 603-727-3248.