When Bruce McKay pulled over Liko Kenney on a Friday night in May 2007, it certainly wasn’t with a shootout in mind.
But soon after the traffic stop in Franconia by Police Cpl. McKay, both men were dead and the town fell into bitter disagreement about why.
That night, in which McKay was shot four times and run over with Kenney’s car and Kenney was shot by a passing motorist, cleaved the town. Supporters of McKay praised his professionalism and condemned his demise; friends of Kenney, a relative of Bode Miller, said he had been constantly harassed and abused by the police officer.
Fourteen years later, one North Country lawyer says the tragedy is a sobering example of the need for something new: body cameras for New Hampshire police officers.
“Body worn cameras solve situations that you could never imagine arising,” Leonard Harden, a defense lawyer, said to members of the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee Monday.
Speaking in support of a bill that would make body cameras mandatory for all New Hampshire police departments, Harden argued the new technology could bring a level of closure and certainty that wasn’t possible before — certainly not in Franconia back then. For the towns that have adopted it, it already has, he said.
House Bill 253 would require that all law enforcement agencies equip officers with body cameras, a major change to existing status quo. Harden said the change could benefit police officers, who could be exonerated from false accusations; defendants, who could prove malfeasance or harassment; and the public, which could see its faith in police maintained.
Sponsored by Rep. Casey Conley, a Dover Democrat with help from Democratic Rep. Renny Cushing, the bill is an extension of recommendations from the New Hampshire Commission on Law Enforcement Accountability, Community, and Transparency, which met in the summer following nationwide protests over the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis.
But some police chiefs and Republican lawmakers have raised concerns that the bill does not include enough money to actually fund the newly required cameras, a dilemma that could be deemed an “unfunded mandate” and subject the law to legal challenges.
To pay for the mandate, the bill establishes a new “public safety enhancement fund,” which would collect funds from court fees as well as federal grant money and private donations.
Part of that funding would come from the state’s penalty assessment revenue — the 24% court fee tacked onto every fine or penalty imposed for a criminal offense. Currently, two-thirds of those fines go into the state’s general fund, 17% goes to the victim’s assistance fund, and 17% goes to the judicial branch information technology fund.
The bill would envision 1% of that fund to go toward body cameras, which would produce between $30,000 and $35,000 a year for the program, according to recent revenue figures from the criminal penalty program from the New Hampshire Judicial Branch provided to the Monitor.
But with only around $35,000 a year guaranteed as a revenue source, lawmakers questioned how the program could truly fund the body cameras for New Hampshire departments. Many pointed to testimony from police departments that while the body cameras could be paid for by a grant, the cost to maintain and increase the cloud storage for the videos presents the real burden.
“This is an unfunded mandate under (RSA) 28A, that we probably shouldn’t be doing,” said Rep. David Welch, a Kingston Republican.
The issue of body cameras is not new to New Hampshire. The state already has laws that tightly regulate how and when law enforcement officers may use the cameras, for those departments that have chosen to use them. For instance, officers must obtain permission to record members of the public; and they must inform them that they are being recorded at any traffic stop, according to state law.
But for now, state law does not require police departments to purchase and use the technology. Towns and municipalities ranging from Manchester to Haverhill have opted to do so, but many have not done so, creating a patchwork of use across the state.
One agency that had held out for years was the New Hampshire State Police, the state’s largest and most well-funded agency, which had repeatedly cited budget concerns. In October 2020, Gov. Chris Sununu signed an executive order ordering the State Police to scrounge up what it could to put toward body cameras within 60 days, and then to devise a longer-term plan to fund body cameras in the 2021-22 state budget.
Beyond creating a mandate, HB 253 would update some of the state’s usage guidelines for body cameras. Currently, if officers misuse the cameras — for instance, using them without obtaining permission first — the evidence on them can be thrown out in a court. The new bill would create an exception: Any accidentally recorded footage that included evidence that could potentially exonerate the defendant could be admitted as evidence anyway.
Police chiefs have stayed neutral on the bill but argued that costs are a concern.
Hollis Police Chief Joe Hoebeke helped his own department install the cameras, and said they were a boon to establishing trust with the community, keeping interactions civil, and allowing for training considerations.
“I am more than happy to work with members of the committee to help figure out innovative ways to fund this,” Hoebeke said. “I believe in the program. I believe in the system. It helps increase transparency.”
Yet speaking on behalf of the Association of Chiefs of Police, Franklin Police Chief David Goldstein said that while the association supports the use of body cameras in theory, he would not advocate a mandatory statewide implementation without a significant funding source for departments.
“We do feel that the bill can work,” said Goldstein, whose own department does not have body cameras because of what he says are budget constraints caused by the city’s tax cap. “We’re more than happy to participate in any process that brings us up to date with all of these initiatives, however we feel it needs some work and it’s not ready for prime time.”