Independent Audit Looks at Compliance Within the St. Cloud Police Department’s Body Worn Camera Program

(KNSI) — An item on the consent agenda for the St. Cloud City Council meeting Monday night surrounds the approval of an independent audit of the police department’s body worn camera program.

The audit, conducted in February by Rampart Defense LLC, examined data between February 28th, 2021 and January 30th, 2023, to verify the department’s recordkeeping, policies, procedures and operations surrounding the bodycam program, along with compliance with the statutes that lay out requirements for creating and implementing the program, which began in early 2021, and the oversight and operation.

The department currently has 122 body worn cameras with a strong policy outlining when cameras must be used, when they are not to be used (such as in undercover situations) and instances where it was up to the officer’s discretion. Cameras are synced with a squad car’s emergency lights and Tasers and are automatically activated when the devices are activated.

The report showed substantial overall compliance with written state statutes and excellence within the department’s internal compliance verification policy but concerns with data sharing and mislabeling of videos.

The policy was revised at the start of 2023 to require monthly random reviews by supervisors of body cam use for each officer required to wear one. A minimum of two videos are reviewed per officer. Those reviews are logged and subject to audit by department administration. The initial policy had reviews conducted only once per quarter.

It also clearly states that officers who need to see footage for report writing, investigative, and other legitimate law enforcement purposes have view-only access and must document why they need access each time. That data is logged automatically and subject to audit. The policy outlines explicit discipline guidelines for violations.

Auditors said the department “appeared to meet or exceed the requirements specified for each category” in its written policy, its data retention guidelines concerning “data classified as having evidentiary value,” proper classification of data and data access, but with one recommendation when it came to sharing with partner agencies.

Officers can share data, videos and photos with partner agencies, but the requests are logged and subject to review. Auditors recommended the St. Cloud Police Department get written acknowledgment from them for their obligations under the policy after it was revealed the department and partner agencies have a verbal understanding of the obligations. The audit asks for a disclosure statement, a mandatory check box on the data request form or via a separate email from each agency requesting bodycam data and that it be kept on file.

When it came to the department’s recordkeeping, Rampart chose a random sample of 132 Initial Complaint Records, or ICRs, to view the available body cam recordings to see whether that data was accurately documented.

Their review showed the officers consistently categorized the videos correctly for data retention, with a high utilization rate of cameras on calls. There were 215 videos created for the applicable ICRs reviewed.

Concerns were raised after auditors “noted numerous instances of videos labeled with the incorrect ICR number” and observed “this occurred across several different officers” and individual officers had “multiple” videos that were mislabeled. There were also multiple numbers accidentally created for a single call. The report said that when that happened, one of the numbers was marked inactive; the other remained active, and some or all related videos were labeled with the inactive number. There were also issues connected to labeling videos with ICR numbers from other calls to which the officer had responded during their shift.

Rampart cited the department’s large call volume and exceptional utilization rate of the cameras and noted it is likely that each officer is labeling numerous videos at the end of their shift which could easily result in errant labeling. Auditors say there is a manual search process to ensure data are correctly identified, and while it is somewhat time-consuming, “it does appear to be effective in ensuring that requested data are correctly identified.”

Rampart “strongly” recommended an internal audit or another review of the labeling procedures to “identify underlying causes of mislabeling and determine steps to mitigate this issue.”

It should also be noted that the department is down several officers from its normal staffing levels, leading to those on duty at times being stretched thin.

State statute mandates law enforcement agencies using bodycams be audited biennially.

___