Bargaining in Blue: Milwaukee judge rules in favor of city’s body-worn camera video release policy

By

Caitlin Styrsky

Bargaining in Blue, a monthly newsletter from Ballotpedia, provides news and information on police collective bargaining agreements (CBAs), including the latest news, policy debates, and insights from Ballotpedia’s analysis of police CBAs in all 50 states and the top 100 cities by population. 

In this month’s edition of Bargaining in Blue, we examine CBA provisions related to body-worn cameras and body-worn camera video evidence. We review a court ruling in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, that permits the city’s body-worn camera video release policy to remain in effect; related scholarly arguments; and insights on the topic from Ballotpedia’s analysis of police CBAs in all 50 states and the top 100 cities by population. 

In this edition: 

  • On the beat: Milwaukee judge rules in favor of city’s body-worn camera video release policy
  • Around the table: Related arguments from the negotiating table, scholars, and the media on body-worn camera video release policies
  • Insights: A closer look at CBA provisions related to body-worn cameras and key takeaways from Ballotpedia’s analysis

On the beat

Milwaukee judge rules in favor of city’s body-worn camera video release policy

Circuit Court Judge Brittany C. Grayson of the Milwaukee County Circuit Court Branch 16 on March 29, 2024, upheld a body-worn camera video release policy implemented by the city of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in 2023. The Milwaukee Police Association (MPA) had challenged the policy, arguing that it violated collective bargaining rules and state law.

The city of Milwaukee implemented Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) 575 in April 2023, which established procedures for releasing body-worn camera footage to families and the public following critical incidents in an effort to “foster greater public trust in the Milwaukee Police Department by increasing transparency with respect to department operations involving the use of deadly force,” according to SOP 575. The policy, in part, requires law enforcement to release body-worn camera footage to families within 48 hours and to the public within 15 days following critical incidents. 

The MPA filed a motion for preliminary injunction in April 2023, arguing that the city unlawfully approved SOP 575 outside of the collective bargaining process. The union further argued before the court that its concerns over increased police scrutiny and employment stress as a result of the policy change outweighed the city’s transparency and accountability arguments.

Judge Grayson ruled that the body-worn camera video release policy would remain in effect because the union did not properly establish its claim that the policy violated collective bargaining rules. The decision stated that, according to Wisconsin state law, collective bargaining procedures would only apply if the policy was “primarily related to wages, hours, and conditions of employment,” which Grayson found the union failed to establish. 

Despite ruling that the policy would remain in effect, Judge Grayson denied the city’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit and scheduled the case for a status conference on May 16, 2024. The MPA announced they would present additional evidence to the court at that time, arguing that “releasing body camera footage before investigations have reached their logical conclusion is both short-sighted and will actually have a negative impact on the transparency the community needs,” according to CBS58. 

Want to go deeper?

Around the table

Arguments about body-worn camera video release policies

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Policy Analyst Jon McCray Jones wrote a 2023 article following the announcement of Milwaukee’s new SOP and the Milwaukee Police Association’s subsequent lawsuit. Jones argued that the withholding of body camera footage by police departments negatively impacts community members’ trust in the police:

The inability to trust police to be truthful about cases in which officers use force underscores why body cam footage is critical to ensuring law enforcement are transparent and accountable to the public. Without accountability, police lose community trust. We are witnessing that now: a 2022 Gallup poll found that only 45% of American adults are confident in the police. The numbers are even lower for communities of color. 

Which brings us back to why community activists are calling for greater police transparency in Milwaukee — Black and Brown communities have known for a long time that police reports don’t always reflect reality and now the empirical evidence is catching up. We are often kept in the dark and left with endless questions after police use force during an encounter, but the FPC’s new body camera policy would allow people to get more answers.

Reporters Myra Arthur and Brina Monterroza wrote a 2020 article outlining arguments for and against releasing body-worn camera footage. They included arguments from scholars claiming that releasing body-worn camera footage prior to the conclusion of an investigation could impact the outcome:

[S]ome argue there are legitimate reasons why, in some cases, the public should not see footage. In some cases, it can reveal tactics used by officers.

‘They’re not going to want to release that footage from an incident in which a case is still being investigates or in which a police officer might be subject to a misconduct charge,’ Donna Coltharp, law professor at St. Mary’s University said.

The footage could affect what happens in court, or any internal proceedings involving an officer.

‘You don’t want to be showing your evidence to the public before you actually take it to trial,’ Howard Williams, a lecturer at Texas State University said. ‘The public’s right to know is one thing, but the defendant also has the right to a fair trial.’

Insights

Milwaukee CBA on body-worn cameras 

The Milwaukee Police Association (MPA) entered into a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the city of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on January 1, 2020. 

Article 2711 of the CBA between the city of Milwaukee and the MPA states the following:

Prior to any PI-21 interrogation that could lead to discipline, demotion, or discharge, the subject of the interrogation shall be allowed to view any audio or video obtained from the subject’s body worn camera or squad video, which relates to the investigation.

The CBA does not mention the release of body-worn camera video evidence to the public. 

The CBA expired on December 31, 2022, however, it remains in effect until a new agreement is reached between the city and the police union.

Key takeaways on CBA provisions related to body-worn cameras or body-worn camera video release evidence

Ballotpedia’s analysis of police CBAs in all 50 states and the top 100 cities by population featured the following information about provisions related to body-worn cameras or body-worn camera video evidence in police CBAs, as of December 2023:

  • There are four state CBAs and 10 city CBAs that contain provisions related to the use of body-worn cameras or body-worn camera video evidence
    • One state and four city CBAs contain provisions allowing officers to review body-worn camera footage before an interrogation or investigation following an incident. These include Nebraska; Glendale, Arizona; Houston, Texas; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and Phoenix, Arizona.
    • One city CBA (Glendale, Arizona) contains provisions requiring officers to be notified before body-worn camera video evidence is released.
    • Three state and six city CBAs contain provisions that either require police officers to wear body-worn cameras or broadly relate to body-worn camera policies. These include Kansas; Ohio; Rhode Island; Boston, Massachusetts; Columbus, Ohio; Indianapolis, Indiana; Las Vegas, Nevada; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and San Jose, California.
  • There are 22 state CBAs and 69 city CBAs that do not contain provisions related to the use of body-worn cameras or body-worn camera video evidence
  • There are 22 states and 21 cities that do not have police CBAs
  • There are two states and one city in which the request for information on police CBAs was denied or information could not be verified

Want to go deeper?