TKTK
Seattle police have earned plaudits for their body cam program, but is new lobbying by Mayor Ed Murray's office a step backward? SPD

Is this what leadership on police reform looks like?

Right now, there's a bill on the move in the state legislature that, if passed, would make it harder for you to obtain police department body camera videos. Some Seattle legislators, worried about what this bill will mean for transparency at the SPD, want to amend the measure so it doesn't apply to Seattle. But Seattle's mayor, Ed Murray, is lobbying against those amendments.

Representative Gerry Pollet (D-North Seattle) explains that the bill, which is sponsored by Rep. Drew Hansen (D-Poulsbo) and backed by the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, "would limit public access to body camera footage at a time when Seattle is moving ahead with body cameras."

Pollet asks: "Why should it be harder to get a body camera [video] than a dashcam? Seattle doesn't need this special protection."

The ACLU of Washington also opposes the bill on transparency grounds. And according to Pollet, at a Tacoma conference on transparency on March 14, personnel from the SPD told him the department had no position on the bill.

"I was quite happy with that," Pollet says, "only to find last week that the city is saying, all of the sudden, we want in." (Meaning, Seattle officials want SPD covered by the bill's language making it harder for citizens to get body cam footage.)

The mayor's office confirms that it has been lobbying Seattle legislators against their efforts to remove SPD from the purview of the law. Pollet's effort took the form of an amendment that would exempt Seattle's police department, citing the fact that it is under a federal consent decree. If unamended, Pollet says, the bill would reduce "public, community group and reporter access [in Seattle] to body camera video," which in turn, "reduces police accountability."

But in mayoral spokesperson Viet Shelton's view, "All police departments [in the state] should be playing by the same set of rules on public disclosure of body cameras." He insists the city is neutral on the merits of the bill itself. But the effect of the city's lobbying could be that Seattle citizens will, per the bill's language, have more difficulty getting body cam footage.

The proposed law would create a special set of rules about the disclosure of body camera videos that inhibit transparency, according to Pollet, including forcing members of the public who request videos to pay for redactions and court fees when they challenge a police department decision not to release footage. That's why he wanted to amend the law so that it wouldn't affect Seattle police.

"There's been a rejection of police accountability," adds Rep. Cindy Ryu (D-Shoreline), in reference to the legislation. She'd proposed a now-dead alternative bill that was backed by the ACLU.

SPD spokesperson Sean Whitcomb insists that even though Seattle doesn't oppose the powers granted by the bill, it is "not going to affect Seattle police—not our practices. SPD is not going to do those things." He declined to explain in greater detail.

That's not likely to mollify Pollet. "Seattle has had serious problems with disclosures of the dashcams," he says. "We know that we can't just trust SPD on this issue."

The legislation is expected to come to the floor for a house vote today or tomorrow.

UPDATE: Mayor Ed Murray just called to explain his rationale: He said he wants to sit down with local stakeholders to develop Seattle's policy on body camera transparency and privacy. "Our position was that we should have a chance to figure out what the appropriate protocol is on this."

Why lobby against the Seattle-area exemption from the state law, then? "I don't think we should have carve-outs," he said. "They'll [Republicans] say, 'Why is Seattle getting special attention?'" He believes the state will have to "re-do" its approach on body cams in the future anyway.

This post has been updated.