In today's world, the utilization of security cameras by local governments on government property is becoming increasingly common. These surveillance systems serve a multitude of purposes, including deterring crime, monitoring activities, and safeguarding public resources from potential damage. From a legal perspective, local governments enjoy significant latitude when it comes to deploying security cameras to record activities in public places and government facilities such as public parks or city halls. However, when it comes to capturing audio as part of video recordings, a host of legal challenges arise under state law.
Privacy Concerns with Security Footage
Privacy is a fundamental consideration when installing security cameras to monitor public activities on publicly owned property and in government-operated facilities. While an individual's right to privacy is a crucial concern, it's important to note that individuals do not possess a reasonable expectation of privacy in public areas. Actions conducted in public, where they are clearly visible to the general public, are not considered private. Therefore, local governments have substantial freedom to use video cameras to record activities in areas open to the public, such as public parks or the lobbies of public agency buildings, as long as the location is not one where individuals could reasonably expect privacy, such as changing areas or restrooms.
While state law generally does not prohibit soundless video recording, the situation is considerably more complex when it comes to audio recording, either as a standalone or as part of a video recording. Washington State's Privacy Act explicitly prohibits the recording of a private conversation without the prior consent of all participants in that conversation (RCW 9.73.030). Determining what constitutes a "private conversation" is not always straightforward, as it hinges on whether the parties involved had a subjective intention for their conversation to be private and whether the expectation of privacy is reasonable. Various factors, such as the presence of third parties, interlopers, and the subject matter, come into play when assessing this. As a result, local governments are generally advised against using audio recording as part of their video security programs due to the requirement for prior consent from those being recorded.
Recording Public Meetings
Another area of interest is the recording of meetings conducted by the legislative body. Members of the public have the freedom to video and audio record these meetings, as encouraged by the Open Public Meetings Act (RCW 42.30.220). It's important to note that attendees and participants at such meetings do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, as it would be unreasonable for them to consider their public comments made at the meeting as a "private conversation."
Public Disclosure and Records Retention Considerations
Video recordings from security cameras fall under the category of public records, subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act unless specific exemptions apply. One such exemption is RCW 42.56.240(1), which permits an agency to withhold a record that is part of an open investigative file or part of a closed investigative file when nondisclosure is crucial to effective law enforcement. However, it's important to note that the "security" exemption under RCW 42.56.420 does not apply to general video surveillance; it's primarily focused on protecting records related to terrorist acts, vulnerability assessments, deployment plans, and computer and telecommunication security infrastructure.
It's worth noting that anyone, not just law enforcement, can submit a public records request to inspect or obtain a copy of video footage from a security camera.
The retention period for surveillance video varies based on whether it involves a specific incident. If no security incident is recorded, the retention period is 30 days from the recording date or until it is determined that no security incident occurred, whichever is sooner. However, if a security incident does occur, the recordings must be retained for six years after the investigation is completed or the matter is resolved.
Policies on Use of Video Cameras
To ensure responsible use of security cameras, it is advisable for local governments to adopt a policy governing their use. Such policies can address:
- Who decides where video cameras will be placed and what areas will be under surveillance.
- What type of notices will be posted to inform employees and the public about video surveillance.
- The retention period for video footage, as it constitutes a public record.
An example of such a policy is the City of Maple Valley's Parks and Recreation Department's security camera policy, which covers these crucial points.
In conclusion, while the use of security cameras by governmental bodies can be a valuable tool, it is essential for agencies to adopt policies that clearly define how the cameras will be used and how the recorded data will be managed. Additionally, it's crucial to exercise caution when incorporating audio recording due to the potential legal implications under Washington State's Privacy Act. By understanding and adhering to these legal considerations, local governments can strike a balance between safeguarding public spaces and respecting individual privacy rights.
