ACLU app aids filming of police

In an age where just about anyone can record just about anything at the touch of a smartphone button, police are finding themselves under a more watchful eye.

Just search Eugene police or Springfield police on YouTube, for example, and a number of user-uploaded videos are instantly available. The video images range from protesters being told not to put tables on sidewalks to people being arrested, oftentimes by more than one officer, for allegedly resisting arrest.

But there’s been no organized way for citizens to share such videos with civil liberties advocates — until now.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon has launched a smartphone application that allows users to record video — but not audio — and then quickly upload the video to ACLU offices.

The app launched in November and is currently available only at the online Google Play store for android-powered cellphones, said Sarah Armstrong, ACLU of Oregon’s outreach coordinator. It already has more than 650 downloads.

But it will soon be available for the Apple iPhone in The App Store and then, Armstrong hopes, it will grow.

On Feb. 2, Armstrong will facilitate a “Civil Discussion” about the “Mobile Justice” app at the Eugene Public Library.

According to the ACLU, the event is prompted by the nation­wide protests around killings by law enforcement and the renewed effort to develop safeguards against abuses of power. The app, Armstrong said, is a reaction to that demand for greater oversight and accountability.

The Oregon group worked with other ACLU affiliates across the country in launching the app, Armstrong said. The ACLU of New York was the first to launch such an app late last year. Now, four states have access to similar applications for monitoring police, Armstrong said.

“Police officers have a unique role in our society and we give them an extraordinary amount of powers,” Armstrong said. “And people have the right to ask that their policies and procedures reflect our values. This app basically empowers people to hold police accountable.”

“Witness feature” sends alert

The app has three functions.

First, it records video, then automatically emails it to ACLU of Oregon.

That way, Armstrong said, no one can delete the video from someone’s phone. The video already is safe in ACLU’s inbox.

Then, the app prompts a user to fill out a report, answering the who, what, when, where and why of what they recorded.

Lastly, it offers a “know your rights” section that delineates the basic rights of Oregonians, with links embedded to allow a user to read more detailed information if they choose.

A “witness feature” is an optional additional setting that can alert users to a police incident occurring nearby — if the person at that incident also has the witness feature turned on.

Oregon state law requires that a person recording audio give notice to the person being recorded. ACLU of Oregon hopes to seek a change to that law in the upcoming legislative session, Armstrong said. But until then, the app will not record audio so that a user won’t have to deal with any potential violations.

A person is legally allowed to record video in a public place, and they do not have to get permission or consent.

On the other side of the table, police using body cameras also have to inform citizens when they are being audio-­recorded. If the ACLU was successful in removing the requirement to gain permission for such recordings, it would apply to police as well as to citizens.

Safe distance required

Armstrong gets no disagreement from local law enforcement officials when she asserts that “Oregonians have the right to film police when they are doing their jobs in public.”

Springfield police Sgt. Rich Charboneau said he isn’t familiar with the ACLU app but says police in Springfield are well aware that “anyone can record us at any time” and that’s OK with them.

“It’s been going on for years, that people have been doing that,” Charboneau said. “It’s something we’ve talked about. Do your job as if it’s always recorded. That’s just part of the new world of technology.”

Charboneau said the police department is working to secure body cameras or in-car cameras for its officers, as funding becomes available.

“It’s just a matter of time,” he said, “then everyone will be recorded by us.”

In Eugene, police Lt. Eric Klinko said officers also work with a mentality that they are always being recorded because — between cellphone videos, dashboard cameras, police-worn body cameras and just regular surveillance video from businesses and banks — “we probably are.”

“Officers are pretty used to it,” Klinko said. As long as officers don’t feel that their safety is threatened and that the person recording keeps enough distance, he said, then officers are OK with it. “We don’t know a person’s motives so if someone is sneaking up on you from behind with a camera, what I usually say is, ‘Can you do that from over here?’ So then I can deal with what I have to do.”

Klinko said officers typically regard a distance of 10 to 15 feet as a safe zone, but it all depends on the circumstances of a particular situation. From that distance, a person can typically get the video they are after without affecting an officer’s ability to do his or her work, Klinko said.

Eugene video policy recommended

When the ACLU receives a video email from the app, it has the prerogative to use it in support of a complaint or lawsuit, Armstrong said. The videos are uploaded anonymously, unless an app user enters his or her information on the report.

So far, the videos received by ACLU are mostly from people just trying the app out, Armstrong said. Some have shown interactions with police, but no complaints or lawsuits have been sparked by user-captured video, she said.

Armstrong says the app is mostly an “empowerment tool” intended to generate conversation, but could prove to be an effective monitoring tool over time.

Earlier this month, Eugene police activist Carol Berg Caldwell asked the city’s police commission to look into creating a policy that would put safeguards in place both for civilians and officers when video recording occurs. The policy would allow for people to record police without fear of retaliation, she said.

She claimed to have seen at least three different people in court in recent few months, facing charges of interfering with police for incidents involving citizen video recordings.

Klinko said that while he didn’t have details about specific cases, arrests involving individuals who are videotaping typically have little if anything to do with the recording and more with a person not complying with an officer’s order to stand back.

“They refused to be respectful and to be safe, or were trying to incite the suspect,” Klinko said of such instances. “We can’t arrest people for videotaping, but (we can) by their actions and their proximity.”

Follow Chelsea on Twitter @chelseagorrow. Email chelsea.gorrow@registerguard.com.