The Louisville Metro Police Department's body camera program drew praise when it was introduced more than a year ago.
But now, experts, activists and city leaders are questioning the transparency of the program. As WFPL News reported earlier this week, little evidence exists to show if officers are, by and large, turning their cameras on and off in accordance with department policy.
Police department policy requires random audits of the cameras to ensure officers are following procedure and to assess overall officer performance. Yet in a response to an open records request, department officials said no records exist of such audits.
Police body cameras have played a pivotal role in use-of-force investigations across the country, and many police departments are outfitting officers with the technology in an effort to boost transparency and reduce citizen complaints.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky on Friday sent an email to Police Chief Steve Conrad requesting the audits be documented for proof that officers are following policy.
Kate Miller, advocacy director for ACLU of Kentucky, in the email commended Conrad for his effort to increase accountability and transparency.
"A documented auditing process that provides more opportunity for community review is in line with those goals," she said.
In an interview this week, Mayor Greg Fischer said "we spent a lot of money as a city" on police body cameras to help increase transparency of local police. He said the cameras should be used in line with police policy, and evidence of that use should be "in an auditable format so there's trust in that process."
"If it's not happening, it needs to be corrected," Fischer said.
Sgt. David Mutchler, president of the River City Fraternal Order of Police, which represents officers, dismissed the need for audits entirely. Officers record hundreds of hours of body camera footage, and it needs review only when a complaint is made against an officer, Mutchler said in an interview Friday morning.
He said random reviews put an undue burden on supervisors, many of whom are already tasked with "overbearing" administrative duties.
"It's unrealistic," he said.
The Police Executive Research Forum, an independent nonprofit organization that provides technical assistance to law enforcement agencies, suggests body camera use audits be conducted by an internal unit within the police department, rather than by officers' supervisors, as that could “undermine the trust between an officer and his or her supervisor.”
In Louisville, the audits are conducted by sergeants, or "first-line supervisors," according to Conrad.
Mutchler said the concept of random audits is akin to "big brother" keeping tabs on officers, which can hurt productivity and trust among them. He said there's no point to the audits or to providing documentation the audits are being conducted.
"The fact that our department is using the cameras gives them plenty of reason to say we're transparent," he said.
Local activists disagree.
Chanelle Helm, co-leader of Stand Up Louisville and the city's Black Lives Matter chapter, said the lax oversight of the police department's body camera program is disappointing.
The system lacks true accountability if there is no evidence showing how officers are using the cameras, she said in an interview this week.
Helm and other activists pushed for the adoption of the body camera program in the wake of a string of fatal police encounters across the country, including the 2014 shooting of an 18-year-old unarmed African-American man in Ferguson, Missouri.
She praised the department's adoption of body cameras but said they're a waste of money if officers aren't using them in accordance with police policy.
"When we ask for transparency, you go and you make some sterile case to gain this multi-million dollar project, and you're not even following through all the way," Helm said.
