Editorial: When it comes to police body cameras, the public can’t be kept in the dark

Body-worn cameras are all the rage among police departments that are serious about accountability. But the tool is still so new that there’s little consensus on how and when — or even if — to let the public see the recordings these devices make. The only thing that most agree on is that law enforcement agencies should have some sort of policy before officers turn on their cameras.

The clamor of conflicting views will eventually subside, and when it does, we hope all agencies will agree on this principle at least: that police agencies should not have carte blanche to decide whether these recordings are released or hidden from public view. Reasonable rules need to be established to ensure that the public is not automatically or unfairly denied access, particularly in cases where officers are accused of excessive force.

The nonprofit Police Executive Research Forum endorses “a broad disclosure policy to promote agency transparency and accountability,� and encourages police departments not to shut the door on video disclosure. That’s a good starting place, and it’s what the public expects as well. A survey by the American Civil Liberties Union last year found that the public strongly supports body cameras, but with the underlying assumption that there will be disclosure when it comes to cases of misconduct and use of force.

Too many policymakers and police chiefs are starting from the opposite place, contending that footage from body cameras is exempt from the disclosure requirements on public records and may only be released if a judge orders it. That’s how Charlie Beck, chief of the Los Angeles Police Department, said he plans to deal with body camera video requests. We hope his position will evolve as the department rolls out its body camera program.

Meanwhile, some state lawmakers have been trying to ensure that body camera videos stay in the dark, introducing a slew of bills in the current session that dictated bad video policy to law enforcement agencies. Two of them — AB 1940 by Jim Cooper (D-Elk Grove) and AB 2533 by Miguel Santiago (D-Los Angeles) — stalled Tuesday in the Senate Public Safety Committee.

Regrettably, the committee approved a third bill that would prohibit police departments from releasing any audio or video that depicts the death of an officer in the line of duty unless the officer’s family approves. While it’s distasteful to think about that footage showing up on YouTube, important decisions about who gets to see body camera video should not be made by grieving family members.

There may be a role for state legislators to help develop smart policy, but they should first consider what Sen. Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley), chairwoman of the Senate Public Safety Committee, recommended when she voted “no� on AB 2533: “Let things settle. Let’s see what works. Let’s see where there are problems.�

Wise words, though we would add one thing: Let’s stop trying to shut out the public.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion, and on Facebook.