Edgerton to review policy on police body cameras
Reader poll
Photo
The Edgerton Police Department uses small video recorders that attach to officers shirts and can record encounters with the public.
EDGERTON — On Nov. 7, Edgerton’s public safety committee will re-evaluate the police department’s policy on body-mounted cameras its patrol officers are required to wear while on duty.
Each patrol officer is equipped with a body camera—a digital unit clipped to his or her shirt that, in most settings, records clear audio and video footage for later review.
The department most often uses the devices to record arrests, traffic stops and criminal investigations, according to Edgerton Police Chief Tom Klubertanz.
Under the department’s existing policy, patrol officers are allowed discretion on whether to turn the cameras on during law-enforcement activities.
That leeway has come under scrutiny after a tenancy dispute June 30 between two bar owners at the former Wile E’s Bar, 12 W. Fulton St. Patrol officer Brody Kapellen responded to the dispute and chose not to turn on his body camera.
Kapellen returned to Wile E’s several times June 30 while the feuding bar owners and others at the bar, some of whom had been drinking, hashed out details of an eviction and ownership of property at the bar. Kapellen reported that he stood by to keep the peace, but made no arrests and issued no orders.
Edgerton resident Mark McCoy, a witness to the incident, later filed a complaint that Kapellen injected himself into the situation and began ordering people to get out of the building.
The Edgerton Police Commission in an Oct. 18 hearing on the complaint found Kapellen had not violated any department policy during the incident, and it found no reason to discipline him.
However, the commission noted in written findings on the hearing that it “would have been of assistance to the commission” to have had audio and video evidence of the incident.
In its findings, the commission asked the public safety committee to re-evaluate the department’s rules for use of the body cameras.
In an interview, Edgerton Police Chief Tom Klubertanz refused to discuss the June 30 incident or the complaint against Kapellen.
“I’m done with that incident. It’s past. It’s done,” he said.
Klubertanz also would not discuss whether he believes the department's body camera policy should be re-evaluated, and he would not comment on whether he thought it would have helped to have a recording of the June 30 incident.
“It was officer’s discretion,” Klubertanz said. “He (Kapellen) didn’t use the camera that night. I’m not second-guessing him.”
The Janesville Police Department uses similar recording devices and has a policy similar to Edgerton’s.
“There’s a certain level of discretion,” said Janesville Police Deputy Chief Dan Davis. “However, if they find themselves in a situation where they anticipate taking some level of enforcement action, it needs to be turned on during the entire encounter.”
Edgerton’s policy states the cameras can be used under circumstances “that lead the officer to believe that the specifics of a contact (with the public) may need to be retrieved or reviewed.”
McCoy argues that if Kapellen had recorded the June 30 incident, it would have provided “open and shut evidence,” making it much easier for officials to confirm or disprove his complaint against Kapellen.
McCoy said he believes the public safety committee should recommend that officers must use their body cameras during every law enforcement contact with the public.
“I’d like to see them used in all instances,” he said.
Klubertanz indicated it would not be a logistical problem for officers to use the cameras whenever they have law enforcement contact with someone. In fact, department records show that some Edgerton officers use the cameras as often as a dozen times in the course of a single shift.
The department recently has used the cameras for traffic stops, disorderly conduct arrests and foot chases.
Still, Klubertanz suggested a policy requiring officers to record every law enforcement encounter would be extraneous and invasive.
“If it’s on all the time, it’s Big Brother. And that’s not what they’re intended to be,” Klubertanz said.
Under department policy, officers download their camera footage at the end of every shift and an evidence technician archives the files. Each recording is kept for 90 days, and it can be discarded if it’s not needed in an investigation or in court.
State law does not require police to inform members of the public when the cameras are in use, and Edgerton’s policy allows officers to turn their cameras on and off during an incident. However, they are required to document having done so when filling out reports.
Edgerton's policy does not address how officers would handle requests by the public to have the cameras turned on during incidents.
Klubertanz says he reviews body camera recordings when investigations require him to do so, and when he’s curious about how an officer handled an incident.
He said he believes the cameras are intended to serve both the department and the public.
“They serve the officer—he’s getting an accurate view and video. It’s another witness. If there’s a complaint that an officer was abusive, it works both sides,” said Klubertanz. “It can protect the officer. It can hurt the officer.”
Nov 4, 2011 at 2:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Fromjanesville,
Yes, I am The One... as in The One who will say what others are thinking, but are afraid to write, or The One who will stand up for a group of people who selflessly put their lives on the line, so I can live a safe and secure life. And yeah I'm also The One... indicating a bit of arrogance with a sprinkle of conceded throwen in there.
But lets get down to business, while I correct you on a few things... First I shame you because your blanket statement on cops is a disgrase. Obviously police related incident are going to rise as technology advances, but what you are seeing is a small fraction of the contacts law enforcement has each and every day. It's unfortunate these incidents occur, but law enforcement as a hole is still good. Just like the military, a while back there were less then flattering photos of military prison guards posing inmates. Yet, I still support the men and women in our military. And lastly, I'll correct you in saying I am associated with law enforcement in anyway. All thought I truly respect the work these men and women do, and what they have to deal with from people like you, a law enforcment officer, I am not.
Nov 4, 2011 at 1:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Tthompson, to answer your question, of corses there are a crooked cops out there, no one has ever denied that, they are human after all. However, I believe their the minority and not the majority, and like any profession, they should be subject to the same working standards as everyone else. Doctors have engrave there initials into their patients organs when surgary is preformed among other thing, yet that doesn't require all doctors to be videoed during surgery. Were take trust in the fact they do the right thing. Cops should be not different.
Nov 3, 2011 at 3:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
About a year ago, a 51 year old Mark Schroeder in Waukesha who's never been arrested came to the scene of his 17 year old daughter's accident. She had minor injuries and was still in her car. He attempted to speak with her and ended up being beaten by a city cop. It was caught on dash cam, watched 17 times by higher ups but was "lost" after 3 attempts to obtain by prosecutors and defense. We'll be paying him a lot of money. At least someone got to see the video. The judge indicated it was a cover up. Why be so fearful of accountability?
Nov 3, 2011 at 1 p.m.
Suggest removal
Instructor: My sentiments exactly! Every profession has good & bad people. People are quick to judge law enforcement & state that they should have all their actions recorded while on duty. How would you like that if your employer made you do that? Frankly I'd like to see the records of those making derogatory comments about law enforcement because I would gander unlike me they actually have records. Normal law abiding citizens don't have contact with law enforcement so this should be a nonissue for all but the thugs amongst us.
Nov 2, 2011 at 6:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Why do you use the probable cause threshold to cage citizens but beyond reasonable doubt to even charge cops?
Nov 2, 2011 at 6:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
The consensus of the posters' comments state FHP was more wrong than the MPD. Most talk about the embarrassment police in general feel that "one of our own" is placed in handcuffs. Please tell me that a citizen hitting triple digits and running for 7 minutes wouldn't result in tens of squads and lots of guns. A little "tuning up" wouldn't surprise me. You want sovereignty from big brother but have this double standard for certain members of society. "Cell phone videos don't tell the whole story." Par for the course on any P1 comment section regarding questionable police vids. I wish you'd show me a copblock.org video which edits out pertinent information, i've seen them all. They promote transparency in all aspects. Look at the poll, we don't trust your reports.
Nov 2, 2011 at 4:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
fromjanesville-Much like the media, liberal or conservative, you're leaving quite a bit out. Strange, but the article you promote ALSO includes every poster's belief the speeding cop was wrong. Current P1 headline talks about cops saving the lives of a child and her drunken mother who got her car struck on the train tracks. But, shhhh, let's not bring that up either.
Also FYI, the reason most police don't like the cellphone video is because, like your comments, they don't tell the whole story. Some creative people then upload them to youtube with all sorts of menacing music and commentary w/o knowing what led up to the confrontation. Why show the whole 15 minute encounter when you only have to show 20 seconds to advance your agenda?
While I think of it, videotaping and uploading every single citizen contact is a great idea. The average cop only deals with 1 or 2 people a day so I'm sure they wouldn't have to increase their storage space. Please.
Nov 2, 2011 at 3:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Copblock.org is a great site. The reason police hate them? They video police performing their duties in public. Policeone.com "most commented" section currently discusses cops with a certain mentality berating a State Trooper for giving a "brother" a ticket for driving 120 MPH in a squad car while off duty. For those citizens who choose to dial 911, they need to have a reliable account of the incident which is only provided by audio/video. Search "NYPD flaking"
Nov 2, 2011 at 3:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
fromjanesville-Wow! Instead of policeone, I think a website more suitable for you is copblock.org. I'm sure you'd find plenty of cop hating buddies. It's nice to know that you paint all cops as villainous scum trampling your rights. I've seen and heard people echo sentiments like yours (like in the Oakland article) but funny, when you dial 911, the parks department doesn't show up. I'm sure you wouldn't criticize the plumber who shows up to fix your drain, right?
Are there some bad cops? Sure. Name me one profession on this planet that doesn't have problems. Try reading the "Man in the Arena" speech by Theodore Roosevelt or better yet, do a ride-along with a cop so you might know what you'e talking about.
Nov 2, 2011 at 2:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
officerfriendly and "The One" are willing to turn this into a personal attack. You call yourself "The One?" Seems a bit sociopathic. Both of these individuals are police officers hired to, in many cases, act level headed in order to de escalate situations. In this case they want to shame me for my accurate depiction of cops. Since the advent of video capable cell phones, police misconduct hasn't skyrocketed, it's prevalence has only been exposed. The more you both comment, the more you advance my agenda. Thank you both for showing up. See how police officers think by viewing comments at policeone.com
Nov 2, 2011 at 12:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
So it's Edgerton's policy to protect their crooked cops. Nice...
Nov 2, 2011 at 12:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
'I think the misdeeds of the minority hardly warrant onerous job restrictions on the majority regardless of profession'
easy to say until someone you love is falsely accused
the_one: ignorant judgements aside, are you trying to say that what fromjvl2wksha is saying doesnt happen??
Nov 2, 2011 at 10:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
It's nice to see that people have such faith in law enforcement officers who put their lives on the line every day.
Nov 2, 2011 at 9:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
I don't see why the cameras couldn't be on during any encounter with the public. It provides documentation of the interaction which protects both the citizen and the law enforcement officer. I'm not one who believes the police routinely plant evidence, shoot innocent people or lie. But you can't deny that there are incidents in which these things have happened.
Nov 2, 2011 at 9:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
I feel that keeping the camera on at all encounters between a officer and stopped public saves face for both. I now know if I was stopped and question it will be on the up and up and not a scam later in court by the officer. If I am in the wrong I deserve justice.
Nov 2, 2011 at 8:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
I agree, cameras should be on all the time, but for one reason and one reason only... To protect the officers from the likes of people like fromjanesville, and justmy414. These are the same type of people who bring forth bogus law suits against officers and there departments for alleged wrong doing to get the quick buck, then attest it to being "abuse of power". It's littering our court system. Don't confuse abuse of power with an agency supporting it's officers
Nov 2, 2011 at 8:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Chuckle,chuckle.
Nov 2, 2011 at 8:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
From janesville... Officers "planting evidence" or "shooting unarmed people". Get real, it's time to be a big boy, and get over your citation or your arrest. Just pay your 200.00 and be done with it... Let it go, your comments are without merit, and are an obvious sign of a boy who didn't get his way. (I guess right here will be as good as any, where you say..."I'm wrong and you have never had any negative interactions with the police, that's just your unbiased opinion. Don't forget to add the part where 200 dollars ain't nothing and you make that in what, an hour or two). Now that you have seceded in making yourself look foolish, and immature, it's time to get off the Internet, get to bed, you shouldn't be up at one in the morning... the school bus comes awful early in the morning.
Nov 2, 2011 at 7:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Of course the cameras should be on all the time. What possible reason could there be to ever turn them off, except to hide something?
Nov 2, 2011 at 7:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Curious officerfriendly would choose to quote someone who used his power to destroy evidence, intimidate witnesses, committed perjury and had a man murdered to cover his own tracks. This, is exactly why the cameras should be turned on ALL the time, and precisely why the department is resisting. The paramilitary police state is crumbling as abuses of power by law makers and enforcement become exposed. It is this exposure that is enhanced by the cameras being on for every encounter, not just the encounters the officer wants people to see.
Nov 2, 2011 at 6:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
officerfriendly1: Jack at his best! fromjanesville2waukesha: Sure there are bad cops, just like there are bad teachers, bad whatever....I think the misdeeds of the minority hardly warrant onerous job restrictions on the majority regardless of profession.
Nov 2, 2011 at 1:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Junior, I've seen that movie too. The truth is police plant evidence and shoot unarmed people on a regular basis. I realize you feel you've been called by some higher power to arrest victimless criminals and raise revenue in the name of justice. I'll never change your opinion.
Nov 1, 2011 at 11:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
The reason is to show behaviors on both sides of the law and if you are being truthful in your reports this method will prove that. It will not allow false accusations by the person being arrested as it will be recorded.Simple solution, If there is nothing to hide then turn them on.
Nov 1, 2011 at 5:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Police lie for a living both legally and illegally. Glance at the comment section on Policeone.com to get an idea of how this culture works. In Madison, police are arresting people for silently holding 8x11inch signs. People are being charged with Felonies throughout this country for video recording cops. We need cops but we need accountability.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.