When city officials announced the long-awaited deployment of police body cameras starting in April, they said the city had reached an agreement with police unions on camera use after marathon negotiations. Now the city is refusing to make that agreement public.
The law office, referring to the state public records law, has denied a request for a copy of the agreement. The city and the unions have reached an agreement – yet the office cited an exemption in the law for documents involving policies being developed, acknowledging after an appeal by Cambridge Day that the body camera pact is not under negotiation but saying it should be kept secret because it’s part of the overall police contract.
The contract is the subject of current talks as well as state-supervised binding arbitration because the two sides have reached an “impasse,” the law office said.
“Releasing the agreements at this time could also reasonably be seen as an attempt to shape public opinion against one party to the negotiation, which could constitute an unfair labor practice charge in violation of M.G.L. c. 150E, even if that is not the city’s intent,” the law office said. “The risk of creating the appearance of bad-faith bargaining or public pressure could damage relationships with the union and make future negotiations more adversarial. That kind of chilling effect is precisely what [the exemption] is meant to avoid.”
The law office’s opinion doesn’t prevent the city from disclosing the agreement; it says the public isn’t entitled to see it. City spokesperson Jeremy Warnick, though, said the city wouldn’t make the agreement public “at this time” because of the union negotiations.
If the city doesn’t disclose the body camera agreement until the unions and the city agree on the overall contracts, it could take months if not years to reveal the terms governing use of the cameras. The most recent contracts with police unions expired on June 30, 2024, so they have been under negotiation for more than a year.
Camera policy as posted
The police department does post the department’s body camera policies on its website, which provides clues about what may be in the agreements.
The rules say officers should wear the cameras when they’re in uniform or plainclothes and turn them on in a long list of situations, including during dispatched service calls “involving contact with civilians”; vehicle stops; driving with sirens or emergency lights activated; and any “interaction with the public” for the purpose of law enforcement. There’s a catchall policy requiring officers to turn on their cameras during “any other civilian contact that the sworn member reasonably believes should be recorded to enhance policing transparency, to increase public trust and police-community relations or to preserve factual representations of sworn member-civilian interactions, provided that recording is consistent with this policy.”
There’s little explicit guidance on how cameras should be used when police respond to protests, except for requiring an officer to activate the camera “when a sworn member reasonably believes a crowd control incident may result in unlawful activity.”
Officers must also turn on their cameras when there is “any contact that becomes adversarial, including a use-of-force incident, if the sworn member has not already activated” a body-worn camera.
Telling civilians
The policies also govern how police must behave when they turn on their cameras. For example, the rules provide: “Whenever possible, sworn members who activate a BWC should notify any person(s) that they are being recorded with video and audio by a (body camera) as close to the inception of the encounter as is reasonably possible.”
A demonstration by pro-Palestinian groups in Harvard Square on Aug. 3, when police arrested three protesters and streamed pepper spray at some demonstrators, provided a glimpse of how police use the cameras. It also illustrated how difficult it might be for police to tell people in a large, unruly demonstration that they are being recorded.
Bronte Wen, 27, of Somerville, allegedly kicked one officer and threw a balloon filled with a liquid at another officer, which caused a mild burning sensation when it burst; she is charged with assaulting an officer, assaulting an officer with a deadly weapon and resisting arrest. David Fleig, 51, of Arlington, is charged with assaulting a police officer, resisting arrest and disorderly conduct; he allegedly hit an officer with a bullhorn and knocked an officer to the ground. Anna Epstein, 21, of Belmont, is charged with resisting arrest and disorderly conduct. All were released without bail and ordered to stay away from the scene of the protest; they return to Cambridge District Court on Oct. 1.
Camera use in the field
Police reports filed at Cambridge District Court to support the arrests indicated that one officer’s camera didn’t turn on at all – he discovered the glitch afterward when he wanted to look at the video to help him file his report. Another officer’s camera was knocked off his vest, allegedly by a protester, and damaged when protesters allegedly ground it into the sidewalk.
Cambridge police spokesperson Robert Reardon said: “We recognize that technology is not foolproof and are always looking for ways to improve.” Reardon said the incident when a camera was knocked off an officer’s vest “occurred when he was physically assaulted by multiple persons. The mounts used to secure the cameras to vests are heavy-duty, so the fact that it was dislodged demonstrates that the officer was forcefully struck.”
The camera continued to record “even after it appears to have been intentionally stomped on against the asphalt road surface and even captured footage of masked protesters debating whether or not to steal it upon recognizing it to be a police camera,” Reardon said. Demonstrators returned the camera.
In police reports filed in court, some officers mentioned turning on their cameras or recording specific events. For example, lieutenant William Bates, the supervisor of the unit responding to the protest, said he recorded himself addressing the demonstrators just before the protest was scheduled to start:
“I went to the center of the group and stated words to the effect of ‘I am lieutenant Bates of the Cambridge police. We are looking forward to a peaceful demonstration today. We are happy for you to put your message out.’” Bates said he warned the group to respect private property and not to interfere with public access, apparently referring to the Capital One Cafe that was the target of the protest because the bank reportedly has loaned money to Elbit Systems, a supplier of weapons to Israel.
Altercation at a protest
Police lined up metal barricades on JFK Street parallel to the sidewalk, creating a space for demonstrators. The protesters almost immediately tried to get onto the sidewalk and to push barricades farther into the street, according to police. Bates said he recorded the conflict over the barriers.
According to officer Francis L. Gutoski, the crowd was “extremely hostile the entire time,” writing “pig” in chalk on the sidewalk, giving him “the middle finger” and “chanting that CPD are ‘racist ass police’ and ‘KKK, [Israel Defense Force], CPD you’re all the same.’ They also chanted that CPD kill children and that blood was on our hands.”
Though Gutoski didn’t mention turning on his camera, his was the one that was knocked off his vest and kept recording.
None of the police reports filed in court mentioned officers telling people that they were being recorded, and it’s not clear how officers could have done so in a crowd that several described as a mob.
Protest without violence
Police changed the way they responded to a demonstration the following Sunday at the same place. Instead of restricting protesters to a narrow passageway hemmed in by metal barricades, police allowed demonstrators to march in the street; there were concrete barriers between them and the sidewalk.
The move blocked traffic, but there were no arrests or conflicts between officers and protesters – whose chants continued to castigate the police. Reardon, asked whether police changed tactics because of the Aug. 3 protest, said “every situation is different” and supervisors on the scene make decisions designed to let people “share their message” while keeping the public safe.
He added that police encourage protesters to tell police of their plans ahead of time.
The use of pepper spray on Aug. 3 came a day after police used the irritant in a fogging form when trying to force Princiano Faustin, 51, out of his apartment on Broadway. He had fled there after allegedly swinging two machetes in Central Square, slashing one man in the head.
The pepper spray did not dislodge Faustin – he was finally arrested after an 18-hour standoff – but it spread through the six-story building, forcing many tenants to flee their apartments. Police say they are investigating and are also looking into the use of spray at the Aug. 3 demonstration.
A stronger
Please consider making a financial contribution to maintain, expand and improve Cambridge Day.
We are now a 501(c)3 nonprofit and all donations are tax deductible.
Please consider a recurring contribution.
