New Paltz Police Chief Discusses Body Camera Policy (2019)

The New Paltz Police Department’s implementation of a body camera policy is currently being delayed. On May 16, Police Lieutenant Robert Lucchesi expected a policy approval would be met by July or August and implementation would take place in the last three months of this year. 

On Thursday, the New Paltz Police Commission meeting was held at the New Paltz Community Center with the Town Board and Police Chief Joseph Snyder present. 

Councilman Marty Irwin asked Snyder about reasons why cameras should ever be turned off. Throughout the meeting, Snyder sympathized with the board’s concerns about body camera protocol, saying, “Trust me, we want these things to be beneficial for the officer, for the town and also for the individuals that they’re dealing with.” However, he also added, “We want it to be used all the time, but we have to understand that there’s going to be times where we want to shut it off.” 

According to Snyder, when officers are interviewing victims involved in sexual crimes, the cameras should be turned off to avoid victimizing afflicted parties. He also added that when officers are responding to domestic disputes, officers should turn cameras off when entering private properties to avoid ones’ invasions of privacy like a wardrobe malfunction of an individual. 

In less severe scenarios, he imparted that there would be no reason for officers to have their body cameras on when they are in the station or when they are going to the restroom. Furthermore, Snyder noted that the cooperation of an involved individual could be dependent on whether the camera is being used or not.

However, Snyder also claimed that whenever the camera is turned off, “the officer will have to articulate why he did not leave the camera on.” 

Snyder mentioned that there will be moments of human error when an officer may forget to turn his body or car camera on.  Snyder continued by stating that the officers would go through extensive training until it becomes “muscle memory” for them to employ the cameras.

Snyder expounded on the utility of having recorded evidence in which an officer was involved in a recent notice of claim filed against him. After the defense attorney listened to a recording of a conversation between the officer and the involved individual who stated that he had a prior injury rather than sustaining one from the officer, the file was immediately dropped. 

Currently, samples of the policy for the usage of body cameras were sent to the town board and the union attorneys recently, according to Snyder.

Aside from the ethics of turning off body cameras, there was a previous conversation during a Police Commission meeting on May 16 between the Town Board and Police Lieutenant Robert Lucchesi deliberated about the budget for the body cameras and whether or not an officer is allowed to look at the camera footage while writing a police report or not. 

Town Board Supervisor Neil Bettez, based on his prior research, stated that officers should not be allowed to look at camera footage until they write their reports so that they are honest. 

As the town board and the police department continue to work together on the body camera policy, in conjunction with the union attorneys, progress is slow at the moment. There is currently no projected date of when the policy will potentially be passed and established.