This last year has brought a spotlight on the use of body cameras and car dash cameras by law enforcement officers. This issue has landed directly in front of the Iowa Public Information Board. They have been faced with the task of answering some tough questions, such as what the public has the right to know, especially after the case is closed, and how you apply Iowa Code 22.7(5). Neither one of these questions has an easy answer.

Let’s first look at the second question, “How do you apply Iowa Code 22.7(5)?” Iowa Code 21 and 22 are very important to Iowans when it comes to the issue of transparency. Chapter 21 deals with our open meeting laws, and Chapter 22 deals with our access to records.

So while some of the information concerning high-profile cases is released, we don’t have consistency between all agencies and jurisdictions. Video of the shooting that took place in 2011 in Johnson County was released to the press, whereas the Autumn Steele case in Burlington had a different approach.

This last year, the newspapers in Iowa have made you very aware of the Steele case. She was a 34-year-old mother who was accidentally shot and killed by a member of the Burlington Police Department. This case has raised many questions about what information should be released and what information won’t be released. There are two videos in question with this case. The first is the dash camera in the police car, and the second is the body camera that the officer was wearing.

The Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) is using this code section to reinforce its decision to not release the video in the above shooting and several other officer-involved shootings over the past couple of years. While each shooting was investigated by the Iowa DCI and prosecutors determined that all were justified, not releasing the videos doesn’t build trust in our law enforcement system.

Transparency is a word that we are quick to apply to government issues such as taxes and spending, but the truth is taxpayer money is used to support many things that taxpayers haven’t taken the time or energy to demand more transparency about. Law enforcement is one of those areas. Law enforcement, whether it is state, county, or local, is supported by your tax dollars. Therefore, to improve taxpayers’ trust in law enforcement, we must push to see increased transparency in this area. Trust will increase as we see more transparency brought to this area.

When one thinks about transparency in law enforcement, one would believe that the body cameras and dashboard cameras would help increase transparency and help increase trust in our law enforcement. When a dramatic event occurs, we know from past experience that people have a tendency to not remember all the details, and these cameras provide a way to evaluate and review incidents as they occur.

There were 27 officer-involved shootings investigated by the Iowa DCI in 2014 and 2015. While these shootings are investigated to determine if they were justified, we need to work to provide more transparency. Senate Study Bill 3088 was proposed during the last Legislative session to address this. Specifically this bill would have requested “the legislative council to establish an interim committee, composed of legislator members of both political parties from both houses of the general assembly, to meet during the 2016 interim to discuss issues relating to the storage, retention, public inspection, and confidentiality of law enforcement body camera video and audio recordings.”

We have to let our Legislators know that we wish to see more transparency in law enforcement and make use of the technology that is already in place. As we move forward, technology is poised to help improve our trust in law enforcement. For as you can see, neither question is easy to answer. We have to trust that our elected officials will work to bring the most transparency to this important issue.

The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Public Interest Institute. They are brought to you in the interest of a better informed citizenry.

Jennifer L. Crull is IT Specialist at the Public Interest Institute in Mount Pleasant.