The ACLU surveyed 146 law enforcement agencies. At least 48 of them have used body cameras. However, ten of them do not have any written guidelines for acquiring evidence using the equipment. These ten agencies include the Attala and Hinds and Lowndes, Monroe and Perry sheriffs’ offices, as well as the Carthage and Fulton, New Albany, and Ripley police department. Jennifer Riley-Collins is the executive director of ACLU of Mississippi. She stated that if departments have cameras, but don’t have a policy about how to use them, law enforcement officers can act as they please. “The problem that is lifted with that is the lack of uniform guidelines which lead to privacy violations, questions about how the community can access the film, and whether the government uses the body cameras as a continued proliferation of government surveillance,” Jennifer Riley-Collins, the executive director of the ACLU of Mississippi, said. However, the ACLU report, released Monday, states that 65 Mississippi departments have policies (some have guidelines, but not yet deployed cameras). In many areas, the guidelines do not include basic privacy safeguards or bare-minimum accountability provisions. For example, the guidelines do NOT require that officers inform individuals that they are being monitored. John Miller, Chief of Biloxi Police Department, stated that the report ignored several aspects of operating the cameras as an officer’s view. Miller, who is also the President of the Mississippi Association of Chiefs of Police, said that he has not seen the ACLU’s issues. Their policy is very well written. It doesn’t cover the requirements of law enforcement or the retention of evidence. While I can understand some of the ACLU’s goals, I don’t believe they are doing it right. Miller also mentioned that Mississippi is a one-party consent state and that the other party doesn’t need to be notified when the recording is made. Pew Charitable Trusts’ 2016 report found that 21 states do not have laws allowing public access to body-camera data. According to the National Conference of State Legislators, Arkansas, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, and Michigan have all joined this list since then. Mississippi does not have such a law. However, the Mississippi Department of Archives and History has a public-records retention plan that includes body-worn and in-car cameras. The ACLU discovered that different policies were in place for different jurisdictions among the 65 law enforcement agencies. This, according to the report, highlights the need for uniformity across the state. The report states that Mississippians are now faced with a confusing array of policies regarding the use of body-worn cameras and privacy concerns associated with the disclosure and retention of personally identifiable information. It is dangerous to have different policies in each community. There is too much at stake. It has serious implications for constitutionally protected right.” Miller, whose agency first deployed body cameras five years ago, stated that he was not opposed to a state policy but that he doesn’t believe one set of standards can meet all department’s needs. He said that there are some large agencies in Mississippi, as well as some smaller agencies. “I don’t believe one policy could fit all.” “All agencies have different needs. Some agencies won’t be able to afford high-quality cameras. Harrison County Sheriff Troy Peterson agreed. His department also uses body cams. Peterson stated, “Even though Harrison is one of the largest counties in the state,” that Hinds County residents may not be in agreement with the policy. “It would be a good idea [to have statewide regulations] but getting everyone on board would be difficult,” Peterson said. The ACLU of Mississippi also stated that less than 20% of guidelines require officers in Mississippi to deactivate cameras in homes if the resident requests it. Miller and Peterson both said that the circumstances should dictate how a camera is deactivated. Peterson stated, “If a resident says you can’t bring in a camera and there is an altercation then you can’t stop recording.” Miller stated that body cameras are designed to capture the entire event. Miller stated, “If you decide that you’re going out to turn off your camera during the event for any reason, then you’ve kinda defeated the whole purpose.” Another issue is whether citizens should be able to access the footage as public documents. While many policies allow officers to view the footage before they submit evidence, very few allow civilians to access the footage. Miller said that evidence retention must be determined on a case-by-case basis. He said that a trial or appearance before a jury can take a lot of time. “You cannot decide what to do with evidence before the case is over. While I would be open to releasing footage to victims, if the case is one you are going to trial with, you cannot taint it by showing evidence before. “You don’t know what will be of value until the case is resolved.” The ACLU hopes that body-worn cameras can be used to increase trust between police departments, communities, and other benefits. Riley-Collins stated that body cameras offer a win-win situation for the police department as well as the communities they serve. “With good policies, recording encounters between police and civilians will promote officer accountability, deter misconduct on the part of the officer, and provide objective evidence which will help settle any civil complaints about the use of force.”