EDITORIAL: Anchorage police have a chance to make good on transparency promises

It was inevitable that a case would arrive to test the Anchorage Police Department’s commitment to transparency for body-worn camera footage — the only question was when. That question was answered last week, when officers responding to a 911 call shot Anchorage resident Kristopher Handy outside his West Anchorage apartment. The department said Handy had raised a gun he was carrying toward officers. But a home security camera video captured at the scene and posted online the next day doesn’t square with that version of events; although it showed Handy was agitated and carrying a gun, he did not appear to raise it toward officers in the moments before they opened fire.

This is exactly the kind of situation that body-worn cameras were intended for: an incident where police use deadly force and there are discrepancies between different witnesses’ versions of what happened. Capturing a more full record of events, particularly from the officers’ point of view, should help show whether the police response was a justifiable reaction to what they were seeing. But so far, the department has shied away from any commitment to release that video publicly, particularly in unedited form, a development we and others warned could happen without stronger rules about what happens to footage of such incidents.

And in the absence of more objective evidence to help establish a factual record, gossip and innuendo will always win the day. By refusing to commit to the footage’s release in unedited form, the department is handing its most ardent detractors free ammunition to insinuate that if police won’t show what their cameras captured, they must have something to hide. And even those inclined to support the department and its version of events are left to wonder why, if that’s what the footage shows, they wouldn’t share it to make clear that their officers did the right thing.

This is Anchorage’s first fatal use-of-force incident since the rollout of body-worn cameras where serious dispute exists over what transpired. As such, it’s an opportunity for new APD Chief Bianca Cross, Mayor-elect Suzanne LaFrance and the members of the Anchorage Assembly to make a strong commitment to transparency in their use of the technology. Chief Cross admitted that the security camera footage “appears to many to differ from the initial statement we provided regarding the event,” an honest admission of the discrepancies involved. She can build on that honest response by promptly releasing the relevant, unedited body-camera footage to help establish what happened.

The police department has said it won’t release footage publicly until its investigation is complete. While it’s understandable to establish a fuller picture so that evidence released piecemeal doesn’t unfairly prejudice residents’ view of what happened, the department also needs to understand that in the absence of that footage, residents aren’t inclined to withhold judgment for long, and the longer it takes to be released, the more other narratives are likely to gain credence in people’s minds. Also, police shouldn’t keep the investigation “open” longer than necessary as justification for withholding footage indefinitely. A public commitment now to release the full footage of the incident would go far to reassure residents that their trust in the department’s commitment to transparency is not misplaced.

As currently written, APD body camera policy provides substantial latitude for the department to delay, diminish or outright deny the release of footage to the public. The recent shooting underscores the vital importance of transparency in dealing with that footage.

Chief Cross’s statement warned that “It is easy to believe that video tells the entire story however that assumption is untrue. It’s important to remember that video does not capture many details to include what happened before the video was activated, what happened after the video was terminated, and what happened outside the view of the camera.”

All of that is true. But it’s also true that the video will give the public more information than it has — and that information is crucial to residents maintaining trust in their police when other evidence is already public that could jeopardize that trust. The incoming municipal administration should make sure it handles the footage release process fairly and transparently. In doing so, it can set a precedent that will safeguard Anchorage residents’ trust that body-worn cameras are an important and impartial tool, not just one that is only made public when it reinforces the official version of events.