Multnomah County Sheriff | Body-worn cameras
The programme is established by the agency's own published policy, which cites Oregon's body camera statute and an internal body-worn camera procedure. The procedure itself, and every number about the programme, is not published.
At a glance
- How we know the programme exists
- Published Agency Policy 1250.00 references "MCSO LE Division Operational Procedure 9.5 Body-Worn Cameras" and defines agency video devices to include body worn cameras [1]
- Governing statute
- ORS 133.741. The policy states MCSO "shall abide by all expectations and prohibitions set forth in ORS 133.741" [1]
- Who may review footage, and when
- Members, for reports, testimony, training and investigations. A member involved in a deadly force incident or under internal investigation has the option to view related video before giving a statement [1]
- A limit on supervisors
- "Supervisors shall not review video recordings for the sole purpose of discovering Agency policy violations, except as permitted within this policy" [1]
- Camera count
- not stated in any published document [1]
- Vendor
- not stated in any published document [1]
- Retention of footage
- the review policy defers recording and retention to "additional MCSO policy and division procedure", and Operational Procedure 9.5 is not in the public tree [1]
How it happened
- Context
Oregon writes the statute the policy binds itself to
ORS 133.741 requires a law enforcement agency using body cameras to adopt policies and procedures for the recordings. The section credit in the 2025 Oregon Revised Statutes dates it to 2015. [2]
- Context
The programme, as visible from the published manual
The whole 119-document public manual was read. The video review policy governs who may watch recordings and cites the internal body-worn camera procedure; no published document carries a camera count, a vendor, or a retention period. [1]
Established by reference
The Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office does not publish a body-worn camera policy. It publishes a video review policy whose reference list names one:
MCSO LE Division Operational Procedure 9.5 Body-Worn Cameras
That reference, in the agency’s own published manual, is how this page knows the programme exists. The same policy defines the devices it governs to include “stationary facility recording devices and body worn cameras”, and binds the office to ORS 133.741, the Oregon statute requiring agencies that use body cameras to adopt policies for the recordings.
What the published half says
The review policy is about who may watch the footage, and it is specific. Members may review recordings when writing reports, preparing testimony, training, or conducting criminal or PREA investigations. Supervisors may review after uses of force and pursuits, when evaluating complaints, and to find training examples, but:
Supervisors shall not review video recordings for the sole purpose of discovering Agency policy violations, except as permitted within this policy.
And a member involved in a deadly force incident, or under internal investigation, “shall have the option and a reasonable opportunity to view video recordings related to that incident before giving a statement”, with legal or union representation present. Whatever one thinks of officers reviewing footage before giving statements, a practice civil liberties groups have long criticized, it is written down here in a public document rather than left to an unpublished procedure.
What the unpublished half holds
Everything quantitative. The review policy says recording and retention requirements live in “additional MCSO policy and division procedure”, and Operational Procedure 9.5 is not in the public tree. So the rules for watching footage are public while the rules for making and keeping it are not, and no published document says how many cameras exist or who supplies them. The procedure is first on this county’s records request list.
What we do not know
- The content of Operational Procedure 9.5: recording triggers, retention periods, and public release rules. It is referenced by published policy and is not itself published.
- How many cameras the office deploys, and whose.
What you can do
Show up
Systems like this one are approved by boards, councils and committees that meet in public. We have not yet confirmed where each of them meets in Multnomah County.
What we have documented in Multnomah County →Protect yourself
Practical steps to shrink your personal data trail. Our guides publish at launch; until then, EFF's Surveillance Self-Defense is the best starting point.
Surveillance Self-Defense →Sources
- 1.
- 2.
Get the digest
A regular digest of what changed in the world of surveillance: the counties we published, the devices that appeared on the map, and the public meetings where these decisions get made. We send it when there is enough to report.
One click to unsubscribe. What we do with your address is on the newsletter page.