King County Sheriff | Body-worn and in-car cameras
Both halves on the record: the council's 2023 ordinance and the Sheriff's policy for the department-issued Axon cameras, with a quarterly audit of randomly selected recordings.
At a glance
- The ordinance
- Proposed Ordinance 2023-0366, "relating to body worn cameras for the King County sheriff's office"; committee vote 6-0 on 22 November 2023; enacted 12 December 2023 as Ordinance 19718 [2]
- The policy
- General Orders Manual 14.01, Body Worn Cameras/In-Car Video (dated 10/24): department-issued equipment; "Members who have been issued a BWC shall wear the camera while on duty" [1]
- The vendor
- Axon, named in the policy as the camera system that randomly selects audit recordings [1]
- Oversight in the policy
- A video review team audits 25 recordings per quarter, selected randomly by the system, and may not review recordings outside the random selection [1]
- State law
- RCW 10.109 requires deploying agencies to adopt policies for the cameras; RCW 42.56.240(14) sets a 60-day retention floor for recordings and governs their disclosure [3]
How it happened
- Decision
The council enacts the ordinance
After a first reading in October, a 6-0 committee recommendation on 22 November, and a one-week deferral, the council enacts substitute ordinance 2023-0366.2 as Ordinance 19718. [2]
- Context
The current policy edition
GOM 14.01 (dated 10/24) governs the program: issuance, mandatory wear on duty and on off-duty work, recording notifications consistent with Washington's all-party consent law, and the quarterly random audit. [1]
Both halves of the paper
A body camera program has two documents that matter: the legislature’s decision to fund it and the agency’s rules for running it. King County publishes both. The council’s Ordinance 19718, enacted 12 December 2023 after a unanimous committee recommendation, is the funding half. The Sheriff’s GOM 14.01, public in the full General Orders Manual, is the rules half: cameras are department-issued, deputies issued one wear it on duty and on off-duty work, and recording notifications follow Washington’s all-party consent law, which is stricter about audio than most states.
The policy’s audit clause is the detail worth knowing. A video review team audits twenty-five recordings each quarter, and the recordings are selected randomly by the camera system itself, Axon’s platform, with the team barred from reviewing recordings outside the random selection. That is a structural answer to the question of selective review, and it is in the public policy rather than in a memo a records request would have to find.
What state law adds
RCW 10.109 is why a policy must exist at all: Washington requires any deploying agency to adopt one. RCW 42.56.240(14) then governs the recordings: a 60-day retention floor, privacy presumptions for footage from homes and medical settings, and request requirements that make a named person, case number, or officer the price of disclosure. What the county’s own paper does not show is the Axon contract itself, which is in the drafted records request.
What we do not know
- The Axon agreement behind the program, and its cost; in the drafted records request.
- The retention schedule applied in the Axon evidence system beyond the 60-day statutory floor.
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 King County.
What we have documented in King 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.
- 3.
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.