Why did video released by RPD omit 20 seconds after police shot a fleeing man?
People in Rochester continue to ask: What happened to the missing 20 seconds of body-worn footage when Rochester Police shot Todd Novick in the back?
Officer Daniel Celiberti shot Novick as he ran away on Murray Street on Christmas Eve, a split second after Novick took a BB gun from his pocket and dropped it. The homeless man had lived on the streets for years. Police were questioning him on the sidewalk when he ran.
Investigations into police shootings are often a long and tedious process. Questions may go unanswered and accountability can, at times, feel elusive. And 20 seconds of missing body-worn cam footage is all it takes for some to question transparency.
The New York Attorney General’s office released an extended version of the body-worn cam footage captured by the officer who shot and killed Todd Novick on Christmas Eve. The last 20 seconds of that video shows Novick’s comments to police after he was shot, along with officers handcuffing Novick, and then checking the handcuffs twice.
"I was trying to put it down," Novick said while on the ground. "I'm sorry."
Rochester Police originally cut that footage before they released their version. It was a different choice than authorities made in cases like the death of Daniel Prude at the hands of Rochester Police.
Why?
The Longer Video: Watch the AG release of the shooting footage
Why did RPD cut 20 seconds out of a police shooting video?
So, what happened to these missing 20 seconds that were left out of the video released by Rochester police?
In a City Council committee meeting held earlier this month, councilmembers raised questions about discrepancies between the video released by RPD and the AG’s office.
Councilmember Stanley Martin said, “The one RPD released was cut, edited to exclude certain audio, slowed down at times and highlighted to emphasize the department's assertions about the incident.” She then directed her question to Rochester Police Chief David Smith to ask whose decision it was to leave out the last 20 seconds and why.
Chief Smith differentiated the two videos by explaining that the footage RPD released was a "Critical Incident Video," which is what they put together and release to the public for any critical incidents where the footage will be released. “A critical incident video is when, like you said, we do slow things down,” Smith responded. “Sometimes we may cut out or bleep out profanity, officers' names, things like that.”
The missing 20 seconds did not contain profanity or officers' names. Instead, it showed officers cuffing a dying man they had shot in the back and then checking his cuffs twice to make sure they were locked. It does not show them checking his wounds or giving first aid.
The video released from the AG’s office, Smith explains, was the raw body-worn camera footage, which was made available for City Councilmembers, the Mayor and the Attorney General’s office.
It was his decision, Smith said, to cut out those last 20 seconds that we see in the extended footage from the AG’s office. “Quite honestly, I could not bring myself to put the last 20 seconds of this man’s life up for public view on the internet and YouTube out of respect for the family,” Smith said. “And that’s why the video ended where it did.”
Councilmember Martin followed up on this by stating that Novick’s friends and family feel that the way the footage was released by Rochester Police lacked transparency, contradicting the chief’s intentions to withhold those last 20 seconds out of respect for the family.
She then asked the chief why he made a statement that someone running away with a gun is not fleeing, but trying to get a better tactical position, when he knew those last 20 seconds showed Novick saying he was trying to put the gun down.
“Knowing there’s a clear issue of fact, what you believe versus what was actually stated by the man who was killed before he died,” Martin said. “Why wasn’t that information also presented? Do you see how to us and the public, this presents an issue?”
Smith responded by saying that it is up to the Attorney General to decide on justification in this case. “The fact remains, whatever Mr. Novick’s intent was, he was running with a gun in his hand and my statement remains accurate,” Smith said.
When Martin tried to get a clearer answer, City Counsel stepped in to say they want to hold off on questions like these in public meetings due to the possibility of litigation in this case.
Why did the Attorney General’s office decide to show these final 20 seconds?
According to the Attorney General’s office, their policy on the release of body-worn cam footage states:
“OSI will release body-worn camera and dashboard camera footage obtained during an investigation, over which we have jurisdiction, in a timely manner, when permissible by law. OSI will not wait until the completion of an investigation to release the footage.
The footage may be redacted or withheld, as appropriate, to do the following and other actions:
Ensure privacy (interiors of residences or other private spaces, location of domestic-violence programs or shelters, intimate images, images of an individual receiving medical attention, images of documents containing personal identifying information)
Comply with federal, state, or local laws
Protect confidential sources or witnesses
Protect a person's right to a fair trial
Protect the identities of victims of sex crimes and domestic violence
Protect the privacy, life or safety of any person
Avoid undue trauma due to explicit or graphic content
Protect the identities of minors
Before releasing any camera footage, OSI will give at least 24 hours' notice, when possible, to the following parties:
A known family member or next of kin of the deceased
Legal counsel for the family or next of kin
The police department involved in the incident
Any other known entities investigating the incident
As this case is still under investigation, the AG’s office says they cannot provide details on what occurred after the extended video stops, so it is unclear when or if Rochester police administered medical aid and when emergency services arrived on the scene.
Weighing transparency, accountability when a lawsuit may happen
Back in the City Council Committee meeting, Councilmember Martin expressed her feelings on the importance of the public’s interest in transparency and accountability even in cases with possible litigation.
She directed her final questions to Mayor Malik Evans and asked about his role in the decision to cut out the final 20 seconds in the footage released by Rochester Police.
Mayor Evans said he is open to having continuous conversations on deciding what and what not to show in these circumstances.
“I go both ways because it’s out there forever,” he said. “And it could be a teachable moment later for people to see or it might be seen as a macabre scene, so I think that’s the conversation that I’m very happy to engage in.”
Councilmember Martin finalized her thoughts by asking for an independent agency, like the PAB, to be the one to release body-worn cam footage like this going forward to maintain transparency for the public.
Go Deeper: Rochester area police killings: 13 people dead since Daniel Prude
— Madison Scott is a recent college graduate who is an intern with the Democrat and Chronicle. She has an interest in how the system helps or doesn't help families with missing loved ones. She can be reached at MDScott@gannett.com. Tell her if you have a good history book recommendation, especially about the Rochester region.
This article originally appeared on Rochester Democrat and Chronicle: Why did video released by RPD omit 20 seconds after police shot a man?
