The Burlington police union sued in state court Monday on behalf of Officer Cory Campbell to force city officials to hand over bodycam footage, surveillance video and other documents related to the altercation outside the University of Vermont Medical Center emergency department.
City officials denied the union’s record request earlier this month, saying it would interfere with an ongoing investigation by Vermont State Police into Campbell’s actions.
Campbell’s attorney, Rich Cassidy, contended in court filings that releasing the video would aid the investigation, not compromise it.
State police have sought to question Campbell.
“I cannot recommend that Officer Campbell voluntarily submit to an interview unless I first have an opportunity to review the video camera recording, in the presence of a qualified use of force instructor,” Cassidy wrote to the city attorney’s office in an April 3 email filed with the lawsuit.
Cassidy did not respond to a request for comment.
No laws or statewide policies in Vermont govern when to interview law enforcement officers who are involved in use-of-force investigations, Seven Days reported last year. Delays are common.
Kilburn was cited for assaulting Campbell on March 11. Police say Campbell punched back, injuring Kilburn, who was found dead at his New North End apartment three days later. Upon Kilburn’s death, Burlington police chief Brandon del Pozo asked state police to investigate.
The state’s chief medical examiner officer ruled Kilburn’s death a homicide, linking it to the altercation with Campbell. Del Pozo and Mayor Miro Weinberger privately questioned the autopsy findings and lobbied the governor’s office to delay its public release, Seven Days reported last week.
State officials rebuffed their attempts to intervene and warned them not to interfere with the state police investigation.
Del Pozo told Seven Days prior to the lawsuit’s filing that the state police had asked him not to provide the bodycam video to Campbell, and that he had complied. Del Pozo denied Campbell’s administrative appeal to release the records in a brief letter dated April 19. The chief wrote that any release of the video “is reasonably expected to interfere with the Vermont State Police investigation and any further enforcement proceedings.”
Del Pozo told Seven Days that his department typically does allow officers to review such video before giving a statement to investigators. State police, however, do not.
The practice has drawn scrutiny from groups including the ACLU, which argues that it taints officer testimony by allowing them to make sure their version of events matches what their bodycam captured.
Last year, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton issued a legal opinion that allows officers in that state to view any bodycam footage captured at the scene of officer-involved shootings before providing a statement.
Del Pozo’s response to Campbell did not specify how the video might interfere with the state police probe — an omission Campbell’s attorney is hoping to use to his advantage before Judge Helen Toor.
In court filings, Cassidy asked Toor to bar the police department and the city from providing additional explanation for their denials. Instead, he said, the case should be decided using only what city officials wrote in their earlier letters.
A hearing was set for April 29.
Read the complaint below:
Related Stories
Redacted: How the City of Burlington Keeps the Public in the Dark
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Del Pozo told Seven Days that his department typically does allow officers to review such video before giving a statement to investigators.
What happens if your local PD protects and serves their own officers before the citizens who hire them?
Why does an officer that was there need to view video of an incident he was a participant in before he can comment on it? Obviously, hes not planning to tell any more of the truth than he absolutely has to.
Maybe theres a reason this was classified as a homicide after all.
We wrote our own city’s policy as we did to be fair to our police officers and balance their rights with our expectations that they fully cooperate with investigations into their actions.
No person under investigation in America, guilty or innocent, is expected to make admissable statements until he has had the opportunity to review the government’s evidence and confer with counsel. At the same time, the public and the government expect police officers to be prompt, forthcoming and cooperative during questioning.
We feel we can’t fairly expect this of them unless we can afford them the same basic rights every other person has: to review the state’s evidence and confer with counsel, or to remain silent until they have done so.
This 2014 PERF/DoJ guide has also informed our policy:
http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/4…
Here is our policy; section IX addresses review of footage:
https://www.burlingtonvt.gov/sites/default…
Does the Burlington Police Department provide copies of all the evidence it has to a suspect before interviewing them? Do you let suspects review video before your detectives interview them? The comment of the chief is disingenuous at best. The US Supreme Court has repeatedly said it is okay for police to lie to suspects during interrogation. Lets see the BPD policy on interrogating suspects. Guarantee its different. I personally think the officer should be allowed to review the video. But the Chief should be forthright with his comments and not invoke the lie that they allow suspects to view video before seeking a statement. What say you Chief?
Section IX(D) clearly states if the officer is suspected of criminal or serious misconduct the department reserves the right to limit the BWC footage consistent with the officers legal rights. This seems to say that if you dont show it to a suspect before an interrogation then you dont show it to an officer. Another disingenuous statement by the Chief. Do you think people cant read your policy and comprehend it? The Medical Examiner, over your objections, ruled the death a homicide. You asked VSP to investigate. I think homicide qualifies as criminal conduct at least at the investigative stage. Dont you? So whats BPDs policy for regular citizens? Does the officer have a legal right to the video? If so, you seem to be violating that right by refusing to release it, at least to the officer. Every suspect interviewed or interrogated should be sure to ask for all the evidence and videos possessed by BPD. After all the Chief says they have a right to it.
TTMYGM, thanks for your questions.
Our policy, as required by law, is that if a person says he will not make a statement until he can discover the government’s evidence and confer with counsel, then we will cease questioning immediately.
If we do not show a suspect a video we have of his actions, and he declines to make statements as a result, that is his right. A person’s silence in such a case cannot be seen as prejudicial by the court.
I do not feel a police officer’s silence is likely to be viewed the same way. The public expects him to cooperate and make statements. And often they want to tell their side of the story, but they want to balance it with every person’s right to silence until they can review evidence and confer with counsel.
Chief, while we can agree to disagree, I do want to give credit where it is due. You responded to my comments and opening these topics for rational discussion is the first step. So I commend you for being responsive.
After this case is reviewed, investigated, tried and when deemed appropriate, the public may or may not be given the opportunity to see the footage. With the investigation ongoing, in my opinion, I feel that the footage should not be accessed/viewed by the public, until after the trial.
In my opinion Mr. Kilburn was wrong for punching the Officer, absolutely.
In my opinion at the moment of time when the Officer made the choice and the decision to raise his fists, he was in the wrong. I also feel the Chief is in the wrong, even as he is commenting.
It amazes me that the police will fight tooth and nail to prevent taxpayers from seeing body cam footage that they don’t want seen, but will fight just as hard to make sure that their own officers under investigation get to see the footage that might incriminate them before talking to investigators about the incident in question.
The double standard is below what we should expect from public servants being paid out of our (ridiculously high) tax dollars.
Decided to sue? What a lib-tard move. I hope this disgraceful man feels a little better about his ego, now that hes caused such a scene.
Critics say the practice of allowing police to review video evidence can taint officer testimony, though some departments, including Burlington’s, allow it. Vermont State Police policy does not.
https://m.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/man-who-…
Have any of you ever heard the term fight or flight. Of course the cop doesn’t remember . He was fighting for his life. I’m sure if he had several weeks to make a plan and react he might have done things differently. I’m sure the police department is hiring maybe you all should apply and try your luck. This coo had three seconds to react. Not to mention the criminal was evaluated and released from a level one trauma center. Who is to say he didn’t go home and fall down the stairs or something. Give this cop a chance.
Thin blue line of coverup…and 7Days calling this an altercation?? wtf ??
Mr Del Pozo stated what the department policy is, twice, but never stated what department practice is, which is often times much different.
He doesn’t answer the question, only parrots what their policy is. So much for honest transparency.
As for a police officer’s silence, it shouldn’t be viewed the same way. A police officer is a public servant, and as a public servant, he or she should be cooperative.
Does anyone else find it rather creepy – if not to say HIGHLY BIZARRE -that Chief del Pozo is so engaged in trying to control the public perception of the Burlington Police Department and his own persona that he is actually on this thread making public assertions? WHAT IS WITH THIS GUY? Piping in here does not reduce the glare of his tampering in the investigation but rather underscores the desperation with which he obsesses over his own public persona. He appears more and more unhinged AND UNQUALIFIED TO BE CHIEF on a daily basis. Was there not ANYONE in law enforcement within the borders of Vermont who could have taken the job and comport himself with integrity and professionalism rather than all this strange damage control dog and pony showmanship? Del Pozo is a notorious media slut. Commenting here does not exactly reduce that perception. WEIRD. Just wow….
If you’re going to slander a public official, Morris, at least have the guts to use your full name.
Del Pozo’s position, and his responses here, have been admirable. He’s been clear, articulate, rational and willing to stick his own neck out to defend his officers. Bravo, chief!
Despite Mr. Greenberg’s stance, it is not admirable for a Chief of Police to try to influence the findings of an autopsy report, and cover-up potential wrong doing by one of his officer’s. That may be admirable in a NYC environment, but not when police across the country are under a microscope for questionable actions.
Mr. Greenberg, you might be an ass kisser to Del Pozo but it’s clear that he is trying to hide something. Since he has become chief of police Burlington has gone down hill and his buddy Miro need to go back to New York where they fit in.