County seeks public feedback on sheriff’s body-worn camera policy

Kirsten Wisniewski | November 18, 2025

The Cook County Sheriff’s Department will soon be joining the many law enforcement organizations across the state of Minnesota that require officers to use body-worn cameras while they are on duty. Before the program can be rolled out, however, the county is asking for public input on the policy that would govern the use of the cameras and how the footage would be handled.

The body-worn camera program is scheduled to launch officially on Jan. 1, 2026, if it is approved by the Cook County Board of Commissioners after the required public hearing scheduled for Nov. 25. In the meantime, the county is soliciting feedback on the policy.

Cook County Sheriff Pat Eliasen told WTIP that the county is not looking for public comment about whether the department should start using body cameras, as the plan to adopt their use is already in place. He said the county is looking for feedback specifically about the policy that defines when and how they would be used, and how video recordings would be stored and accessed. He said that since he initially presented a draft policy in February, he has been working with Cook County Attorney Jeanne Peterson to figure out the details needed for the policy.

What is covered by the policy

The policy defines for deputies what their responsibilities are for using a body-worn camera. This includes establishing parameters for when the camera should be on, and when it should not. Broadly, the policy would require deputies to keep their cameras on whenever responding to an incident or interacting with the public. The policy specifies that the camera also be worn in a prominent and visible location.

While some law enforcement agencies require officers to keep their body cameras on at all times, Eliasen said this policy would not require continuous filming. In part, this is because it would create an administrative burden if footage needed to be reviewed or redacted, to have such a large volume of tape.

There are also times when deputies will be required to have their body cameras off. This includes in spaces where privacy can be expected, like in locker rooms or bathrooms, unless the deputy is responding to an incident taking place in that location. The same restrictions would be applied to courtrooms. Deputies would also be instructed not to run their body cameras while on a break or doing personal activities.

The policy also includes considerations for personal privacy for those who may be victims of a crime. The policy reads, “When responding to a place where individuals have an expectation of privacy (e.g., private residences, medical or mental health facilities, restrooms) or to a sensitive situation (e.g., individuals partially or fully unclothed), members are permitted to mute or deactivate their BWC if it reasonably appears that the privacy concern outweighs any legitimate agency interest in recording the event.”

The privacy of anonymous reporters, confidential informants, and undercover deputies is also protected in the policy. Eliasen said that, unless responding to a serious incident, deputies would also not use their body-worn cameras inside of schools, in order to protect the privacy of juveniles.

Beyond the question of when and where a recording can or should take place, the policy also addresses how the footage recorded should be stored and reviewed within the department, and how it could be accessed through data requests.

The policy lays out what types of situations would require a review of footage by department leadership, for instance, if a firearm was discharged during an incident. It also requires the regular review of body camera recordings by supervisors to ensure that the policy is being upheld.

When it comes to public access, the policy defines what type of footage should be redacted unless a court order requires it to be released without redaction. This includes footage captured inside private homes, schools, health care and social services centers, and other areas with restricted public access.

In a few specific cases, the policy also dictates what type of footage must be made public. This includes instances when force used by a member of law enforcement results in the death of an individual. The policy specifies that the video should be “redacted no more than what is required by law.” The sheriff would have the option to request that footage not be made public if it could compromise an ongoing investigation. However, the family of the deceased would be able to request to see the footage with as little redaction as possible.

Why body-worn cameras

Eliasen previously told WTIP about why he has advocated for the use of body cameras. He said that there are many benefits to a body camera program, including increased transparency within the department, improving accuracy and detail in officer reports, and the ability to review interactions between deputies and the public for training purposes.

Eliasen said that the only real downside he sees in launching the program is the future cost. He said that the initial investment in equipment cost about $5,000, but that technology updates and the price of data storage are areas where his department might see increased costs. Another potential future cost could come from staffing. Cook County has a small sheriff’s department, and if future data requests for footage are considerable, it could mean an increase in staff hours.

Despite the potential future costs, however, Eliasen said the program is important. “In our current climate, technology has become such a huge part of public safety and law enforcement that you there’s just no getting around it anymore,” he said. “You have to spend the money on technology or you’re basically, I hate even using this term, but you’re, you know, you’re back in the stone ages.”

He added that adopting this technology will keep the department in line with other departments across the state, allowing the county to remain connected to other law enforcement agencies and maintain the ability to work together. He said that he believes the benefits outweigh the costs.

For those looking to submit feedback about the policy, Eliasen said residents can contact him by e-mail at patrick.eliasen@co.cook.mn.us, in writing at Cook County Sheriff’s Office 143 Gunflint Trail, Grand Marais, Minnesota 55604, or by calling the sheriff’s department at 218-387-3030.

WTIP’s Kirsten Wisniewski spoke with Cook County Sheriff Pat Eliasen about the proposed policy and public comment period. Audio of that interview can be found below.