Lawmakers, DNR debate statutory requirement for conservation officer body cameras as agency rolls out program

Representative Markkanen introduced a bill to require Michigan Department of Natural Resources conservation officers to wear and activate body‑worn cameras, saying the policy would increase transparency, accountability and safety.

“Body cameras for Michigan's conservation officers are best practice,” Representative Markkanen told the committee, urging statutory language to ensure the practice endures across administrations.

Why it matters: supporters said body‑worn cameras could prevent or resolve disputes between officers and private citizens; DNR leaders said the department already planned and funded a program and cautioned that a narrowly written statute could create operational and fiscal problems.

Chief Jason Haines of the DNR law enforcement division described the department’s program history and rollout. Haines said initial research began in early 2019, a pilot started in 2021, the program was paused during pending legislation, reactivated in 2022 and funding secured in fiscal years 2023 and 2024. He said a full rollout began in November 2024 and the final two field districts (Upper Peninsula districts 1 and 2) would be fully equipped within weeks.

Haines said the DNR developed a body‑worn camera policy aligned with Michigan’s Law Enforcement Body Worn Camera Privacy Act. The policy specifies that officers “shall wear and activate their body worn camera” when they anticipate stops, pursuits, emergency vehicle operations or routine regulatory contacts, but it includes limited, defined exceptions — for example, in medical facilities or when delivering death notifications. Haines said supervisors perform monthly random reviews to verify compliance and provide performance feedback.

The DNR expressed concerns about a statutory mandate as written. Haines said the bill’s language could require cameras for staff performing purely administrative duties in private settings and that the bill as introduced lacked exceptions and funding to cover additional hardware, data storage and personnel. “There are no exceptions provided for in this bill as it is written now,” Haines said, and he noted the bill singles out one agency while other agencies that have chosen not to equip officers would not be affected.

Supporters countered that statutory language would prevent future directors from rescinding camera requirements. Representative Markkanen said he wanted to “enshrine” the practice in statute so it survives changes in administration. Committee members discussed potential amendments; Chief Haines said he would review amendments and urged flexibility to accommodate operational nuances and funding realities.

Testimony from private witnesses also addressed cameras. Dan Harrington and others told the committee they believed cameras would protect landowners and officers in disputed encounters. Harrington described repeated DNR presence on his property that he said undermined trust; when asked whether cameras would have improved security, Harrington said “Absolutely.”

The committee did not take a vote on a body‑camera bill during the hearing. Lawmakers and DNR representatives agreed to review possible amendments to address funding, exceptions and cross‑agency consistency.

Ending: the DNR said it supports body‑worn cameras in practice and had already implemented a funded rollout; department officials asked the committee to consider targeted statutory language that preserves necessary operational flexibility and ensures funding for data storage and administration.