A police union attorney says there has to be mutual consent between the union and the Kauai Police Department on the implementation of body-worn cameras due to the complexity of the equipment.

But a Kauai County deputy attorney contends the cameras fall under management rights, by which the police chief merely needs to “meet and confer” with the union on the new gear.

Attorneys of the State of Hawaii Organization of Police Officers and Kauai County presented opposing views before the Hawaii Labor Relations Board on Thursday on the police department’s recent implementation of the program. The department started distributing Axon Flex body cameras to patrol officers in December.

The Labor Relations Board could take one or two months to reach a decision, according to Chairman Kerry Komatsubara. He declined to comment further on the matter.

At the hearing, general counsel Norman Kato, representing SHOPO, said the body-worn cameras require mutual consent because the equipment is more complex than standard personal police equipment, which requires only the approval of the chief.

“It’s a game changer. It’s a paradigm shift in policing itself,” he said. “The legal, social and political ramifi- cations are inextricably bound to body-worn camera systems and they are far too serious a matter for them to be considered as ordinary personal police equipment like a pair of handcuffs, a holster or a hat.”

Kauai Deputy County Attorney Adam Roversi, representing the police department, said a body-worn camera is a piece of technology subject to management rights under state law.

Also, SHOPO has never asserted that mutual consent was required for the adoption of any other equipment or technology, he said.

At the hearing, Police Chief Darryl Perry testified that the department has never encountered “resistance” from the police union for other equipment such as Tasers with built-in cameras. Perry said the body-worn cameras promote accountability and assists officers with accuracy in legal proceedings.