My best friend is more
than familiar with police officers. His father was a police officer in Anaheim,
California, and he is now training to become one himself. He once
jokingly commented that back when his dad was a police officer “police could
beat the crap out of anyone they wanted, leave them in a ditch, and take off.” Although
the comment was a joke, it does bear a lot of weight in today’s perception of
police officers and their public interactions.
For the past two years or so, police officers and their
credibility have been significantly scrutinized by the public. From incidents
in Maryland and Missouri especially, police forces and their authority have
been at the center of political and social debate. Amidst this scrutiny, body
cameras have increasingly become a hot topic. As of 2017, body
cameras have been implemented in 95% of the largest departments in the nation.
Benefits
There are plenty of benefits – and statistics – which show
that body cameras positively affect police behavior towards the public. For
example, a study was done in Mesa, Arizona, to determine that since the
implementation of police body cameras, there has been a 75% decrease in
use-of-force incidents, and a 40% reduction in public complaints about the
officers who wore cameras. Other studies have been taken to show that officers engage in less stop-and-frisks while wearing the cameras.
Essentially, police officers are held accountable for their actions, and cannot abuse or harm the public because they know they are being recorded.
Police officers, however, also
benefit from them. If someone makes a false claim of misconduct, they can provide
the evidence to protect themselves. This situation occurred in 2014 when a New
Mexico police officer arrested a woman in 2014. She accused him of sexual
misconduct, but the officer informed her that their entire interaction had been
recorded, and he was vindicated.
Concerns
One major concern is
cost. The cost of these cameras range anywhere from $200 to $2,000 per camera,
and then there are costs that accompany data collection and storage.
Of course, the largest concern is privacy.
Police body cameras record footage that is taken in private places like homes
and hospitals. Rape victims, children, grieving family members, and others, may be included in footage without their consent. When officers’ actions are called into question, the footage is exposed
to the public, and so many different individuals’ privacy is exposed. Some blur
the faces of those in the footage, but this often results in the inability to
accurately see what takes place in the footage. If a ruling is made that bans footage from being released to the public, then this defeats the purpose of the body camera; therefore, privacy infringement is required.
Another aspect of this
privacy applies to police officers. Of course, those who become police officers
choose their occupation with the knowledge that their actions could be
intensely scrutinized, but there are certain situations that would merit
privacy for them. If they have no control over when they can turn their cameras
on and off, there is a chilling effect on their performance. They might not be
willing to confront an individual – even if that person’s actions are illegal –
out of fear that their footage will be exposed to the public and be potentially construed
against them. Additionally, I can sympathize with them because even though I don’t
do anything illegal or wrong at my job, I wouldn’t want my every action to be
potentially recorded and reviewed by my boss. Police officers may
want to speak with their partners about favoritism in the department for
example, or maybe they have a conversation about their personal life while on
duty.
If the police officers
have no control of when their cameras are turned off or on, they may also
record the public and store the recordings even when they are irrelevant to
investigations.
If police officers have
control of when they can turn their cameras on and off, this poses the issue
that they can choose when to film – or not film – and so could engage in
unfavorable activities towards the public.
The technology is also
imperfect. Even if the video is captured, the footage does not often show the
events in plain sight because the officer is hiding or protecting himself,
thereby leaving plenty of room for the public to misinterpret the footage.
Thoughts: Should police body cameras be implemented
nationwide, and should they have the ability to turn them on and off at their
own discretion?
I believe that police
body cameras should be implemented nationwide. Police officers should be required by law to
turn them on only when engaging in public interaction e.g. pulling over a
vehicle, initiating a stop-and-frisk, etc. I believe that this method
eliminates many threats to privacy for both the police officers and the public.
The technology should also be updated to show clear and accurate footage.
Body cameras - although infringing on privacy - will do the job of setting the record straight.
Other sources:
https://www.aclu.org/other/police-body-mounted-cameras-right-policies-place-win-all
http://blog.photoshelter.com/2016/07/alton-sterling-police-body-camera-7-fact-to-know/
I do agree that given the scope of what police officers do for their job, having some sort of monitoring could be good. I agree that body cameras should only need to be on when an officer is actually engaging in some sort of law enforcement action like pulling someone over. Having conversations of officers recorded when they are just patrolling seems excessive and invasive of the officers' privacy. I do think that any footage that is recorded by the police body cameras should not be readily available to the public. I think that only law enforcement and groups like review committees of police officers' actions should see the footage. This would help protect the privacy of both officers and of others caught on the film. I also think that the footage should be deleted after some period of time unless there is a reason like an ongoing investigation to keep the footage.
ReplyDeleteYou make a couple of very good points here. Police body cameras can be used for good, but they infringe on others' privacy in ways people usually don't consider when thinking about the issue. I had never, for example, thought about how much privacy infringement, on members of the public as well as officers, could go on just because an officer might have to leave the body camera on for the entire time he or she is on duty. I agree that having officers required by law to only record interactions with the public is probably the best compromise of public and privacy concerns.
ReplyDeleteI like your suggestion that officers should be required to use the cameras when they are acting in their law enforcement duties, but not otherwise. I think that the technology is just too useful to do away with all together, so I like how you have set specific boundaries for its use. I guess my only concern is, who will monitor the officers to ensure they comply with these guidelines? It seems like it would be pretty easy for an officer to write a ticket or what not without turning the camera on. Furthermore, what if a police officer has to act instantaneously (like in a shooting) and forgets to turn the camera on in the heat of the moment?
ReplyDeleteI do believe that implementing body camera policies nationwide would be beneficial for several reasons. It would help to build trust between communities and their law enforcement agencies. With the cost and quality of camera equipment as well as storage space becoming cheaper and more efficient in powers of 10 every year, I don't believe the cost should be too much of a concern. Especially weighed against costly trials brought against police officers in which there is little evidence.
ReplyDeleteI think Emily has some good points in regards to turning on the body cameras. I feel like they should just stay on. Officers don't turn on and off dash cams or license plate readers depending on the situation, they just remain on. Therefore, if our license plates and actions can be recorded at any moment the officer is on duty (and even if they aren't, given the proper circumstance) then I don't believe their actions should be selectively shown. Granted, their license plate readers aren't following our every move all day, but as we've discovered together, there are plenty of other devices that are.
All in all, I think body cameras are a win win. I think that more often than not police departments welcome body cameras, despite individual officers who will differ. Were it not so, "95% of the largest departments in the nation" wouldn't have implemented them by this point.
This is a very interesting subject and I think it can be argued well from both sides. I think that body cameras should be used. I think that the benefits outweigh the costs. To me, the ability to rightfully accuse someone is more important than an invasion of privacy of some people. While the invasion of people may cause problems, I think that using the ability to blur faces can be used appropriately. It would also hold both parties accountable. I think that there are many negative "what-ifs" that could be said to counter this argument but ultimately I think that being able to save someone from being falsely accused it would be worth it.
ReplyDeleteJessica...the blog post description asked you to specifically address whether police body cameras should be equipped with facial recognition technology. Please come to class on Monday prepared to opine on this question and explain your view.
ReplyDeleteGreat post, Jessica. Your suggestion of implementing body cameras nationwide is a good one. I do disagree with you on some things, though. I think that police body cameras should be on automatically, rather than allowing the officers to turn them off and on at will. The whole point of the cameras is to have an independent record of events, which isn't possible if the officers can turn off their body cameras.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the body cameras would probably hold law enforcement more accountable, due to the statistics you provided. I also think that the camera should probably stay on the entire time an officer is on duty because the point of them is to let them know that someone will see the footage at some point. The cameras are supposed to have a chilling effect, to remind officers that they will be held accountable for their actions. I am curious about how the information is/would be stored. The information recorded will be extremely sensitive in some cases (murder scenes, domestic violence, sexual assault, etc.) People's information such as where they live, who they live with, how they live, where they frequent, etc. will be recorded on the camera and linked to them. If this information got out at all, it could hurt people. Families of the victim(s) and the victim(s) themselves could be forced to relive the trauma if/when it gets into the public. Also, when videos are released to the public, anyone can know certain information included in the video about the person. In some cases, the recorded videos might be casting someone in a false light, such as the numerous videos already recorded of police-citizen confrontations on the internet. I can't think of an arrest or confrontation video involving law enforcement I've seen where the person beaten, shot, arrested or accused/confronted is not a person of color. In a horrible, roundabout way, that could potentially normalize criminalizing POC, casting people in a false light. So, if officers are racially biased, they may target POC. If their information is released, the majority of confrontations others will see are involving POC, potentially making them criminalize people of color in their minds as well. However, this is just a possibility I've been mulling in my mind. I think that it is good to record officers, especially now with the wave of ICE deportations and very obvious racial targeting. Maybe it's more important that everything a police officer does on duty is recorded and potentially made accessible to the public so that the officer's actions and targeting may be acknowledged, questioned and reformed if need be.
ReplyDelete