Body Cameras and Law Enforcement
Tiffin University
Jordan Mayr
April 20, 2016
Abstract
Excessive use of force by police officers is an issue of growing international concern, and both academics and practitioners are interested in it. Police officers always risk tarnishing their relationship with the public every time they exercise power, whether it is unnecessary, excessive, or justified. Complaints against the police are costly both economically and socially, and thus, officer’s misconduct must be checked. This paper will explain the impact of body-worn-cameras as a measure to reduce complaints against police personnel by citizens due to use-of-force and offer improvements for their justice delivery.
Introduction
Police body-worn cameras have received widespread media coverage in recent years. The stakeholders involved hope to achieve several goals by using these devices such as enhancing police transparency and legitimacy, improving evidence capture by police officers and increasing the rates of prosecution. The increased publicity of these body-worn cameras leads some people to assume that they can correct `flawed’ police practices. In 2013, a Manhattan Federal District Court ruled that officers of a New York Police Department precinct that had the highest number of stop-and-frisk cases to wear body-worn-cameras so as to prevent racial profiling. Also, the College of Policing in Wales and England pointed out that body-worn cameras were a mechanism that could restore “dented public image” (BBC, 10/24/2013).
These "on-officer recording frameworks" (additionally called "body cams" or "cop cams") are little, pager-sized cameras clipped to an officer's sunglasses or uniform or worn as a headset, and record sound and video of the officer's engagement with citizens.
Despite the fact that people, for the most part, take a conservative perspective on the increase in reconnaissance cameras in public, police body-worn cameras are distinctive due to their capability to serve as a countermeasure against the misuse of force by cops. Before their introduction, there was no concrete proof of most experiences between cops and the general population, and because of the unpredictable way of those experiences, this regularly brought about fundamentally unique records of episodes. Cameras can be a win-win, securing the general population against unfortunate police behavior, and in the meantime ensuring police against bogus allegations of misuse.
The public is against pervasive government reconnaissance, yet when body-worn cameras mainly serve the capacity of permitting open checking of the administration, citizens view that as something worth being thankful for. People contradict government surveillance of open spots, for instance, they hail the establishment of camcorders on squad car dashboards, in detainment facilities, and during police interrogations. However, body-worn cameras are more likely to than these other deployments.
The test of on-officer cameras is the pressure between their capability of privacy invasion and their substantial advantage in advancing police responsibility. However, deploying these devices within the framework of strong policies will ensure that they protect the public while decreasing the potential of being used as another routine public surveillance system. The result will be a win-win for all as such framework would ensure that their accountability benefits do not exceed the privacy risks involved.
Body-worn cameras are a vital innovation that yields imperative values that conflicting sometimes. To understand their long-term implications, one must first carefully watch their deployment. The current thinking and the recommendations for the technology and deployment of these devices are outlined below. However, these recommendations and ideas are subject to change.
Control over recordings
Strategies and innovation must be created to guarantee that police cannot "alter on the fly" — i.e., pick which experiences to record and what not to record. If police are allowed to choose when to turn the body-worn cameras on, the cameras' part in checking police use-of-force will become insignificant, and they will no longer be able to achieve their net advantage. When one considers the accountability perspective, the perfect arrangement for body-worn cameras would be a nonstop recording of all activities during an officer's shift. Such strategies will eliminate the possibility of an officer evading to record abuses committed while on duty. The approach has its challenges, however, as it will result to impinging on officers even when they are in the station house or discussing precinct politics. The police officers will feel stressed and oppressed by this continuous recording because in theory, although they are not regular employees and have extraordinary powers, their privacy needs to be protected. The technology might also be misused by their superiors to target union activists or whistleblowers as it is easy to look for minor violations in the recordings and use that against an officer.
An ideal balance of strategies can ensure that police officers cannot manipulate what is recorded, and also, protect the officer from constant monitoring. One such possibility is to develop some form of automatic triggering mechanism that will minimize the recordings and capture fraught encounters only. In this perspective, recording process will kick in when some pre-determined events take place, for example if some types of movements or raised voices are detected. The same policy is used on dashboard cameras that are configured to start recording whenever the car’s lights or sirens are turned on. However, the concept is not easy to apply on body-worn cameras because they lack an equivalent of sirens. Moreover, since there does not exist any artificial intelligence that is advanced enough to decide the encounters worthy of recording reliably, this option is not realizable with today’s technology.
The police department has no choice but to place the body-worn cameras under officers’ control. A possible solution to the possibility of an agent manipulating the footage is to introduce firm policies that mandate all officers to turn on their cameras whenever interacting with the public. Tough laws must be put enacted to ensure all officers comply with these policies. For example, any officer who has been issued with a camera but fails to record encounters without a justifiable reason for the failure should face tough disciplinary action. Another plausible measure would be to stipulate that any officer who is wearing a camera and is accused of misconduct in any instance but fails to record that incident, the officer would be presumed guilt.
Restricting the danger to security from body-worn cameras
Most of the exchange around police recording has concentrated on its oversight potential. In any case, that is just one of the many issues involved in recording. Similarly critical are the protection interests and reasonable trial privileges of people recorded by these cameras. Preferably there would be an approach to minimize information accumulation to just what is sensibly required. However, there's right now no mechanical approach to doing so.
Police body cameras imply that numerous occurrences of totally pure conduct (on both officers and people in general) will be recorded, with tremendous protection suggestions. One of the most alarming facts is that a few recordings will take place inside individuals' homes every time police officers enter — including when consent has been granted, and such things as aggressive behavior at home calls. Regarding dashboard cameras, we have likewise seen video of specific episodes discharged for no essential open reason, and rather serving just to humiliate people. Illustrations have included DUI stops of big names and conventional people whose intoxicated and/or troubled conduct has been doing rounds on the web. Body-worn cameras significantly expand the potential for release of such humiliating and titillating videos.
In this manner, it is fundamental that any use of these cameras be guided by massive security arrangements so that attacks on privacy do not exceed the advantages of the innovation. The vital components of such an approach include
Notification to residents
Most security insurances will need to originate from confinements on the retention and utilization of the recordings. There are, in any case, two or three things that should be possible during recording.
Recording ought to be constrained to officers dressed formally and in marked police vehicles, so individuals comprehend what's in store. Officers ought to be required, wherever practicable, to tell individuals that they are being recorded (like existing law for dashboard cameras in a few states, for example, Washington). One probability authorities should seriously think about is for officers to wear an effectively unmistakable label that points out to the recording. Although if the former approaches are appropriately designed, it ought not to be conceivable, it is particularly vital that the cameras not be utilized to accumulate surreptitiously insight data taking into account the First Amendment that protects speech, affiliations, or religion.
Recording in the home
Police recordings made inside private homes are naturally intrusive, and thus, officers ought to be required to give specifically clear notice of a camera when entering a home, except some circumstances, for example, crisis or assault. Police authorities may likewise consider a strategy under which officers approach inhabitants and ask them whether they wish to be recorded or not before they enter a home in non-critical circumstances, and those requests and subsequent response should be filed.
Retention
Data ought to be held no more than would normally be appropriate for the reason for which it was gathered. In most encounters between police and the public, there is no good reason to safeguard video proof, and those recordings ought to be erased as soon as possible.
Utilization of Recordings
Body-worn cameras must focus on the end goal of police responsibility and oversight. It is crucial that this innovation does not turn into a secondary passage for any methodical surveillance or following of the general population. Records will be made, and thus, the police should be liable to solid standards around how they are utilized. The utilization of recordings ought to be permitted just in inner and outer examinations of misconduct, and where the police have sensible suspicion that a recording contains proof of wrongdoing.
Subject Access
People recorded by body-worn cameras ought to have admittance to, and the privilege to make duplicates of, those recordings, for however long the administration, keeps up duplicates of them. That ought to likewise apply to exposure to an outsider if the subject assents, or to criminal protection legal counselors looking for evidence.
Great innovative controls
It is imperative that close consideration is paid to the frameworks that handle the video information produced by these cameras. • Systems ought to be designed to guarantee that parts of the video cannot be removed. An officer or division that has occupied with misuse or other wrongdoing will have a substantial motivating force to obliterate proof of that wrongdoing, so innovation frameworks ought to be intended to guarantee no tampering with such video occurs. All entrance to video records ought to be consequently recorded with changeless review logs. Systems ought to ensure that information maintenance and obliteration schedules are kept appropriately. It is likewise critical for frameworks be designed to ensure that video is only retrieved when allowed by the strategies portrayed above and that there are no malicious duplicates made.
Conclusion
As police powers around the world embrace body-worn cameras, research ought to be done to measure their effects. Fitting police forces with cameras will create a vast volume of video footage and raises numerous dubious issues, but if the recording, access, maintenance, use, and the technological policies outlined above are followed, these devices will provide vital protection against abuse by police.
References
Ariel, B., Farrar, W., & Sutherland, A. (2014). The Effect of Police Body-Worn Cameras on Use of Force and Citizens’ Complaints Against the Police: A Randomized Controlled Trial (1st ed., pp. 509-535). New York: Springer Science Business Media.
Harris, D. (2016). PICTURE THIS: BODY WORN VIDEO DEVICES (“HEAD CAMS”) AS TOOLS FOR ENSURING FOURTH AMENDMENT COMPLIANCE BY POLICE (1st ed., pp. 357-371). Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: University of Pittsburgh School of Law. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1596901
Stanley, J. (2013). Police Body-Mounted Cameras: With Right Policies in Place, a Win For All (1st ed.). ACLU.
Katz, Charles M., David E. Choate, Justin R. Ready, & Lidia Nuňo. (2014). Evaluating the Impact of Officer Worn Body Cameras in the Phoenix Police Department. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Violence Prevention & Community Safety, Arizona State University. CONSIDERING POLICE BODY CAMERAS. (2015). Harvard Law Review, 128(6), 1794
1817.
Dawes, D., Heegaard, W., Brave, M., Paetow, G., Weston, B., & Ho, J. (2015). Body-Worn
Cameras Improve Law Enforcement Officer Report Writing Accuracy. Journal Of Law
Enforcement, 4(6), 1-21.
Elliott, V., & Kurtenbach, M. (2015). Cops and body-worn cameras: lessons learned from
Phoenix's deployment of body-worn cameras. Public Management, (10), 6.
FREUND, K. (2015). When Cameras Are Rolling: Privacy Implications of Body-Mounted
Cameras on Police. Columbia Journal Of Law & Social Problems, 49(1), 91-133.
NEWCOMBE, T. (2015). FOR THE RECORD: UNDERSTANDING THE TECHNOLOGY
BEHIND BODY WORN CAMERAS. Government Technology, 28(6), 29-40.
RATHS, D. (2015). The Disruption Pipeline. Government Technology, 28(5), 20-24.
Williams, R. (2015). Police body cams: is a video worth more than a thousand words?. State
Legislatures, (10), 16.