Introduction
It is easy to sense the tension and unrest between law enforcement and the general public in today’s day and age. Social media and news networks have been frenzied over the tragic stories like the shooting of Michael Brown, the death of Eric Garner and other similar accounts. Both of these high-profile deaths by police officers have provoked a national uprise asking for greater police accountability and above all, a stop to these senseless deaths. Police officers and their associated departments have been put on the hot-seat being accused of murder and racism. With the media focusing on the horrific reports of these killings with emphasis on police brutality and protests by groups like “Black Lives Matter,” the country has been looking for answers. The media plays an important role in people’s lives by informing them of information and setting political agendas on what people should be hearing (Kaiser, 2014). The highest recommended remedy to this contentious and extremely debated issue, body-cameras for police officers. There has been a recent push to enact body cameras in police departments across the country with hope to accurately capture what really happens in police/civilian interactions. In December of 2014, former President Obama asked Congress to allocate $75 million towards supplying and training officers with this technology in support of the body cameras movement (Bakardjiev, 2015). Implementation of police body cameras can be a controversial issue, however, the benefits of this technology outweigh the drawbacks when used properly. By enforcing the mandatory use of body cameras for all on duty police officers, relations between police and their communities will improve by restoring good behavior in altercations, police department transparency will increase by eliminating police misconduct and body cameras will provide evidence against false allegations toward police.
Definition of Body Cameras
Similar to dashboard cameras, body cameras are the latest policing tool used in order to capture on duty altercations between officers and civilians. As Lawrence (2015) states in the North Dakota Law Review, “body cameras are small recording devices…which record the officer’s actions and conversations with members of the public” (p.615). The implementation of body cameras can be effective tools in strengthening community trust, increasing police department transparency and fighting crime by keeping an eye on law enforcement to decrease the claims on police brutality. Policing has adapted to new technology changes throughout the years with the application of computers, DNA analysis, polygraphs and other advancements much like the new use of body cameras. By understanding and using this technology effectively, police departments and the general public will realize the extreme benefits that come from body camera implementation.
Benefits to Body Cameras
The first step in rebuilding trust within the general public is improving relationships between police officers and the communities they protect. One important factor of democracy is cooperation within a country; one of the most important collaborations is between law enforcement and citizens (Schmitter, 1991). Supplying law enforcement with body cameras will assist officers in fighting crime which in return will make their job a little easier to ensure better interactions and safer cities. The use of body-cameras has generated national attention and support to facilitate better policing and improve relations between officers and civilians. Body-cameras have the potential to change law enforcement as a whole by providing detailed conversations, body gestures, injuries and other valuable factors that can be useful in an investigation. The full range of officer/civilian interactions can be examined by the use of body cameras. There is already evidence supporting video footage recorded by on-duty officers. Dashboard cameras in patrol cars have already provided us with detailed accounts of how effective and helpful video footage can be, especially when “he said, she said” encounters need to be resolved. Not only can the footage be helpful, it is reported that the use of body cameras actually improves behavior by officers and civilians. Both parties tend to behave better, complaints decrease and there is a reduction in use of force incidents while body cameras are in use. Over a 12-month period in the Rialto Police Department, a study was conducted observing the effects of body cameras. As Jennings (2014) explains in the Journal of Criminal Justice, findings of this study show a “59% reduction in the use of force incidents and an 87.5% reduction in citizen complaints” compared to officers who did not wear body cameras (p.550). It was also noted that behavior on both sides of the interaction was better when officers wore body cameras. Officers have also stated that body cameras have helped with evidence collection as well as writing reports and reviewing their own actions (Jennings, 2015). Body cameras are a significant and valued tool that benefit civilians and law enforcement and should be implemented in departments nationwide.
Body cameras have the possibility of becoming a resourceful instrument in training and educating future officers. Not only can video footage be used to determine controversial cases or in judicial proceedings, the material can be used in training other officers in police departments. This benefit to body cameras goes further than its original intent and can lead to better policing as a result. This process goes further than helping law enforcement, but it benefits the public as well. By being able to watch footage in response to various situations, current officers are able to educate other officers through their experiences. New officers will be able to be monitored through the collection and observation of body camera footage. Body cameras benefits exceed initial expectations of strictly supervising officers, it can demonstrate the right and wrong way of policing.
Over the last couple years, transparency within police departments has taken a hit due to influential media and news. Police departments have been trying to balance pursuing justice with the public’s interest in transparency. This issue of transparency happens “whenever one group has power over another, like law enforcement over the public, there is bound to be a certain level of distrust” as explained in the North Dakota Law Review (Lawrence, 2015, p.614). With the controversial and tragic deaths previously discussed, there has been a noticeable lack of trust in police departments. An increase in police accountability and transparency has been a rallying force behind the push for the adoption of body cameras. If an officer is required to wear a body camera, they will be more cognizant of their words and actions, potentially resulting in using less for in some instances. With this intense level of monitoring police action, transparency and trust in law enforcement should improve with the implementation of mandatory body cameras.
Along with the other benefits, body cameras can provide substantial and crucial evidence for investigations that will ultimately improve judicial efficiency. There are three broad goals that come along with the adoption of body cameras from a legal perspective which includes gathering impartial evidence, obtaining more convictions and guilty pleas and more efficient proceedings (Bakardjiev, 2015). By having these goals in mind, video footage is extremely persuasive evidence that can be collected from body cameras. According to a Harvard Law Review (2015), “footage from body cameras may help both prosecutors and defense attorneys by providing objective evidence relating to whether a confession was voluntary, a search was consented to or justified, or physical description matched a lookout” (p.1803). It is also confirmed by prosecutors that video evidence improves their ability to prosecute a case, making an even greater argument for body cameras. Video footage from body cameras has the power to do more than improving judicial efficiency, it can expose officer misconduct when it happens and help civilians who have been falsely accused of committing a crime.
Body cameras would be just as beneficial to police departments as they are to civilians by providing evidence against false allegations toward officers. Hundreds of complaints are filed against police departments every year from various allegations of discrimination or excessive use-of-force. The growing anxiety the public faces over police abuse has negatively impacted many departments, with these tensions affecting their jobs in the communities (Harvard Law Review, 2015). Not only would body cameras cut down on use-of-force incidents, it will also reduce the number of complaints police departments receive. Many departments in the United States have found that after they have implemented mandatory body cameras programs, claims and complaints against their department have significant decreased (Lawrence, 2015). This results in police departments saving a copious amount of time and money by adoption this new technology. With body cameras being worn by officers and recording altercations, it will make it harder to press charges and questionable allegations against officers, resulting in a reduction of civilian complaints.
Drawbacks to Body-Cameras
The biggest concern associated with the implementation of body cameras is privacy. Although body cameras have the potential to be very helpful, the risk of decreased privacy is a fear to many. During interactions between officers and civilians, personal information is released that is not meant to be heard by others or relayed through the media. While body cameras are recording, the privacy interests of other people are in danger that are not directly involved in the altercation. Many bystanders will be captured by recordings in both public and private settings by body cameras, which is a certain threat to privacy. The controversial issue that has been the focal point of discussion is whether the benefits of body cameras to promote police accountability will be able to balance with the lack of privacy that may occur in some instances. With the adoption of body cameras, stronger privacy policies are being promoted to ensure safety and reduce risks. Stated in the Surveillance & Society journal, colleagues Mateescu, Rosenblat and Boyd (2016) explain that, “crafting better policies on body-worn cameras has been one of the primary avenues for balancing the right of public access with the need to protect against this technology’s invasive aspects” (p.122). With media becoming a growing, impactful part of society, the potential for body camera footage to be leaked is very high and extremely dangerous. However, even weighing the threats of body cameras to privacy, there is still a large demand for the use of this technology. The American Civil Liberties Union has been an advocate in support of body cameras programs and in leading privacy approaches and policy recommendations (Thomas, 2017, p.2). With their endorsement, the ACLU supports caution, explaining that the implementation of body cameras must come with the right privacy policies. Many other parties, including most citizens and law enforcement, agree with enforcing mandatory body cameras for officers. With defined guidelines and restrictions in place, body cameras can be a valuable part of policing.
Along with the concerns about privacy come the restrictions in many states that enact open recording and consent to recording laws. To fit into privacy policies, police departments must also figure out how to comply adoption of body cameras to comply with state and local consent laws. With difference laws in different states, it can cause confusion when trying to implement legislation for body cameras. The federal government differs from state and local government when it comes down to the implementation of laws and legislation (Saffell, 2008). The big issue in this case, is if an officer becomes involved in an altercation and captures footage on the body cameras, evidence might not be admissible in court because footage was improperly obtained by not receiving permission to record (Lawrence, 2015). Although these restrictions are difficult barrier to work through, many police departments already have steady communications about what policies must be in place. Body cameras benefits continue to outweigh the drawbacks inhibiting the progression of mandatory body camera use by law enforcement.
Another constraint against the implementation of body cameras is the costs and technological issues that come with adopting them. The price of one body-camera is roughly $500-$900, depending on model and features (Bakardjiev, 2015). This hefty price is relatively inexpensive compared to the long-term costs associated with the training, editing, processing and primarily the expense of storing the technology. The price of storage fluctuates depending on various factors like number of cameras used, retention period of footage data, and when departments require officers to record non-stop throughout their shifts. As important as all these concerns are, most of them will be answered specifically when legislation and policies are created to implement body cameras. Variables like retention times, storage, officer training, editing, and processing are all small aspects that vary within department guidelines. The cost of buying cameras and purchasing storage will be worth it when body cameras do their job and increase trust within communities, police department transparency, and provide crucial evidence.
One of the most prevalent and overlooked drawback to body cameras is the reliability of footage and the possible scrutiny of officer decisions. The whole purpose to the implementation of body cameras is that footage will be clear and reliable when needed. If the quality is subpar and footage must be excluded for that reason, it undermines the reason of the technology. Another problem with relying on body cameras is because there is a vast difference between a camera lens and the human eye. Many officers are hesitant to solely rely on the abilities of body cameras due to the difference and the fear that civilians might scrutinized for split-second decisions. In tense situations, footage might be used to pick apart officers’ decisions using the benefit of hindsight (Lawrence, 2015). With the ability of videos to be rewound and slowed down, law enforcement has the potential of being judged by their actions and what should happen in a perfect situation. However, this concern comes down to the public knowing the limitations of video and the heightened ability of cameras to work efficiently through harsh conditions. Prior to the invention of dash-cams and body cameras, controversial altercations became a battle of he said, she said (Bakardjiev, 2015). Body cameras have the potential to offer an unbiased look into what exactly transpired between officers and civilians. This third party view of police/civilian interaction can change the way the country views and understand policing for good.
Conclusion
The use of body cameras could lead to massive changes in outcomes that occur today. If body cameras were implemented in August of 2014 in Ferguson, Missouri, times would be different now. Had Officer Wilson been wearing a body camera during the time of the altercation between him and Brown, the footage could have provided an objective account of what took place that afternoon. The benefits and possible outcomes that come from adopting body cameras are astronomical, that results in helping with the public’s reactions and improving relationships after incidents occur. Not only is the implementation of police body cameras agreed upon among most civilians, police officers are also highly supportive of this new technology. Officer buy-in is important to the potential of body cameras to be implemented. Law enforcement who are exceedingly favorable for body cameras can produce an effective implementation that could even enhance the tool past its original design (Jennings, 2014). Body cameras have the potential of benefitting law enforcement and the general public more than any technology has before. The wide range of support is undoubtable with 66% of cities in the United States have considered or have already implemented a body camera program within their department (Lawrence, 2015). With support for this cause on a rise, more people are pushing for the implementation of body cameras into police departments in their cities. By understanding that the benefits of body cameras outweigh the drawbacks, this country can begin restoring good relations between officers and their communities, increasing police department transparency and eliminating police misconduct by providing evidence through the implementation of body cameras.