Madison L. Wheatley
Mr. Jason Livingston
English IV Honors
17 October 2018
Body Cameras
The question currently striking America is who is watching the watchmen? Ever since the fatal Ferguson shooting of 18 year old Michael Brown on August 9th, 2014 the idea of Law Enforcement officers wearing body cameras has captivated the citizens of The United States. All that was left for a sturdy foundation on where to begin the case were eye-witness testimonies. There was camera footage from the store from which Michael Brown stole cigarillos but after Brown left the store there was no reliable evidence to aid the case. As Officer Wilson saw the potential suspect, he approached him the way he thought was most appropriate. He asked him to step to the sidewalk as Wilson was still in his patrol car. Some witnesses say that Brown listened to Wilsons orders while other witnesses say that he took off running which made Wilson have to pursue the chase on foot. In reality, none of that matters because we will ever know what actually happened. Body cameras have helped and acted as evidence in many cases since they have been implemented and will continue to do so. For reasons of enhanced customer service, citizen satisfaction, and accountability, all uniformed law enforcement officers should be required to wear a body camera.
One of the many advantages of body cameras is enhanced customer service. Body cameras record live footage of the interaction between the officer and whoever they might encounter throughout their day. This implements another “set of eyes” in the field. Body cameras might catch details that could otherwise go unnoticed. Body cameras could also be the balancing factor in determining whether the officer or the victim is telling the truth.
Often, a civilian and a police officer will have different accounts of what happened. A video can tip the balance where we have to show that the evidence supports one version over another. This independent verification benefits all parties. Over the last five years, on average, the CCRB was able to substantiate police misconduct with video at twice the rate of misconduct without video — 18.6% compared to 9.3%. (Wiley, Time.com)
Details and segments of the footage may be studied at length for a different approach at what actually happened and how to decide and act on a correct and appropriate punishment. If the interaction between the officer and suspect happens quickly and the officer is unable to get a good look at the suspect then the officer can easily go back through his/her body camera footage and the suspect can be identified and captured faster. Still Shots and/or segments of the video clips can be publicized to help in identification of unidentified perpetrators. According to RCFP, 26 states in the United States have passed a law regarding public access to body-worn camera footage (www.rcfp.org).
Body Cameras aid to Law Enforcement by helping facilitate better investigations. Officers may review their body camera footage before documenting an incident so they don’t forget key points in the interaction and it can be documented exactly as it occured. Details of the interaction from the officer or the suspect may be unclear or not very reliable. Questioning the officer and the suspect might not be the most beneficial way of gathering evidence right after the incident occurred as their minds would be clouded and each side of the story might contain gaps or false information. All footage taken from the body camera can easily be used as a back bone of the evidence because it would always tell the truth. According to AmerQuarterly, “A video presents an unbiased account of the events. It has no motive to lie and no stake in the outcome. It merely records the event as it happens.” (www.americasquarterly.org) Investigators may use the video camera footage to see what actually happened during the encounter they are investigating instead of asking the officer, suspects or witnesses while not knowing who is telling the truth. Cameras could also be worn by the investigators going in to question the suspects so they would have the whole conversation recorded verbatim instead of just having to go based off the notes taken by the investigator. Statements can either be supported or proven wrong based on the footage.
Body camera footage provides audio and video recorded details for application for use during the court process. Footage can be used in criminal and civil court as proof of evidence to aid either or even both sides of the case. Even though getting footage to the point to where it is legally admissible in court takes a lot of time and hard work, it is worth it in the end as the footage would be the most reliable source of evidence to both the prosecution and the defense. If the plaintiff and or defendant are lacking evidence on their side they can request the body camera footage as part of their evidence.
Body cameras play a huge role in citizen satisfaction. Certain body cameras have a continuous background recording feature that allows the officer to go back in time and get footage that he/she might have missed or didn't have time to hit the record button. Pre-record captures the events leading up to a recording trigger being activated so vital pieces of an encounter will still be caught on tape. It also is vital in supporting or proving wrong allegations made by either the officer or the suspect. System administrators can make it to where Law Enforcement officers can only control certain capabilities so no unlawful changes could be made to the footage. “An authorized user can enter the desired start and stop point where an officer wasn’t able to press record and convert the buffered background video in that time window into a pre-event recording ready as evidence.” (watchguardvideo.com). Event pre-record has proven to be extremely useful in body cameras across the board.
Body cameras enhance citizen peace of mind during Law Enforcement encounters. Many members of the public support the idea of officers wearing body cameras as they believe officers will behave differently while their actions are being recorded. “Officers wearing body cameras will be less aggressive and more respectful when they interact with members of the community. They will also be more reluctant to use force unless it is necessary to protect themselves and the public.”(www.americasquarterly.org). Body cameras can easily build trust within a community. If the community is aware that all uniformed officers will be equipped with a body-worn camera the behavior coming from the officer and the citizen will be better as they know their actions are being recorded and can easily be used against them. A lot of funding is given to body-worn cameras as it brings the community closer and minimizes the amount of crime within the area.
For example, on September 21, 2015, the Department of Justice announced over $23 million in federal funding to support a BWC pilot program, which will support 73 local and tribal law-enforcement agencies in 32 states. In their press release, they noted that this was done as a “part of President Obama’s commitment to building trust and transparency between law enforcement and the communities they serve(www.ncsc.org).
Police Officers are less likely to use violence to solve the problem while they are being recorded because there is a possibility that other job could be put on the line. “Officers who were not equipped with cameras were twice as likely to use force as officers who were. Even more tellingly, when officers wore cameras, every incident of physical contact was initiated by a member of the public, but in the absence of cameras, 29 percent of the incidents involving physical force were initiated by the officer.”(www.americasquarterly.org). Since all footage is linked to a cloud there isn't anything hidden from administration which means that there is a greater chance that unprofessional behavior will be seen and handled in an appropriate manner. Officers are also very fond of body cameras because it reinforces their statements regarding their encounters with the public. Officers may be required to inform the citizen of the recording process and how it works. Citizens may feel more empowered if their encounter with the officer is being recorded. Citizens know that their defense is included in the footage and if they dispute with the officers testimony they can request access to the footage to be submitted for use of evidence in court. The footage may mitigate the suspects actions or explain why certain actions occurred the way they did.
Citizens have often professed stories about rogue officers and accused them of actions that never actually happened. If a citizen accuses a cop of starting the fight or agging it on and there is no witness or proof then it simply the citizens word against the officers. If a body camera is worn by the officer then he can show everyone what actually happened and he is not guilty of the actions he is being accused of. “No longer will a person be able to claim that a police officer punched or kicked him without cause, when in fact it was that person who initiated the encounter by threatening or attacking the police officer.”(www.americasquarterly.org). If the officer does happen to be in the wrong then citizens may feel that more officers will be terminated and prosecuted for their inappropriate actions because everyone can see what happened.
Body cameras play a huge role in accountability for officers as well as citizens. The footage must be secured so tampering of the footage doesn't happen. Body camera legitimacy is monitored and watched closely so unauthorized personnel cannot hack in and edit or delete parts of or whole videos. All footage is stored and secured by dual authentication in a giant cloud that holds all footage taken that has not been deleted by persons with authority. “That footage is now stored on a sophisticated cloud computing system that lets police manage digital evidence and hosts more hours of video than Netflix has available to stream.” (Gelles). According to the Brennan Center For Justice, video footage is kept anywhere from 45 days to 2 months (www.brennancenter.org). Video storage is not cheap so footage taken on body cameras that does not contain an interaction with the public is not as likely to be stored as long as footage from an interaction in which somebody was incarcerated.
Body cameras also play a very important role in the citizen complaint process. Most body camera footage has corroborated citizen complaints and aided in court cases. Footage has supported administrative decisions regarding officer actions. If a citizen or potential suspect has placed blame on the officer, administration can easily go back on the film and see what actually happened. If the appointed blame on the officer has been proven otherwise then the footage can be used to the aid of the officer in court. The footage will either go in favor of the officer or the suspect.
Body cameras are the number one thing officers have to turn to when a false accusation is being placed on an officer. Officers need to be protected and the only way to ensure that is possible is to implement body cameras. Citizen complaints can be supported or proven wrong if there is footage of the interaction. Citizens can be invited in to review the footage if they are falsely accusing the officer. Rapid disposition of foolish complaints improves officer morale. If body camera footage was recorded they can prove the accusation wrong very quickly and the officer won't have to go home at night worrying if his/her job is on the line. Videos taken from the body camera footage can be released to the public to reinforce the public’s trust with the local Police Department.
In conclusion, body cameras have created a whole new approach to evidence and they have helped Law Enforcement officers as well as the public more than we ever knew possible. Body cameras capture the events exactly how they happened and the footage can never lie, therefore, for reasons of enhanced customer service, citizen satisfaction, and accountability, all uniformed law enforcement officers should be required to wear a body camera.
Works Cited
“Access to Police Body-Worn Camera Video.” Access to Police Body-Worn Camera Video | Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 10 July 2015, www.rcfp.org/bodycams.
AmerQuarterly. “Will the Widespread Use of Body Cameras Improve Police Accountability? Yes.” In the Americas | Americas Quarterly, www.americasquarterly.org/content/yes-people-behave-differently-when-theyre-being-watched.
Body Worn Cameras and the Current State of the Law Regarding Lost or Destroyed Evidence, www.ncsc.org/sitecore/content/microsites/trends/home/Monthly-Trends-Articles/2016/Body-Worn-Cameras.aspx
Frosch, Dan, and Zusha Elinson. "Cities Face Dilemma Over Police Cameras." Wall Street Journal, 08 Mar. 2016, pp. A.1. SIRS Issues Researcher, https://sks-sirs-com.proxy084.nclive.org.
Gelles, David. "Company Known for its Stun Guns Corners the Market for Police Body.." New York Times, 14 Jul. 2016, pp. B.1. SIRS Issues Researcher, https://sks-sirs-com.proxy084.nclive.org.
Kaste, Martin. “Should The Police Control Their Own Body Camera Footage?” NPR, NPR, 25 May 2017, www.npr.org/2017/05/25/529905669/should-the-police-control-their-own-body-camera-footage.
Kindy, Kimberly, and Julie Tate. "Police Withhold Videos Despite Vows of Transparency." Washington Post, 11 Oct. 2015, pp. A.1. SIRS Issues Researcher, https://sks-sirs-com.proxy084.nclive.org.
Police Body Camera Policies: Retention and Release | Brennan Center for Justice, 3 Aug. 2016, www.brennancenter.org/analysis/police-body-camera-policies-retention-and-release.
“Record-After-the-Fact, Pre-Event Recording Software.” WatchGuard Video, watchguardvideo.com/software/record-after-the-fact.
The Tylt. “Should Police Officers Be Required to Wear Body Cameras?” The Tylt, thetylt.com/politics/should-police-officers-be-required-to-wear-body-cameras-2.
Wiley, Maya. “Police Brutality: Body Cameras Help Citizens and Police.” Time, Time, 9 May 2017, time.com/4771417/jordan-edwards-body-cameras-police/.