Police body cameras have only been a part of law enforcement for a few years now. The push for body cameras came after the death of Michael Brown in 2014. Brown supposedly reached for an officer’s firearm which resulted in his death, but had the officer been wearing a body camera, his death could have been more easily investigated. In the same year the federal government gave out millions of dollars in grants to police in multiple states for body cameras. This was the first push for an expansion of body camera use by police departments in the United States. Body cameras are now an important part of policing in America, and the response from both police and the community has been varied. These cameras will certainly affect the future of law enforcement throughout the country.
New Jersey police departments started issuing BWCs (Body-Worn Cameras) around 2015. They issued the cameras to, “promote accountability of both police and civilians, to enhance evidence collection, and to reduce the number and cost of citizen complaints and internal affairs investigations”(NJ.Gov). But these cameras are not cheap, and the state required some help with funds for the cameras. New Jersey has acquired federal grants to purchase cameras for State Troopers and to disperse amongst different townships’ departments. Local departments are also being funded through criminal forfeiture funds. As many as 37 departments have been awarded federal grants to purchase BWCs. New Jersey does not require body cameras to be worn, and the decision is ultimately left up to the acting supervisor. With these cameras came a new set of regulations that governed the use of them. These cameras required different rules than dash cams that are equipped in every police cruiser. These regulations cover the activation and deactivation of cameras, and the logging and retention of the footage. The regulations also require departements to train officers on the use of BWCs and the state’s laws concerning them. This ensures a more successful and effective use of BWCs. When coming up with the policies for the body-worn cameras, it was important to specify when and where camera use is necessary, and the times in which they are unnecessary or simply not allowed. This is all due to privacy concerns and also helps protect citizens’ rights. The main reason this all came about started in Ferguson, Missouri.
In August of 2014, Officer Darren Wilson of the Ferguson Police Department shot and killed 18-year-old Michael Brown, who was unarmed. The death was very controversial but Wilson was eventually dismissed of all charges as it was considered self-defense. An official report of the investigation states, “Wilson stated that he feared Brown would again assault him because of Brown’s conduct at the SUV and because as Brown moved toward him, Wilson saw Brown reach his right hand under his t-shirt into what appeared to be his waistband” (Justice.Gov). Brown attempted to disarm Officer Wilson while in his SUV, resulting in Wilson shooting him in his hand. Brown then began to flee but turned around and came after Wilson who claimed he was reaching for a possible weapon and therefore shot and killed Brown. This is the controversial issue as there is no evidence that Brown was reaching for his waistband, and he was clearly unarmed. Although many argue that Brown was a threat to Wilson without a weapon, Wilson may have been able to use non-lethal force had he known Brown was unarmed. Yet, his death sparked outrage and many did not believe Officer Wilson’s account, which is why the push for body cameras was seen throughout the country. Not only would a body camera prove whether or not Brown was reaching for his waistband, it would have told the truth behind the entire confrontation from start to end. Following his death the federal government began their funding for the cameras and many departments pushed for them as well to defend not only their own officers, but the citizens in their communities. Police departments use them in hope of preventing another Michael Brown incident and to prove whether an officer is guilty of a crime or not. This has become a very important use of them, but they are equally important in defending officers from false claims of brutality. The film from the cameras are used in court in many cases and has been extremely successful so far in convicting criminals of their crimes. But the cameras themselves has sparked a debate and received mixed reviews from not only the officers who use them, but from the citizens who are filmed on them.
Privacy has long been a debate in the American public with the modern day use of technology to monitor citizens. Some fear these cameras are just another invasion of their privacy and simply do not agree with their use. Although there are regulations regarding when the cameras can be used and when they must be turned off, many people do not trust police officers to oblige by these rules. As stated by the Attorney General Law, “BWCs shall be activated only while in performance of official police duties” (State.NJ.US). This law means that cameras can only be activated while the police officer is on duty and is responding to a call, performing an investigation, or conducting community aide. Although this is just one general law restricting camera use, there are many more that prohibit their use in certain cases and for certain situations. Each state may also have different laws regarding camera use in their departments, but they are generally aimed to protect citizens’ privacies. With this being said, there has been some positive feedback from the public on BWCs. Many people generally feel safer and had better experiences with officers wearing cameras. A study in Rialto, California showed, “… significant reductions: use-of-force incidents were reduced by 87.5 percent and complaints were reduced by 59 percent” (Innovations.Harvard.Edu). This shows that police-encounters with citizens while wearing cameras had more positive outcomes. Police used significantly less force and had more than half of their complaints cut while wearing cameras. This is evidence that cameras restrict police officers from being too aggressive and this results in better interactions with citizens. Citizens not only feel safer, but have less complaints about officers and departments. Although citizens have had mixed feelings on cameras, officers have been more optimistic and accepting of them.
Many police officers feel safer as well with these cameras, and they have responded more positively than the public to them. In fact, some officers used their own cameras before being issued one by their department. Police officers feel safer due to the fact that they cannot be falsely accused of misconduct or brutality while wearing cameras. Not only this, but it saves police departments thousands of dollars annually with the complaint process. Camera footage can be used as evidence and expedites the process in which a complaint on a police officer or department is processed. This saves money for departments and valuable time for police officers. Although most officers prefer the benefits of the camera, some feel that it is an invasion of privacy too. A poll of 1,500 police officers asked what the biggest concern is with BWCs showed that, “33.7 percent of those polled answered ‘A lack of privacy for the officers wearing them,’ making it the most popular response” (PoliceOne). Officers may feel that they have no privacy while on duty with these cameras. But some may argue that police officers need to be completely transparent in their work. Although some police would prefer to keep their day-to-day interactions with people more private, it is ultimately up to their department to make that decision. With that said, most officers would prefer the use of cameras as it not only protects them, but keeps a “civilizing” effect on their interactions with people. For this reason it is expected to see cameras being required by every department across the nation, and will completely change the world of policing.
Although the American policing system has already seen major changes from BWCs since 2014, it should expect many more. Companies are constantly creating new technologies and devices for body cameras. Some examples are gun-mounted cameras, and cameras that activate only when a firearm is drawn from its holster. These new advances are certainly a sign of what will come in the future for police officers. It can be expected that body cameras will be required by every department in the future, and their use will be of the most importance. Cameras will be an everyday part of police officers’ lives. The effects of cameras have already been seen, but statistics will consistently change as the years come. In the future it can be expected to see lower police brutality rates and misconducts, and overall shootings by police officers. Lower complaints and generally better interactions can also be expected so long as officers are wearing these cameras. Overall, body-worn cameras will be an integral part of policing in America, and their effect will most likely be positive for both citizens and officers of the law.