Effects of Body Cameras
De’Aunjana’e Wise
Police body cameras also referred to as Body Worn Cameras are a type of camera that captures video footage and audio, worn mostly by police officers and other law enforcement members. The purpose of the body cameras is to justify officers use of force, protect the citizens and officers from being wrongly accused. The use of body cameras has recently increased after controversial deaths that involved officers using lethal force, leading to protests breaking out in Ferguson, MO after the death of Michael Brown, a teenager that was killed by an police officer. The police officer did not even get charged for the death of Brown and because of that many debates started on whether body cameras should have been present. Many people wonder whether it would have made of difference if we had gotten the chance to see the entire scene from the officer's body camera. The citizens want coverage of the police daily actions, so they can feel protected by the police and not fear them. The use of police body cameras could have positive effects on the police and its community by increasing their trust, protecting police officers and decreasing the amount of police misconduct.
The use of body cameras will enhance the relationship between the police and the community and decrease the amount of police misconduct. “There’s a lot of second guessing of law enforcement and public accusations of excessive force and improprieties,” stated Frank V. Rotondo, executive director of Georgia Association of Chiefs of Police. This will help put back the public confidence (Boone and Schneider 3). The use of body cameras have had positive effects in Valdosta, Ga. In Valdosta, GA a study was conducted by the Police Chief Brian Childress where he had equipped his officers with body cameras in 2009, and results included the complaints against police decreasing by more than 50% and the use of force went down dramatically (Boone and Schneider 6). Body cameras could actually decrease the police misconduct, including illegal arrest and detentions, individuals will be freer from privacy violations by law enforcement in public and private places (Thomas 200). The use of body cameras would decrease the actual and perceived level of police misconduct resulting in more public trust in law enforcement (Thomas 200). In many departments’ the body cameras program have led to a drop in the citizens’ complaints of misconduct. Greater levels of trust between the police departments and community leads to more effective policing and prevention of crime such as burglary and stalking.
The use of body cameras has had positive effects when capturing moments and clarifying the events that took place and clearing police officers of crimes and improves their reputation within the community (Gass 2). A recent incident that occurred in Cleveland, OH proves the benefits of the body cameras in ways which helps the law enforcement. During an incident that occurred on March 11 the body cameras showed the officers approaching the stairs to Theodore Johnson's apartment, who later on fired shoots at the officers striking Officer Muniz. The video also shows Muniz and other officers begging Johnson to put his gun down, before shooting at him. The footage caught on the body camera helped the grand jury determine that the four officers were justified in using lethal force against Johnson (Gass 3). With the Cleveland’s police reputation being damaged from the previous incident where 12 year old Tamir Rice, was shot by an officer for mistakenly having a gun, the release of the video could help lessen the amount of distrust of police. The video actually shows how the officers took drastic measures in their duty during the incident, according to Professor Burke, a former Maryland police officer.
Body cameras could actually decrease the police misconduct, including illegal arrest and detentions, individuals will be freer from privacy violations by law enforcement in public and private places (Thomas 200). The use of body cameras could prove lack of real cause for past searches and deter similar future conduct eliminating the presumption of police officers are trying to attack the community. It could also help with the privacy of individuals who have previously been victims of unlawful encounters by allowing them to have a sense of comfort (Thomas 200). In October 2012, Mesa police department had an one-year trial with the body cameras that includes 50 officers wearing Body Cameras and 50 not (Smykla, Crow, Crichlow and Snyder). The results included 60% fewer citizens complaints against officers wearing Body Cameras compared to the other officers without body cameras. There was 40% fewer complaints overall and 75% total fewer use of force incidents overall during the trial than they did the year prior when not using the body cameras. The officers without body cameras had three times more complaints than officers with body cameras.
Even though the use of body cameras could have positive effects it does have negative effects also. The use of body cameras could overstep the boundaries when capturing footage of the citizen's private life, causing privacy issues. Other effects could leave the officers with no accountability with the body-cameras footage, and the body cameras would not have an impact on the decrease of crime. There is no clear guidelines on obtaining the body camera footage. In Los Angeles, their police department’s policy requires that the officers review the footage before preparing a report (Thomas 194). The fear of unchecked privacy violations with the decisions left up to law enforcement creates a problem for the public. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a big supported of the LAPD Body Camera program, has been concerned that this would allow the officers “an opportunity to shape their accounts around what the recording showed.” This heightened the public's awareness of the use of body cameras because they are not guaranteed access to the footage. The uncertainty that the public will not have guaranteed access to the footage caused ACLU to withdraw their support from the LAPD’s Body Camera program. The use of body cameras means less privacy for others around the body camera including the officer who is wearing the camera. The person in an investigation may not be public during police encounter, so body cameras could record that individual in locations meant to be private. The person could say information about their personal life that could lead to embarrassment (Thomas 196).
The installment of body cameras could be expensive for the police department. The estimated cost of installing body cameras for all officers in Milwaukee, WI is the same amount as hiring 12 new police officers (Smykla, Crow, Crichlow and Snyder). In Atlanta, GA more police agencies are announcing plans to equip the police body cameras almost every week. Atlanta is expected to select a vendor to buy about 1,500 body cameras for about $2 million (Boone and Schneider 4). The cost of buying body cameras is not only expensive it is also cost about $300,000 for the storage of the footage. The body cameras would not be able to consistently capture footage from the officer's’ viewpoint. In Albuquerque Mary Hawkes was a 19 year old woman suspected of stealing a truck and was shot by Officer Jeremy Dear. The camera was not recording when he fired five shoots at Hawkes, leaving her dying along a handgun that he claimed she pointed at him before he fire (Timberg 1). There was three other officers who were on the scene but also missed the first, crucial moment. The video from the fourth camera was blurry while the fifth and sixth camera nothing at all showed up (Timberg 1). The controversy began when the idea why so many body cameras missed the incident. According to Reynaldo Chavez, a former Albuquerque police employee who was custodian of public records, he stated that “—it was a routine for officials to delete, alter or refuse to release footage because of political calculations.” This left the public wondering if the police could have tampered with the body camera’s footage. “Chavez had testified that three videos from the case showed signs of altercations and a possible deletion” (Timberg 1). This shows why a body camera can not always be reliable in every situation.
Even though the use of body cameras would invade the privacy of the citizens around the cameras it is the necessary price for desired increase in accountability and reduction in police misconduct, because the cameras would transfer the police interactions into a more public location (Thomas 195). Georgia’s has a major law on police body cameras, that goes into effect July 1. Senate Bill 94 allows officers to take their body cameras into private dwellings (Boone & Schneider 2). This will help set guidelines for the use of the body cameras. The implications of body cameras is considered to a Privacy-Privacy Tradeoff where a privacy interest affected by a certain policy looks different than the one most obviously implicated and the former may be overlooked because the impact is not as clear (Thomas 202). The use of body cameras may help decrease the amount of police misconduct in large urban cities where they can afford to install the body cameras, while it may increase in small town rural areas. The use of body cameras has tradeoffs causing them to be beneficial and harmful at different times. The change in the community towards police officers will gradually happen. Benefits would include a sense of security of one's person's’ home, and physical freedom; results from increase observation not physical intrusions (Thomas 203). Fearing what the police could do with the body cameras is an incomplete assessment of the privacy impact without involving the potential benefits that will happen over time (Thomas 203). Minimizing the harms and maximizing benefits is the most important goal of implication the use of body cameras. The Atlanta Police Department’s has a “special order” for the camera pilot programs that states “cameras should be turned on for vehicle and pedestrian stops and pursuits, traffic accidents, and during interviews of suspects, victims or witnesses” (Boone & Schneider 4). This is clear guidelines for the use of the body cameras. Valdosta Police Department began equipping officers with body cameras six years ago, the policy makes plain that “officers shall not tamper with, alter, erase, delete, attempt to override the (body camera) in any manner, or attempt to make repairs” (Boone & Schneider 4). This would help keep the footage caught on the body cameras accurate, all while protecting the citizens.
