Body Cameras Should Not Be Protected From Legal Cases

Body cameras can hold police officers accountable for their actions, both the good and the bad. “Continuously wearing body cameras would hold police accountable for their appropriate, and inappropriate, conduct” (Buam). Also when the citizens make accusations they could pull the video from the camera and see whether the police officer did what they said they did or not. “Video recorded by body cams protect any false accusations, misconduct, or abuse

The social media and the public might want police body cam footage release but sometimes it might be to graphic or controversial. Police body cameras have been a topic since the incident with Michael Brown in august of 2014. Police shot and killed an unarmed individual in ferguson, MO, leading to many people wanting cameras on police. Whether the cameras are a good idea or not this paper will explore the facts and sides of police body cameras. Overall body cameras should be required Because they can save the lives of the innocent, keep innocent people from going to jail, and can help a case as more evidence.

Police Brutality is a big issue in America. There has been many cases in which the Police Officer is put into question. Body Cameras have already been used in other states and it has proven that it reduces Police Brutality. On October 18, Corey Jones a musician was killed by a Palm Beach Garden’s Officer. Corey Jones was having trouble with his car so, he called his brother to come pick him up. The Police Officer didn’t have a body camera nor a police dashboard camera in his vehicle. He was was wearing a baseball cap, T-shirt, and jeans. He was driving in an unmarked 15-passenger van. There were no witnesses at the scene just the Police Officer and Corey Jones.The use of body cameras may invade the public or police privacy, but it helps more in cases because it provides evidence, reveals officers’ behavior, and protects the public as well as officers.

Much interest in the technology of the body cameras comes from a growing problem that the United States has been having a major problem with police violence. Though some might argue that the wearing of body cameras violate privacy, in fact the use of the cameras will minimize violence, show accountability, and a human side of policing. These body cameras would help serve by providing video evidence that can be referenced and use anytime allegations are made against police officers and criminals alike. The use of these body cameras are somewhat in the evaluation and study stages, but they are quickly becoming the standard in some police departments across the United States. These cameras would not only serve to provide video evidence, but it provide accountability. The ideal policy for the cams is that they stay on and continue recording throughout police officers shifts, which would help eliminate any possibility of doing something that would not be used as evidence later on and help them evade the recording of abuse committed while on duty.

A man walks down a road, and is confronted by a police officer wearing a body worn camera. The man and the officer exchange words, and soon after a physical altercation ensues. According to the man’s statement, the officer was out of line, assaulted him, and his privacy was violated by the use of the camera. The officer’s statement, however, said that he was trying to question the man about being intoxicated and the usage of vulgar language, when the subject then began threatening him and ultimately began the attack on him; the officer continued to state he used the minimum amount of force necessary to minimize the threat. The man was ultimately convicted by the video evidence. Police officers feel that wearing body worn cameras will provide all the necessary evidence in any given situation, and protect them from public scrutiny, while the public believes that their privacy is being violated, and at too high of a financial cost. Police officers and public citizens must each concede to find the truth.

Within recent years there has been much controversy surrounding police officers and whether or not they should be wearing body cameras to document their everyday interactions with the public. While the use of body cameras may seem to invade the public or police privacy. Police-worn body cameras will be beneficial to law enforcement and civilians all over the world. Police must be equipped with body cameras to alleviate any doubt in the effectiveness of officers. Law enforcement worn body cameras would enhance the trust of the public by keeping both the officers and the citizens accountable for their actions, providing evidence, and helping protect them from false accusations, while protecting privacy

First advantage in law enforcement agents wearing body cameras is to hold the officers accountable. “Holding the officers accountable, will ensure the officer adheres to policies and procedures during an encounter with victims and suspects.” Body-worn cameras are poised to help boost accountability for law enforcement and citizens and, unlike many new police technologies, the cameras share preliminary support from both law enforcement and social justice groups. Successful implementation of the cameras will require careful policies that respect and protect both the police and the public.

Police officers should have to be required to wear body cameras to ensure the safety of the citizens and to provide evidence for a court case. Many times the police have gotten away with too many things and commit crimes that go unnoticed It’s time we put a stop to that and we make a change. With the use of body cameras that police force would be more trustworthy, they wouldn’t commit crimes, and they would be able to supply the court with undisputable evidence.

Across the country a growing number of legislative departments have been debating about the pros and cons of police body cameras. This paper will further explore benefits, as well as the downfalls of using such devices. This paper will also look at specific cases and examine whether or not body cameras were helpful in various situations. It will examine if they were a deterrent in cases dealing with police brutality and domestic violence. It also looks at how they could be misused and assisting some officers in covering up their corrupt behavior.

Body cameras in policing are still new, but more and more agencies are beginning to implement this technology into their line of work. At first police officers were very hesitant to wear these body cameras because they were afraid they would infringe themselves and give away their own privacy. Later, as body cameras were beginning to see more use in the work place, officers began to realize that these very own body cameras that they once thought would only cause themselves harm would actual prove to be useful in a variety of situations. Some of these situations can be citizen complaints, to even backing up an officers use of force. Body cameras can be the one sole thing that can give

Body cameras are proven to make policemen act better while they’re are on duty. “Police officers "tend to behave a little better"(Kon, Body Cameras for Police Officers). if they know their behavior is being recorded on camera” stated author Tsin Yen Kon. Police will act better cause they know they are being “watched”. Just like when a student has a parent to sit in their class, they act very well, police do the same. Police will also act right, because they don’t want to lose their jobs or get fired because some careless mistake that they made while on camera. “When police officers are acutely aware that their behavior is being monitored (because they turn on the cameras), and when officers tell citizens that the cameras are recording their behavior, everyone behaves better” (Knickerbocker). Brad Knickerbocker, the author, explains how both sides of the camera, police, and criminal will have an effect on their behavior because they know that they are being watched, and recorded. When people know they are being watched, it is like they get scared, because they don't want anything to be used against them. Although cameras will make police act better, people will still think that police brutality will still happen.

Rialto, California is an example of a city with positive results from the use of body-cameras. In Rialto, police began wearing body-cameras a little less than three years ago. As a result of officers wearing body-cameras, citizens’ complaints against police officers dropped 88 percent and use of force by police officers dropped 60 percent from the previous 12 month period when body-cameras were not in use. Rialto’s police chief said, “When you put a camera on a police officer, they tend to behave a little better, follow the rules a little better. And if the citizen knows the officer is wearing a camera, chances are the citizen will behave a little better” (Lovett).

The body camera has become a popular choice amongst police departments worldwide. The situation of the scenario, and if the officer or suspect acted in the right can be determined from past footage. The cause of the body camera has been the allegations against officers for how they acted in certain situations, as well as for how the suspect acted during the callout. The effect has been officers being terminated due to lack of integrity or situational awareness, as well as officer safety. Suspects have also been convicted of false accusations against a police officer, as well as crimes presented in court, from fights, to officer involved shootings. The body worn camera has benefited both police officers and the general public.

Stories of presumed police misconduct have been surfacing in America in the last couple of years, sparking many debates and speculations on the true causes of these situations. Many blame the officers in these encounters, forcing them to face repercussions for crimes they did not commit. Alternatively, in some situations, the officer is guilty, but public outcries in favor of the police protect them from any consequences. Regardless of the situation, there is a great bias concerning law enforcement in this country. Recently, people have begun advocating for body cameras on police officers to provide the public with accurate records of all police encounters so that no false claims could be made against the officers. Body cameras on policemen should be necessary for the safety and comfort of our citizens, as well as for our officers, for regaining the public’s trust, and for maintaining an honest law enforcement system.

There are three main points supporters argue in this debate of why police should be mandated to wear body cameras. First, supporters state that police body cameras can help solve police brutality. The first police department in the United States to implement police body cameras was in Rialto, California, and according to Al Jazeera America, "The department saw an 88 percent decline in complaints against officers and use of force incidents plummeted to 60 percent" (Demetrius and Okwu 2). These supporters think if we were to implement police body cameras for all police departments in the United States, then these effects on police brutality could be attained nationwide. Second, supporters believe that body cameras will punish corrupt police