Body Worn Cameras

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.

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

On August 5, 2014, five days prior to Michael Brown’s death, John Crawford III was fatally shot by police officers in an Ohio Walmart aisle. At the site of Crawford’s shooting, there were two hundred surveillance cameras, many showing him holding a toy gun, him on his cell phone, and other details of his death. After receiving a call from Ronald Richie, another patron, police officers responded to the scene with loaded guns and without any de-escalation fatally shot Crawford. Likewise with many other African American shootings by the police, the grand jury also failed to indict the officers who shot Crawford. Crawford’s outcome demonstrates one reason to be skeptical about the Police CAMERA Act because although there are high-quality camera footages police officers are still not getting indicted and these violent acts are still ongoing. However, as stated previously, body-worn cameras creates a sense of “self-awareness” in police officers than any other video capturing device can. According to the University of Cambridge’s Institute of Criminology, though Crawford’s death is a “miscarriage of justice, the filming itself by bystander or any form would not generate the self-awareness and consequent behavior modification during the incident.” Dr. Barak Ariel, a member of the Rialto Study from the Cambridge Institution of Criminology, explained that the body-worn camera present a ‘preventative treatment’ that carry a straightforward, pragmatic message that everyone is being watched, videotaped, and are expected to follow the

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.

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

The history of police use-of-force is rooted to the rising concerns of citizens world-wide. Power by police has consequently developed hatred, unnecessary use of force, and tarnish relationships with the community. Complaints against the police derives from police misconduct, which creates a burden socially and economically. Recently body worn cameras by police has received substantial amount of media coverage. Body worn cameras are meant to reduce complaints, excessive use of force, and improving evidence capture by the police.

The issue of police body cameras really hit the media hard this week. Blasting from the headlines all citizens were aware that Michael Brown was fatally shot in Ferguson, Missouri. This prompted officers to become equipped with body cameras. This technologically advanced world that we live in today has created a world of tweeting, posting and uploading. It’s about time that police departments take advantage of the tools accessible to them especially with the advancement of equipment. The move forward in technology will help to alleviate speculation on any crime perpetrated. There now will be hard factual evidence on any crime committed against a police officer.

Over a thousand more deaths due to police brutality have occurred since the shooting of Michael Brown (“Stats”). These events caused the public to start questioning those who enforce the law. Some of these events were caught on tape by bystanders, which were

“In the first year after the camera 's introduction, the use of force by officers’ decline 60%, and citizens’ complaints against police fell 88%”. (Christopher Mims) The introduction of police body cameras impacted the world in many better ways than bad. But, police body cameras were introduced due to the public 's awareness to police brutality and numerous of publicity deaths which has impacted the outcome of police interactions.

In August 2013, Federal Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled that the stop-and-frisk techniques utilized by the New York Police Department (NYPD) violated the constitutional rights of minorities (Stanley). In her ruling, Judge Scheindlin admonished members of the NYPD for stopping people without any articulable reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Judge Scheindlin further opined that the majority of those stopped were males and from a minority population. In her 195-page ruling, Judge Scheindlin ordered the NYPD to begin testing body-worn camera systems for possible implementation. Fast forward one year to August 9th, 2014, when Michael Brown was shot and killed by Officer Daren Wilson of the Ferguson Police Department. This incident shocked the conscious of the American public and forced the conversation of body-worn cameras into the spotlight of American law enforcement tactics and practices. This conversation has centered on whether or not all law enforcement agencies should mandate the purchase and wearing of body-worn cameras for all officers. Are body-worn cameras a good idea or will this help to create an Orwellian environment (Eason)? Research shows that through the proper implementation of body-worn camera systems law enforcement encounters can become more professional while lowering the amount of force used.

Recently, there has been numerous accusations of police brutality, racism, and misconduct. In some cases the police have acted inappropriately as accused. However, in other cases, law enforcement officers have acted appropriately and followed regulations. But, it is hard to determine if an officer acted properly without actual video evidence. Of course, the officers word should be valued more than that of a criminal. But there are in fact some officers who misuse the law, attack racial minorities, or breach code. Therefore, it has become difficult to determine if an officer acted wrongly unless the officer is wearing a body camera. Likewise, the fact that an officer is wearing a body camera may make officers less likely to behave wrongly and

Our police forces have become center of attention in today’s media; whether it is the constant focus on officer-involved shootings, or the false accusations being made about our police officers and law enforcement agencies, it has raised concerns throughout America. In order to assure fairness to all, there is a new technology being implemented by many law enforcement agencies: The use of body-mounted cameras being worn on all on-duty officers. The benefits of this newly-founded technology are proving to be very promising. These cameras will protect our police officers, assist with many aspects of the investigation process, and most importantly, build good relations with the public. Some argue that these cameras

In 2014, Michael Brown, an African American teenager, was shot and killed by a police officer named Darren Wilson. However, he is not alone; many people have been hurt or killed by aggressive police officers in the past few years (Dudley 44). Because of this, many Americans are demanding body cameras for officers as a solution. Body cameras are small cameras that attach to an officer’s uniform and record everything that they do. Many people believe this will solve the problem with police officers and violence. However, after research, some are unsure (Dudley 43). Due to the ineffectiveness of body cameras to change behavior, differing perspectives and video bias, and privacy issues associated with them, body cameras should not be used in the police force.

Police brutality has been a prominent feature in the United States’ media for several decades. Tackling this issue is multifaceted, and certainly will not be easy. The argument is not focused on whether police brutality exists, rather what can be done to ensure that both public officers and citizens are equally protected in any encounters. One proposed solution is to require police officers to wear body cameras that record during interactions with the public, such as a traffic stop or responding to a call. Body worn cameras (BWCs) sound reasonable, but the literature on the topic presents mixed reviews.

The controversy surrounded by the use of body cameras is a growing cause that has taken over the United States in recent years. Civilians, to police officers, even the President of the United States are calling for police officers to be held accountable for their actions. The first option chosen is body cameras. While some would say, body cameras are an invasion of privacy. Cameras should be worn to show the public the human side of an officer and provide evidence when no witnesses are available. As well as show the human side of police officers. In the following paragraphs, I will show you that body cameras are very useful and they should be worn by all law enforcement officers while on duty.