Implementing Body Cameras Department Wide Face

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.

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

To peep or not to peep, that is the question being asked by many regarding police body cameras in communities. The topic of police brutality is a rising issue in today’s society. Several questions have arose over the use of police body cameras and whether they are a good or bad idea. Police body cameras have has a variety of concern to many communities regarding their potential. Every city has a different trust and relationship for their police force and these concerns vary depending on the community. People have the concern regarding privacy, protection, and impact on the community and more. After researching the problems caused by Police body cameras as well as its background, the current state of the issue, and the potential solutions, it is clear that communities need to bring a solution to this situation.Such as laws, policies, rules, and more to control this new information.

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.

Today, law enforcement agencies, or more specifically police officers, are under constant scrutiny from their peers as well as outside sources. Many of these problems arise from how the police treat and deal with these citizens. There is however a solution to these problems, which can not only improve officer safety, but can also protect anyone else that the officer encounters. The solution to this problem is officer mounted camera systems, or better known as body cameras. These body cameras capture almost everything an officer see’s as well as hears. This allows for protection against a police officer as well as protection for a citizen who was scrutinized for something he or she might have done or not. Body cameras are ever increasing in policing and have many benefit’s as well as draw backs.

Rialto, California has been the poster child for the implementation of body cameras to its

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).

These, however, are all easily solved. The expense of body cameras can be covered by cutting the funding for unnecessary, expensive weapons such as the third armored personnel carrier that Tampa, Florida recently purchased, or the weaponized drone that Montgomery County, Texas recently purchased. Aside from transferring funding, a solution has been found by the Los Angeles Police Department. They have decided that, as long as they have permission, the officers can use personal recording devices. The LAPD has also found solutions to the storage and recording requirement issues. The LAPD saves videos for at least 2 years unless they are relevant to a case. They allow recording in public places so long as they are not off duty or in plain clothes, but as soon as they are on private property they must turn off the recording device, and are not required to state that they are recording. The recordings are available to the LAPD, criminal investigators, lawyers, and prosecutors if they are requested (Aguilar). With these reasonable, logical solutions, there is no reason for cameras to remain unenforced in police forces.

Many departments have been forced to change how they patrol their streets and how they interact with citizens. One of the precautionary methods that the government took was to provide funding to police departments that would go toward officers being issued body cameras. The Justice Department in fact his year provided $17 million dollars to police departments for body cameras. As stated by Attorney General Loretta Lynch "Body-worn cameras hold tremendous promise for enhancing transparency, promoting accountability and advancing public safety for law enforcement officers and the communities they serve,.. (Jackson,

In order to assist the Tempe Police Department better service the community, the city of Tempe equipped the police officers with body cameras to record interactions with the citizens for the safety of all involved. The policy instituted to facilitate that safety has one flaw. Whether or not the body cameras record an exchange between and officer and citizen is at the officer’s discretion instead of a mandatory recording with each police related incident.

Marfin stated the different issues presented for the department, such as the individual privacy and cost as she discussed UTPD’s process of implementing this technology. She emphasized this by stating “UTPD began testing different versions of body cameras two years ago, but the implementation of the technology took many years to complete” (par.9). Although the time and cost of the body-cameras brought issues to the department the author emphasizes that UTPD’s main goal is to build trust between the community and the police officers to ensure the community’s safety. Therefore, they made sure to invest in their safety by enforcing body cameras on the officers as explained in the article, ““This is something we believe is important to the UT community and to UTPD,” UTPD Chief David Carter said. “This is something to ensure that people have confidence and trust when it comes to our department.”” (par. 3). Throughout the article the cost of the cameras is highlighted informing how the technology works and what exactly it does to preserve the safety in the community. She emphasizes this statement by saying

The researchers state that the worn -body camera, is a promising tool which acts as game changer not only for the policing but also police-public relationships.

Having a video verification of event not just prevents the use of unnecessary power, but in addition it helps difference of opinion and reveal claims of police force brutality. It is for the protection of the public and the officer and many cities around the country. The cities that have started the use of cameras for their officer to create record have change police behavior. A study conducted of the Rialto, California, police department from 2012 to 2013 showed the potential of cameras. With half of the police department wearing cameras video recording have illustrate each interface with the public; in which the department experienced an 88 percent decrease in complaints against officers(Schiff 1).

Many of the policy issues need to be considered in the improvement of police work. This is especially true with the body worn video camera, which can have a significant impact on the privacy, social relations and internal departments affairs. As institutions in the development of body worn video camera program, It is crucial that they thoughtfully examine how their policies and practices intersect with these larger problems. Policy problems to look at Policy issues to look at include the effect these cameras have on privacy and community relationships, the concerns raised by frontline officers, the expectations that cameras create in terms of court proceedings and officer credibility, as well as the presence of financial factors.