Police Body Camera Use: Not A Pretty Picture

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.

The cameras are very small portable devices, it’s the size and length of a cigarette stick. The camera is attached to the police officers uniform and sits in a pocket. Usually police officers are required to wear this body camera while they are on duty. The cameras record everything that happens between officers and civilians. The Rialto Police Department was the first to actually use and wear the body cameras in 2012. They did a yearlong study to see the impact of police relations by wearing body cameras. One officer wasn’t feeling too good about this idea because he thought the cameras would be to punish them instead of helping them out. “During the first year after the cameras were introduced, the use of force by police officers reportedly declined 60% and complaints from citizens against law enforcement officers decreased 88%.” This was a yearlong study in which 54 officers had to

Video Footage has the potential to expose officer misconduct and exonerate civilians whose actions have been falsely accused by officers. In the case of John Crawford III, going into his local Walmart, just wanting to spend quality time with his family roasting s’mores. Officers had over 200 video cameras showing he wasn’t doing anything wrong, but they refused to look at them. Even though he had an unloaded pellet gun that he picked up off the shelf. Why shoot, instead of tasering him. (Harvard Law Review N.A., 2015). Even with some witnesses around that still didn’t stop New York Police officers from using excessive force on Eric Garner. His death was recorded, and the officers were indicted. There are many cases where officers are accused of excessive force such as PEOPLE vs ATKINSON. In cases such as this, there are officers stating force was necessary and defendants saying that unnecessary force had been used. The use of cameras helps to determine without prejudice and protect all

There has been a lot of talk lately in the news about police body cameras. Some people agree that body cameras should be used by all police officers, while others disagree and believe that they shouldn’t be used at all. There are some cons to having body cameras but all of the pros outweigh it. Police body cameras should be used in all towns no matter how small because the people will act less aggressive towards officers, they provide truthful evidence that cannot be altered with, and the videos can be stored so if something were to happen, they could be brought up and checked as sort of like a surveillance device.

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

bias’, and the fact that every single person has one.  The use of body cameras instead in these

I selected an article about police body cameras. The article cited several studies, as well as the authors’ ideas and thoughts. The article, titled Police Body Cameras, is part of the CATO Institute’s National Police Misconduct Reporting Project, and prepared by Matthew Feeney in 2015. The theme throughout the article is that the use of body cameras will reduce police misconduct. Although we all hope this is the case, we must also look at the other issues involved with the wearing of body cameras. In an effort to gain citizen buy-in and obtain their opinions, they conducted surveys. Interestingly enough, most people did not want the officers to record them, unless it was during an enforcement encounter, such as a traffic stop or arrest situation.

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).

Body cameras on police officers in this day and age should be required for all departments. Body cameras should be worn to not only protect the officers but also the civilians that come into contact with police officers. It can give valuable information on what happened during an interaction between the public and law enforcement. This can protect the citizens from abuse by the police, as well as give necessary information into officer related shootings. All states should require their branches of law enforcement to require body cameras while on duty.

In certain cases, such as domestic violence abuse, the recordings documented from these body worn cameras can be very useful in the prosecution process, especially with witnesses that are reluctant to share what happened at the scene because the one inflicting harm was a loved one. Michael D. White, author of a project funded by the U.S. Department of Justice titled, Police Officer Body Worn Cameras- Assessing the Evidence, points out that the cameras are useful, “in providing an exact record of the demeanor and language of the accused, the disturbance throughout the scene and the emotional effect on the victim” (25).

Imagine if every police officer in the United States had to be required to wear body cameras. The questioning between officer Darren Wilson and Mike Brown could have been solved if a body camera could have captured the incident. This can increase the better outcomes of police officers and their job. People will be able to see everything that happens through the camera 's lens. How do you feel about body cameras being worn? Even though some people believe police officers should not have to wear body cameras, I believe that police officers should be required to wear body cams at all times on duty because it creates more evidence in cases, enforces officers to abide by the laws,and builds trust with the community.

A career in front of the camera is the dream job for numerous Americas. Little do they know they may have already been on camera. Every day people in the United States of America are caught in the lens of law enforcement cameras. These cameras sound nefarious due to their constant watching of people. However, law enforcement cameras are anything but nefarious as their intent is to stop actions that may rightly be deemed nefarious. The cameras the law enforcement use may be on the street, a member of the law enforcement, a police car or a traffic light. With all the cameras, their purpose is for the good of the people and to enforce laws. However, there is controversy surrounding the usage of the law enforcement cameras due to how some people

From examining the past, we can understand why certain rules and regulations have been put into place. For example, body cameras are now being required based off of events that have taken place in the past. The police shootings against African American males has brought much attention to police violence and the need for body cameras. Because of the past shootings, police officers across the nation are now required by law to wear body cameras while on duty. Another event that can be related to this subject is the right to drive your vehicle in front of certain buildings. Because of past bombings, as well as shootings, you prohibited by law from driving your vehicle in front of particular buildings such as, the White House and Capitol. These

I think body cameras on police officers are worth the expense. Abby Phillips from the Washington Post says “At the 1 year memorial for Michael Brown,Tyrone Harris was supposedly armed with a 9mm Sig Sauer that was reported stolen last year so the cops opened fire on him and he is now in critical condition. His family and friends denied that he was armed.” (Phillips 1) We should have body cameras on police officers because it would show evidence of what actually happened at this crime scene and many others that are still being questioned. The cameras would basically show if there is any foul play from the cop and or if it was the actual suspects fault. Having the camera’s would end all of the questioning in police cases

I will identify the advantages of using body cameras as well as the drawbacks (Pollack, 2017). I will discuss if I was stopped by a police officer for a traffic offense would I want to be videotaped. If I was involved in a domestic violence incident would I want to be videotaped when the officers arrived? Then I will discuss whether the police should have the discretion to turn off the camera when they believe a person’s privacy is being invaded regardless of what the person involved thinks so.