Police Privacy Issues

Over the last few years there has been much controversy leading up to the need for law enforcement officers to wear body cameras. This is not only for citizens but also for the officers’ protection. With so much debate regarding police brutality and excessive force body cameras are quickly on the rise. New technology is giving police on a state and federal level a new opportunity to cut back on some of the allegations and negativity we have seen in the last few years. On the other hand it is giving citizens all over the country the safety they should feel when being approached by law enforcement. Our technology has improved significantly over the years and this seems to be something that will benefit everyone.

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

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

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.

From the article, “Body Cameras Will Stop Police Brutality,” author Adam Schiff writes that a “study conducted of the Rialto, California, police department found that shifts without cameras experienced twice as many use-of-force incidents as shifts using the cameras.” Police officers without cameras have had more forceful encounters, but when police do have the cameras on, they know that if they use excessive force, it will be recorded. For instance, in the article, “Body Cameras Will Stop Police Brutality,” Adam Schiff states from the same Rialto, California study, “with half of the police department wearing cameras recording each interaction with the public, the department experienced an 88 percent reduction in complaints against officers.” When body cameras are worn, it demonstrates a commitment to transparency and accountability to help de-escalate potential tense interactions. A person that sees a police officer with a camera could pick out that they don’t intend to inflict harm unless you are actually a criminal. People on the streets won’t be afraid of police officers if they had specific boundaries like the cameras, which when citizens on the street see cameras on officers, they won’t be fearful of the

Think about it, you break a vase in a museum not knowing what to do you try to fix it but it’s not working and consider lying about it. But you also know the place has security cameras around so you decide to tell the truth no matter the consequences. The video from the cameras would not only show us what the police officer did right but what they also did wrong. In the article, “The Right Body Camera Policy”, the author states,” Video footage will provide police superiors with a potent tool for reliable supervision, debriefing and disciplining, enabling them to condemn the bad police work and commend the good.” In other words, the video would be evidence in any other shootings that would allow the people to make a decision about what to

It has been argued that every person who comes in contact with an officer will have the situation recorded, which could the perhaps surface on YouTube with the risk of going viral (Boone). While this concern is understandable, the use of body cameras will result in more benefits than in disadvantages. If every person that the police come into contact with is recorded, there will not be enough time to constantly sort through the influx of video each day, which would result in only the completely necessary footage being used in the case of a trial. The Cincinnati Police Department alone logs more than ninety hours of video per day, which adds up to 80,798 individual videos on their systems (Bajak). While not everyone wants to be recorded, the dangerous situations that are alleviated because of body cameras completely refute their claims.

San Diego police need to make some changes to the police force. The most important one is about 1,000 watch officers with cameras to record their day. Officers in the city of Rialto in San Bernardino County have been wearing cameras since 2012. “Rialto Police Chief William A. Farrar, working with a Cambridge University scientist, discovered two major results: Complaints against his officers declined by 88 percent as well as Warren County Sheriff's Department started utilizing the cameras as a part of May 2014, Sheriff Martin Pace said when Armstrong declared he needed the cameras for every one of his officers.”(Hurley) Recording tools aren't only the most recent tool in police innovation, but they are getting to be a normal working system. “Video from such cameras can assume a part in protests and claims, however they can likewise be useful in court. Fewer complaints and calmer policing, said Farrago, would reduce lawsuits and expensive payouts.” (Hurley) This represents that the people in the cities with all the violence have seem to notice that body cameras might actually help and “Oakland Police Department Officer Dave Burke said “Oakland propelled the project in the 2009-2010 financial year. Officers have come to regard the cameras as a basic piece of their gear, an alternate sort of protective layer yet pretty much as basic as a shot confirmation vest. The cameras turn into a fundamental device. Everyone needs a camera,”(Prather) Burke said. Officers won't go on a mission without having one on them and lets say if one breaks they just come back and instead of getting new one they actually have someone else sub for them because they broke there's. This is important because with these videos being public they are obtainable by pretty much anyone and so the complaints will be lower because they will have everything on

Researches from the University of Cambridge’s institute of Criminology conducted a study in 2014 on the effects of body cameras on cops. The study showed that once a small town in California had the technology introduced the altercations with involving officers decreased drastically. University of Cambridge officials gave an opinionated statement saying, “knowledge that events are being recorder creates a ‘self-awareness’ in all participants during police interactions.” In article by the USA Today a notable statistic shows that in Rialto, California, there was a 60% reduction in use-of-force altercations

In a case highlighted by The police staff an Arizona police officer had a confrontation one day on the job that ended up in a fight with the individual that he confronted. The bystanders videoed the fight but not the whole confrontation. Later on the video taken by the bystanders became viral and put the officer in a bad light with the public for using force with the person he confronted, but luckily for him he was wearing a body-worn camera that was issued to him. The video on his camera showed the whole confrontation and cleared up all the questions and false judgments of the police officer that the public had put on him. This was just one of many instances that body cameras have helped recently since they have only been in use in some areas for a short period of time now. Body worn cameras are small, compact, as well as lightweight so they do not inconvenience the user. They have been used for many reasons by many different realms of people throughout the short time they have been in production. A few police departments around the country have started implementing the use of body cameras. The idea of having all police officers wearing body cameras is up in the air without any decision set in stone as of now. There are many different organizations doing research on the use of body cameras, and the effects they have both in the positive aspects and how they help and some of the negative properties that might be brought up by both police

So far experiences with the cameras have mainly been positive. Stated by Schiff, "The department experienced an 88 percent reduction in complaints against officers" (Schiff 2). The public likes how things are working out now with the cameras. Along with this positive reaction is another was found in a study in Rialto, California. Over a 12-month period in Rialto, California, officers found that wearing cameras resulted in them involved in 60 percent fewer incidents of force and received fewer citizen complaints than without cameras ("Police Body"2). One can conclude that if things are working out the way they are, there is no reason to change it. With all the evidence presented it makes sense for police to wear cameras because all that is coming from them is

It is saying that “Recent surveys suggest that about 25% of the nation’s 17,000 police agencies were using them, with fully 80% of agencies evaluating the technology. The agencies like these cameras and liking their technology and how they work. How do they use these cameras? well it states in the same article that “On- officer recording systems” (also called “body cams” or “cop cams”) are small, pager- sized cameras that clip on to an officer’s uniform or are worn as a headset, and recording audio and video of the officer’s interactions with the public. Body cams can really be a win for all if the states use

Anyone who has access to the footage will be able to play it back and decipher what the officer did at that moment in time “... the strong community relations will be what make the program a success.” The environment will make this program run well which could bring down crime rate in both communities and officers. The world can be safer and more trustworthy. (Staff) Tsin Yen Koh mentions in his article “Points of View: Body Cameras for Police Officers on Patrol” “...that body cameras will provide accurate and contemporaneous records of events, thereby both enhancing the transparency and accountability of the police by protecting members of the

The body cameras the police wear capture everything the police, inside a home, or just the innocent people do. Some people argue that the police have the ability to turn off or choose when they are rolling. What they are not thinking about are about some of the rules or policies the police have. The police should not wear cameras to protect the privacy of everyone. States have laws for what footage can actually be released. These laws are for videos recorded in the police car or any other form of recording (Sullivan). This law should apply the same for body camera footage. If the government were to make policies for the releasing of body camera footage, there would be no purpose to have the cameras. Why this is, is because releasing footage

To aid in the transparency of law enforcement agencies to the public and to build the rapport between the two parties, all recordings through police body worn cameras are considered to be public access. The Freedom of Information Act allows anyone to request access to recordings and images from the cameras. Although, each request requires significant police workforces to add to their work load to protect privacy of all involved. All faces must be blurred, sensitive information removed or mute the audio all together is required prior to submitting the recordings to the requestor. Storage only keeps recordings of incidents using force, incidents in question of complaint, or possible misconduct in which only these recordings allow public disclosure (Smykla, Crow, Crichlow, Synder, 2016).