Privacy Vs. Safety Law Enforcement

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.

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 are trained to read, write and analyze numbers. They are also trained how to handle firearms, identify non-lethal weapons, use defensive tactics effective, conduct search and seizure, driving techniques, investigate criminal acts and the laws of arrest, but how many police take a course on ethical conduct or learn the meaning of sworn oath? Some police officer feel ethics is not important and training is of low – priority. Law enforcement officers take oaths creates an ethical landmine. Officers have to weigh their personal values against colleague demands that may develop a hostile environment and cause ethical issues to flourish. When police officers demonstrate unethical practices, negative issues occur. Corruption scandals are painful reminders that officers need more

New officers need to know that no profession demands a higher ethical standard than law enforcement. Whether or not there are other careers that require a similar dedication to doing the right thing, it is undeniable that there is a tremendous degree of expectations placed upon police officers. Every officer knows, or at least should know by now, that they live in a fishbowl. Friends, relatives, neighbors and strangers watch every move law enforcement officers make, both on and off duty. The fact is that the public scrutinizes police officers more than most other professions, either because they are cynical or hope to catch them screwing up or because they are hopeful

As a police officer you put your life on the line every day, you need to be willing to take risks sometimes be put at a disadvantage to protect the lives, defend civil rights and liberties, and they undergo risks and tolerate such inconveniences on behalf of strangers on a daily basis. As a result, police work has become one of the most prideful and selfless occupations in society. Making a difference in the quality of life of others is an opportunity that policing provides, and few other lines of work can offer. The Law Enforcement Oath of Honor as stated by the International Association of Chiefs of Police goes: “On my honor, 
I will never betray my badge, 
my integrity, my character, 
or the public trust. 
I will always have
the courage to hold myself
and others accountable for our actions. 
I will always uphold the constitution, my community, and the agency I serve.” (IACP) Before any officer takes the Law Enforcement Oath of Honor, one of the most important aspects is that they have a clear understanding of what the oath truly means. The oath is a somber pledge an officer makes when they sincerely intend to do what is said. There are nine parts to this oath, but there are three that stand out to me personally, the first being honor. Honor means that one 's word is given as a guarantee to serve and protect to the best of their ability. The second, integrity, acting the same that you would act behind closed doors or in public life. The third, is public trust, which you

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.

“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.

With today’s advanced technology, police body cameras have proven to be very useful. They are crucial in putting an end to unnecessary police misconduct. In 2012, the Rialto Police Department in California implemented police body cameras and recorded the outcome. The results showed that “the number of complaints filed against officers fell by 88 percent compared with the previous 12 months. Use of force by officers fell by almost 60 percent over the same period” (Lovett). Without a doubt, police body cameras do the trick to prevent potentially dangerous situations from occurring. As William A. Farrar, the Rialto police chief once stated, “When you put a camera on a police officer, they tend to behave a little better, follow the rules a little better. And if a citizen knows the officer is wearing a camera, chances are the citizen will behave a little better.” I strongly agree with this statement because if the interaction between the officer and the citizen is being recorded, neither of the two will want to behave badly. The citizen knows that their bad behavior could result in consequences and the officer knows that their misconduct could result in punishment or even the loss of their job. The cameras record every detail that can be looked back on if there was a complaint filed against the officer that was wearing it. Clearly, police body

The officers provide protection for the community, and when they are put in danger they should feel like a camera or other device has their back. The article“Body Cameras Will Stop Police Brutality” talks about studies that have been conducted to show the effects of police body cameras. The author affirms, “Studies done in localities that have implemented body-worn cameras have shown a positive impact by demonstrating a commitment to transparency and accountability and helping to de-escalate potentially tense interactions” (1). As aforementioned body cameras have been touted as an effective method to help the defender if a cop has done wrong. Now body cameras not only defend one side but both. The use of body cameras can physically protect a police officer; in this instance the perpetrator is more willing to be arrested when he or she knows they are on tape. Additionally, author Tsin Yen Koh brings up the idea that a suspect behaves better on

Law enforcement agencies have been in a heated debate in the use of body cams by the surrounding communities because of the use of force incidents that have occurred in the media. Body cameras are the new age technology that allows law enforcement agencies to record encounters with the community. There are some positives aspects of law enforcement wearing body cams. The body cam allows the officer to interact with residents which will help to eliminate complaints about police behavior and the use of force encounters. The body cam gives video evidence of the decisions made by on-duty law enforcement in violent situations. This helps keep accountability of law enforcement and the ensure that the department and decreases liability. Because the

Police encounter different situations in their daily activities. The diverse nature of the circumstances implies that the members of the police also have to adopt different strategies of handling them. In some circumstances, the police have to use force as a way of addressing the situations. Unfortunately, when the police apply their own discretion in the use of force, the outcomes of this approach may end in fatalities or serious injuries. In recent times, diverse opinions have emerged in relation to the use of discretionary force. In some quarters, the use of discretionary force has been hailed as beneficial while in other case such as the 2008 Shooting of Tyler Cassidy, concerns have been applied concerning the appropriateness of the strategy. Against this backdrop, this essay examines whether the police use of force is a necessary component of the job and describes the benefits and limitations connected to the discretionary use of force by the police.

As far back during the time of the Great Depression law enforcement has been used by local, state, and federal government agencies-authority to enforce the law and preserve justice (Yamato, 2011). U.S. law enforcement officers, security guards, and other officials like judges and prosecutors have been given tremendous power. The resolution of the law enforcer is to assert justice and ensure the constitutional rights of all citizens are upheld. However, police misconduct is regularly reported: excessive force, sexual assaults, false arrest, fabrication of evidence, deprivation of property and failure to keep from harm. Excessive force is when law enforcement officers are allowed to use whatever force is reasonably necessary (Federal Bureau of Investigation, (2015). Consequently, disagreement between the police and the citizens are escalating.

An evaluation was conducted to examine the effects of police body-worn cameras, and the publics complaints against the police and excessive force. During the treatment or the control (non-wear) of the body cameras control shifts had increased the number of use of force incidents than the treatment shifts. Stated by Ready and Young (2015, p.446) “Officers who were assigned body cameras were more cautious when how they reacted with citizens because they knew their actions could cause severe allegations against themselves, criminal policy, and procedures.” Cameras have a massive role in improving the relationship between police officers and citizens. In fact, the knowledge by the civilians that they are being recorded has reduced the chance of acting in an aggressive way as have found it

Police officers have a large amount of discretion, as discretion permeates all aspects of police work. However, with a great amount of discretion can lead to unjust and unnecessary use of force. Drawing on a few examples of police and deadly use of force, we look at ways where police are held accountable for their actions on poor judgements they’ve made with use of force. Additionally, limitations on police discretion are noted to combat unjustly use of force. We arguably discuss a different framework for police officers to adopt various techniques and practices on using deadly use of force. This partially includes adopting the use of tasers and body cameras within the agencies. In the end, however, we note that discretion is vital for police

There is a perception of distrust between law enforcement and the community. This distrust stems directly from the dangerous words police use when communicating with the community. (Willis, 2015, p.) Simply choosing better words can help build relationships between law enforcement and the community. It is necessary for law enforcement to have trust with their community. There are many things that hinge on the police-community relationships, the ability of law enforcement to perform their duties, are the most important. Law enforcement must be willing to rely on the public to observe the law. They must always demonstrate absolute impartiality to the law.