Costly Concerns Surrounding Police Body Camera Program
A growing number of police departments, more than 95 percent of them, around the US today have been increasingly turning to adopting body camera technology for their officers on duty.
It's not just the people themselves who have seemingly grown more comfortable with pulling out their phone and getting the camera rolling when they see an officer engaged in questionable behavior.
And in some instances where they have introduced the cameras, complaints have been drastically cut (sometimes as much as 90+ percent) against officers and their department.
The hope is that for officers who know that they might be watched via the camera, that hopefully they will act more professional. However, cameras have still been able to be tampered with and officers have been able to turn them off.
As well, other reports have found that officers might be just as likely to get violent when they have the camera rolling, than when they don't. And not only that, but another analysis of the cameras has also indicated that officers might be more prone to assaults if they wear the camera.
For the most part, researchers suggest that the cameras might not be having as great an effect on keeping officers from abusing their authority as some thought they might.
According to one study that analyzed officers in Washington who had been wearing the cameras, they were about as likely to have complaints logged against them as officers who hadn't been wearing cameras.
But that hasn't been the case everywhere, in places like California it was reported that the cameras contributed to a drastic decline in complaints against officers.
Along with the concerns over whether or not the cameras are effective, there is also the worry for privacy concerns.
And some circumstances when officers might not be able to keep the cameras rolling is whenever there might be a child or sexual assault victim being interviewed, if people have any religious or cultural objections to the filming, or if officers are going to be entering a house without a warrant and there isn't any crime nor emergency in progress at that time.
A Hefty Cost...
The body camera program has cost taxpayers millions of dollars and there is also a hefty cost that comes along with video management services for that data, costs for support staff, and more. For Seattle alone for example, it's estimated that the camera program will cost them more than $1.4 million.
As well, the cameras don't catch all of the activity mind you. There could still be issues with accountability seeing as the cameras cannot encapsulate the officer's perception exactly as it is. In other words, there could be times when something takes place that might seem threatening to the officer etc, that the camera doesn't capture and therefore cannot corroborate.
According to the president of the Seattle Police Officers Guild, Kevin Stuckey, the union has launched a labor complaint with the Public Employment Relations Commission in the state and they are suggesting that the body cameras for officers need to be negotiated so that specific scenarios can be discussed.
Human rights groups and civil liberties advocates have for quite some time now strongly urged caution when it comes to officers adopting the body camera technology. They have repeatedly suggested that we should look to sharply limit the use of such biometric technology.
The cameras might have been marketed as some sort of quick-fix for police accountability, but solving the issue isn't going to be that simple.
Pics:
Pixabay
via mercurynews.com
Wesley B. Edrosian via americasquarterly.org
Sources:
http://www.kiro7.com/news/local/millions-of-dollars-privacy-concerns-surround-seattle-police-department-body-camera-program/692859188
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-37502136
https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/03/police-complaints-drop-93-percent-after-deploying-body-cameras/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/04/california-police-body-cameras-cuts-violence-complaints-rialto
https://gizmodo.com/cops-wearing-body-cameras-are-more-likely-to-be-assault-1777104650
http://www.chicagotribune.com/la-me-ln-lapd-body-cameras-20150331-story.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/baltimore-police-officer-who-turned-off-body-camera-charged-with-tampering-with-evidence/2018/01/24/6c6700ae-015b-11e8-bb03-722769454f82_story.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/police-body-camera-study-finds-complaints-against-officers-did-not-drop/2017/10/20/4ff35838-b42f-11e7-9e58-e6288544af98_story.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/20/us/police-body-camera-study.html
Related Posts:
Filming The Police In Public
https://steemit.com/government/@doitvoluntarily/filming-the-police-in-public
Only the good cops who believe they have nothing to hide are happy with the cameras. And it is true, they deal with a lot of shtupid people doing shtupid shit. That you really need video footage to believe, it is that shtupid.
But, how many times has footage mysteriously disappeared. Or the footage wasn't allowed into court. Or the police officers wouldn't comply with the subpoena for the footage. Again it is everything... will be used against you. (and nothing will be used for you)
So, in the end. The good guys will do good, and the bad guys will do bad. With or without a camera. So, in some instances, it is just the same as it was before.
This measure seems very good, I think it can reduce a lot of abuses by the police, it would be very good to implement in all countries, especially here in Argentina, that there is abuse of authority and much corruption on the part of officers
Excelete material as always dear friend @doitvoluntarily, thank you very much for the information
I wish you a great day
Very good mr @doitvoluntarily
You have support from mr @btu
I am glad to have support from them
Nice
In some cases, camera or filming is needed, but still not always.
There are "rude" activities or harshing approachment in intograting the suspec or criminals.
Shortly, new technology and new policy always have two sides (negative and positive).
Maybe it jibes in US as great country.
I disagree with your article, it assumes people aren't worth the money it costs to protect them. Holding those who are supposed to protect them accountable is worth the monetary cost. If you examine the monetary system it doesn't work forever anyway. We only compile debt and never resolve it... What does it matter if things cost money if we don't have to that money back?
The article wasn't only referring to financial cost.. perhaps you didn't read it?
I personally like the idea because I would pull out my camera if I thought something unjust was happening. Police need more oversight in my opinion.. and if their camera happens to "turn off" then it should automatically be noted "lack of evidence" on their part.
Perhaps another option to try would be to only have microphones instead of cameras. They don't have as much of a problem with field-of-view. People will still know that conversations with the officers will still be on record. They can't record a person's property. Not as useful for armed conflicts, though.
Wow so great
Great information post really like your posts keep posting
The cost for body cameras has surely dropped over time and will only become cheaper and hopefully more secure as time goes by. The big deal when the first came out was where do you store it all and etc like that.
I am all for body cameras, but as you say.. it seems when the situation becomes intense often times the cameras go off. During the stop in Oregon when Levoy Finnicum got shot the FBI made the Oregon police all turn their cameras off..
I think that there needs to be some clear guidelines on when and when they cant run body camera, and punishments along with it. I don't know though, if a cop entered my house I would prefer there was a camera on as long as I could defend myself in court with the footage, or my family can get proper reparations if things went bad and I had to pull up my pants while I crawl across the hall.
Nothing is ever just black and white though. thanks for the thoughts.