Police Officers and Police

¶ … body worn cameras for the police, and the policy for using them.

The Policy

Most police executives claim that their biggest problem is not about the choice of the technology to adopt; it is finding the appropriate combination technologies to use in a particular jurisdiction depending on such factors as its funding levels and crime problems. Deciding on the suitable combination, however, requires one to understand fully how each technology works. Leaders in police departments who have adopted body-worn cameras claim that the cameras are quite beneficial. According to them, the cameras are important in documenting evidence, training officers, resolving and preventing the public's complaints, enhancing police transparency, accountability and performance (Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program Recommendations and Lessons Learned). Furthermore, since the police can now use the cameras on their cell phones to take video recordings of their encounters, the body-worn cameras ensure that the police departments capture the events from a police officer's perspective. Deployment of Body worn cameras commonly addresses a means to lower the rate of police misconduct. Recording police encounters with citizens helps reporters, supervisors, judges and others get relevant evidence of the event instead of biased hearsay. The body camera proposal has become popular, but the complications involved are much more than apparently perceived. The cameras compromise the privacy of people who prefer to keep their encounters with the police away from the news or social media. In addition, using the cameras can be quite expensive. Other, more important expenses need urgent attention.

Potential Ethical Issues

The use of body cameras may bring about issues of privacy that have never come up. The cameras are different from ordinary surveillance since the visuals and audio are recorded at the same time. In addition, images are captured from better proximity, and as such, they can be used in facial recognition (Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program Recommendations and Lessons Learned). Furthermore, while the stationary cameras are used only in public places, the body cameras can be used in private settings, and they can record sensitive scenes that may come up during their calls of duty. The issue that probably has the greatest implications on privacy is choosing the kinds of situations and activities to be recorded by officers. Should they record all the interactions they have with civilians? Or is there a situation that requires discretionary recording or none at all? One way is for officers to be required to have all their interactions with civilians recorded. Officers would be needed to have their cameras on during their calls of duty and in every law enforcement-based situations, as well as during their casual conversations with civilians (e.g., a civilian asking a police officer to show them directions or a police officer speaking casually to the owner while in a store). Other than the issues of privacy, police leaders state that there is bound to be negative relations with the community if every encounter with civilians has to be recorded (Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program Recommendations and Lessons Learned). Their aim is always to keep a free dialogue with members of the community and maintain a trustworthy relationship. "The issues that come with recording all citizen interactions without considering how adversarial or cooperative it is are quite a lot," stated Ken Miller, Police Chief of Greensboro in North Carolina. "People thinking that all their interactions with the police are recorded, no matter the situation, will ruin openness and bring about obstacles to important interactions." In many states, the law requires police officers to let the subjects know that they are being recorded, and to ask for their consent. Nonetheless, most police leaders in states that require one-party consent do not plainly order police officers to let people know that they are being recorded. "Kansas requires one-party consent, hence only the police need to be aware of the recording. However, if the civilian asks, the police officer tells the truth," stated Ron Miller, the Police Chief of Topeka in Kansas. A concern with taking recordings within private homes is that of public exposure. Decisions regarding where the video footage should be stored and the period of keeping them can affect privacy greatly. Many police executives believe that privacy concerns can be addressed through data storage, retention, and disclosure policies. The effects of body cameras on police officers or civilians have not yet been clarified (Police Body Cameras - Policemisconduct.net). Additionally, there have been cases of misconduct by police officers even with the body cameras. However, these issues should not be a surprise considering that there has been police misconduct recorded on dash cams.

Alternative Policy

There should be a policy governing the use of body cameras by police officers. The policy should allow police officers to do their jobs while safeguarding them. This policy has been recommended (Draft Recommendation: Body Worn Cameras):

1. Sworn personnel should switch their AVR on, while at every duty call scene and in every law enforcement-based activity or encounter that takes place while at work. The AVR should also be on while interacting with any civilian, if it turns adversarial following the first contact. The police officer has 24 hours to explain in writing any failure to activate their video recorder.

2. Recording should only be done by officers in uniform and those with marked vehicles. This is so that people are aware of what is bound to happen. Police officers are required to inform people of the recording. They should put on visible stickers that read "lapel camera activated" or words to serve that purpose. Body cameras should not be activated for secret gathering of information about First Amendment guarded associations, religions and speech.

3. Officers, when going into a home, should give a clear notification that they have a camera.

4. Data should not be kept for a longer time than needed for the reason why it had been collected. Most of the police-civilian encounters do not require video evidence. Such videos need to be discarded as soon as possible.

5. BWC is meant to ensure police oversight and accountability. The policy restricts all forms of systematic tracking or surveillance on any civilian. Recordings should only be used in external and internal investigations of misbehavior and in cases where police officers have logical suspicion that there is evidence of a criminal offence in the recording.

6. People in cop cams recordings should be allowed to access the recordings. They also have the freedom of copying them for as long as the government has the recordings.

7. Public Disclosure should be in proportion with the necessity for openness and oversight by the government and privacy.

8. Systems need to be designed to make sure that part of the videos cannot be tampered with or ruined. Additionally, every access to the recordings should be recorded automatically using immutable audit logs. Systems should make sure there is proper maintenance of data destruction and detention schedules. The systems also need to be designed to make sure videos are only viewed with permission, based on the policy. They need to restrict making rogue copies of videos.