Smile, You're On Cop-Car Camera
There should be video cameras in every police car
One night last summer Raymond Bell was pulled over by a Chicago cop and arrested for driving under the influence. Officer Joe D. Parker, a 23-year veteran, reported that upon getting out of his car, Bell was stinking of alcohol, lurching, and unable to walk a straight line or stand on one foot.
An officer with his stellar record would normally prevail against a DUI suspect. But in this case, Bell had something on his side: a video camera mounted on the dashboard of Parker's squad car that told a radically different story.
Far from revealing a staggering drunk, reported the Chicago Sun-Times, the video "showed Bell appearing to be perfectly balanced," passing the sobriety tests that Parker administered—and being refused when he asked to take a Breathalyzer. Prosecutors watched the video and promptly dismissed the case. They are now considering charges against Parker.
That episode raises the question: Nine years into the 21st century, why isn't every squad car in America equipped with a dashboard video camera? Why do we persist in relying on the slippery, self-interested, incomplete, and unverified accounts of opposing participants when we have the means to see the truth with our own eyes?
In this instance, the innocent man was lucky to be stopped by a cop driving a video-armed vehicle. The odds are against it, since only 11 percent of the CPD's cars have cameras for recording traffic stops. Though the department is planning to use federal stimulus money to double that number and the mayor has said he wants cameras installed in the remaining vehicles "as quickly as possible," no one is radiating a sense of haste.
Why not? The department says the main obstacle is money. Equipping another 300 cars, as the city plans, will require $2.1 million. So making them standard on the rest would cost about $13 million.
But that shouldn't be an insurmountable obstacle. The Illinois State Police, with a fleet of nearly 1,100 vehicles, have managed to install cameras in more than 900.
Spending $13 million looks extravagant only until you compare it to the cost of losing lawsuits over police misconduct. From 2005 through the middle of 2008, says the Chicago Reader, the city paid out $155 million in police cases. Dashboard cameras don't have to prevent many million-dollar judgments to be a bargain.
The cops—at least the good ones, who are presumably the majority—have as much reason to want these recordings as the accused. The best defense against a phony charge of police brutality is a video showing exactly what the officer said and did. A suspect who is visibly inebriated or violent will have a hard time refuting the camera's testimony in court.
Yet Chicago has dragged its feet, and it's not alone. After the 1991 Rodney King beating, a commission recommended that the Los Angeles Police Department mount cameras in its squad cars. It installed some but soon got rid of them.
A federal monitor proposed the idea again in 2005, but the police chief, The Los Angeles Times reported, "said he saw it as a long-term project." Last year—17 years later—the LAPD finally decided to equip some vehicles.
Contrast that with Chicago Mayor Richard Daley's enthusiasm for other types of video. Chicago now has some 2,250 surveillance cameras to detect criminal conduct in public places. By 2016, Daley promised last month, Chicago will have one on every corner. The city has also installed red-light cameras at some 132 intersections, with another 330 planned.
So what exactly is different about those cameras? Well, they are trained on the citizenry, not on the police. What's sauce for the goose seems to be regarded as a dubious liquid substance when proposed for the gander. The city is less eager to capture video evidence if it may expose wrongdoing by its own law enforcement agents.
But the rest of us might want to keep unsleeping electronic eyes on the people with guns and badges. A city with a good police department can gain a lot from squad-car video cameras. A city with a bad one can gain even more.
COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
As it happens, I have a friend who's done some work in supplying both interrogation room and in-car video systems for the cops in various locations. My take on it is that video supports whoever's right.
Also, video systems can save police departments quite a bit of money in litigation costs; for every case where an officer is out of line and it gets all over the net, there are hundreds of cases where a complaint is withdrawn when the person making the complaint learns that there's video of the incident.
-jcr
Every government employee with the authority to carry a gun, issue any sort of citation or call for arrest should be required to have a camera bolted to their head whenever they are on duty.
Elected officials should be required to do this 24 hours a day while they hold office.
My one shining moment in the blogosphere:
http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2006/11/i_will_support.html
Yes, I lead a sad life
Every government employee with the authority to carry a gun, issue any sort of citation or call for arrest should be required to have a camera bolted to their head whenever they are on duty.
We also need to have juries that expect to see the video, who will dismiss if there were "technical difficulties".
-jcr
Libertarians are for video cameras... when Libertarians are for video cameras.
who watchers the watchers that watch the watchmen that....?
whatever...
From the article:
Quite true.
Raivo Pommer
raimo1@hot.ee
Die Linde-Aktien krise
Eine pr?zise Gesch?ftsprognose f?r das laufende Jahr wagte die Linde-F?hrung mit Verweis auf die unsichere weltwirtschaftliche Lage nicht. Umsatz und Ergebnis k?nnten 2009 leicht ?ber oder auf dem Niveau von 2008 liegen. "Wir m?ssen aber auch einen R?ckgang einkalkulieren", sagte Reitzle. Erst in der zweiten Jahresh?lfte werde sich der Umsatz- und Ergebnistrend abh?ngig von der Nachfrage verfestigen.
Analysten gehen im Durchschnitt von einem leichten Umsatzwachstum um 0,7 Prozent und einem R?ckgang des operativen Ergebnisses im ?hnlichen Umfang aus. Trotz der zu erwartenden Nachfrageschw?che will Linde sich im Gasegesch?ft weiter besser entwickeln als der Markt und die Produktivit?t erh?hen. Die Planungen f?r 2009 reichten von einem leichten Umsatz- und Ergebnisanstieg bis hin zu einem Umsatz- und Ergebnisr?ckgang, erkl?rte Reitzle.
Working on installing cam in my personal vehicle...and NEVER venture out without a pocket recorder on my person...of course these things are likely a violation of something or other here in the once great state of Texas...
Why not? The department says the main obstacle is money.
Or course. They need the money to buy tanks to combat... uhh, terrorists or... something...
Didn't you see Die Hard?!?
When confronted by the idea of privatized liberty enforcement (I refuse to think many laws need to be enforced) most people will say the privatized companies are motivated by money. And what government law enforcement hemorrhaging money isn't trying to up baseless tickets and laws (seat-belt laws, drug laws, etc)? The story in this article alludes to this same problem.
Shouldn't the cameras only be in use if all people being photographed concent?
I do not mean current legal, I mean just to be equal.
a commission recommended that the Los Angeles Police Department mount cameras in its squad cars. It installed some but soon got rid of them.
Anyone know what excuse LAPD gave? In this instance it can't be money, since they installed the cameras, then removed them.
Libertarians are for video cameras... when Libertarians are for video cameras when it comes to any activities by police, who for the most part are corrupt and above the law.
To be sure, I'm a libertarian, not a Libertarian, but anyway...FTFY.
Shouldn't the cameras only be in use if all people being photographed concent?
I do not mean current legal, I mean just to be equal.
Something easily remedied by a small additional clause in the driver's license application...
Taktix,
I was not talking about current Fascist tricks. I was talking about making things fair.
What is it called here? Rainbow kitten libertopia or something?
It seems to me that this is a good idea on paper, but that it shows how libertarian thought gets off-course when it doesn't consider human nature.
Why are cameras on lightpoles bad but cameras on police dashboards good?
Both are unsolicited surveillance of the public, both give law enforcement unlimited access to something that private citizens will have to show up in court and beg to get, and both are expensive.
If this existed, tapes of police brutality would be 'lost' more often than not. Is that a good tradeoff for more surveillance of the law-abiding public? I don't think so.
Why are cameras on lightpoles bad but cameras on police dashboards good?
The former are unsolicited surveillance of the public. The latter are surveillance of the police, and are redundant surveillance of the public (if you are in range of a dashboard camera, you are already under surveillance by the police).
matt,
We could avoid the "loss" of the videos by making them "tamper proof" (as much so as possible anyway), requiring that the feed go directly to a non police entity's server (not a tape, or at the police/prosecutor/mayor office) and make a malfunctioning camera an immediate deadline fault on a vehicle.
That would cut down on it tremendously, and also making blocking, tampering with or destroying the cameras or recording in anyway a felony offense with automatic permanent removal from police work and a 10 year prison sentence.
The former are unsolicited surveillance of the public. The latter are surveillance of the police, and are redundant surveillance of the public (if you are in range of a dashboard camera, you are already under surveillance by the police).
Okay, but should the police have video records of everyone they follow around? Also, don't you think that they would learn to game the system pretty quickly? Unlike the citizen,they know where the camera's pointing, and would learn to do their worst outside of it's range, I think.
I can't see any reason to imagine that the "justice system" would use these tapes fairly.
We could avoid the "loss" of the videos by making them "tamper proof" (as much so as possible anyway), requiring that the feed go directly to a non police entity's server (not a tape, or at the police/prosecutor/mayor office) and make a malfunctioning camera an immediate deadline fault on a vehicle.
Does that theory tend to fit in with the reality of what Radley has found in Mississippi?
It's far easier to put a technology in place than it is to ensure that the implementation of that technology will be exactly what you envision in your best-case scenario.
History teaches us to prepare for the worst, not the best, government implementations of technology.
Blown tag.
The first paragraph is a quote. Everything else isn't. I can't even implement HTML. Maybe I should go into police work.
matt - I suppose you can come up with all kinds of outlandish scenarios where the justice system is so categorically corrupt that it will refuse to deadline vehicles, will lose feeds or tapes that exhibit brutality...but at that point you have a bigger problem than the lack of public scrutiny, right? You have to work with what you've got.
Unlike the citizen,they know where the camera's pointing, and would learn to do their worst outside of it's range, I think.
There's no "range" now! Better half a loaf than none at all.
$2.1 Million / 300 cars = $70,000 / car
Really??
Shouldn't the cameras only be in use if all people being photographed concent?
I do not mean current legal, I mean just to be equal.
Something easily remedied by a small additional clause in the driver's license application...
You don't need to give your consent to be photographed in a public place.
Josiah Blumpkin | March 16, 2009, 9:57am | #
$2.1 Million / 300 cars = $70,000 / car
Really??
I make it 7,000...
I can't even implement HTML. Maybe I should go into police work.
Law enforcement is for you!
All kidding aside, I think the cops would have a hard time using these dash cams to abuse rights. As some cars already have them, shouldn't the abuses already have come to light?
This wasn't really gone over in the article, but I'd like to know what cops themselves think of mandatory dash cams. If they oppose them, I'd say we should install them right away.
$2.1 Million / 300 cars = $70,000 / car
That is an astonishing amount of money. I think I could come up with a good solution for a damn slight less then $70,000 a car. Some sort of small computer, an off the shelf security camera, and a terabyte harddrive? Maybe $1000 parts, $2000 labor?
Why are cameras on lightpoles bad but cameras on police dashboards good?
Both are unsolicited surveillance of the public, both give law enforcement unlimited access to something that private citizens will have to show up in court and beg to get, and both are expensive.
Because the camera's trained on the police do as much to protect the public from abuses, as they do to protect the police from lawsuits - while the other cameras only can be used against citizens.
That said, my life was probably saved by public cameras on lightposts. I was robbed once, and the camera operator (who watches live) notified the police, who drove up 2 minutes into the incident. At the very least, it saved me an ass-beating and put the guy in jail (only one of the three they caught was over 18)
You don't need to give your consent to be photographed in a public place.
Let's put that precedent in context. At the time when it arose, law enforcement didn't practice video surveillance, and in fact video did not even exist.
Now it does and they do, and possibly the old standards that allowed newsmen, detectives, and tourists to take occasional snaps need to be changed, starting with the behavior of the most dangerous group of the three, law enforcement.
Matt/matt - same person? might be helpful to disambiguate yourselves.
Matt/matt - same person? might be helpful to disambiguate yourselves.
Confusing indeed. Here we go, I used to be Capital Matt.
To be more precise, it would be $6666.67 to implement a camera per car, not "$70,000."
So, are we going to the matt on this one?
This is my fault for almost never posting anymore. I'll be whatever he isn't.
zoltan,
Are there not other costs associated with that type of a system than just the camera and recorder?
matt - you are now "FLAPPY THE EAGLE", because I miss him.
The way I see it, if private citizens wanted to follow every police car around all day videotaping their doings, there would be not a snowball's chance in hell that such a thing would be permitted.
The fact that policemen might agree to self-record means that they expect to benefit from the lack of neutrality inherent in their owning the tapes.
Bad information is worse than no information at all. People would think that the police video was exhaustive and unbiased, which it could never be, and the results of that error would be even worse than the no-camera present.
zoltan | March 16, 2009, 10:28am | #
To be more precise, it would be $6666.67 to implement a camera per car, not "$70,000."
hokay, here we go. $2,100,000 / 300 = $7,000
TAO,
A quick google search makes it clear that I could never compete with that dude. I won't even try.
You'd might as well have asked me to start being Urkobold. As Barack would say, that's above my pay scale.
but...but...there are livers that need eaten!
I can think of two reasons why cameras shouldn't be in all squad cars:
1) the camera adds ten pounds.
2) there are alreayd too many "Best police-chase ever!!" tv specials
Every government employee with the authority to carry a gun, issue any sort of citation or call for arrest should be required to have a camera bolted to their head whenever they are on duty.
If we use 1/4" lag bolts, at least three inches long, I'm all for it.
I forgot the extra hundred grand, domo. My bads.
Also, I like two ideas I've heard on this thread so far:
1.) Mounting a camera in one's own car to turn on when one is pulled over.
2.) Following a police car around and videotaping traffic stops (but I don't think this is legal).
@zoltan
There is a guy that has a camera in his car in I think St. Louis. He caught a cop on camera telling him that he (the cop) would make up charges to put him in jail. Its on youtube somewhere, I'll see if I can find it.
Bad information is worse than no information at all. People would think that the police video was exhaustive and unbiased, which it could never be, and the results of that error would be even worse than the no-camera present.
Yeah, but people already give police testimony the same sort of deference.
I have no qualms about cameras being mounted on public property, or private property with the permission of the owners, as long as my property rights are enforced. The argument that public cameras harm personal liberties would therefore mean that Superman should pluck out his eyeballs since he has x-ray vision, or that neighborhood watch organizations should be illegal! The truth is that public information includes visual and audio information, and is therefore outside the bounds of personal liberty in the first place. If you do something in public and someone sees it, with or without a camera, the fault is on you and you alone. After all, when I take a picture of you, I'm not depriving you of anything in the process; you don't have less of an image or less of a soul. But if someone breaks into my property in an attempt to bug or videotape me, then yeah, that sort of surveillance should be prohibited but not because surveillance itself is harmful.
Personally, I feel that public government cameras should have their recordings made public to serve both law-enforcement and defendants in criminal cases. In fact, I believe everything in government should be made public, considering that I'm forced against my will to pay for it. Public transparency is the least I expect after being fleeced, thankyouverymuch.
In the meantime, I think it's a great idea for everyone to arm themselves with video cameras whether or not law prohibits it. As long as such things do not violate the liberties of others (and I mean REAL liberties, not hokey ones claiming one's image is property or intellectual property or other such nonsense) then the incentives to do crimes in public by private and government persons would be dramatically reduced.
Unbelievable, TOM, are there any legality issues with mounting a camera in one's car? Any of our lawyers or law experts familiar with this? I live in Texas and I'll try to find anything that pertains to this in my state.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=cops+gone+wild&hl=en&emb=0&aq=f#
Prepare to be seriously pissed off, if you haven't already seen it.
Why, writes Steve Chapman, isn't every squad car in America equipped with a dashboard video camera?
Juries believe cops over other citizens. Therefore, cops don't want them. Now I'll go read the article and then the comments.
@zoltan
I doubt there are any legal issues with mounting cameras. What I would worry about would be theft, and relying on it in case your rights are tied down and sodomized.
Since your car is probably ending up in a police impound, something might "happen" to your camera, rendering it unusable for any court testimony.
Check out some creepy comments here: http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/1793561-N-H-firefighters-hot-over-police-ploy/.
Not about the subject at hand, but it looks like a cop-only website. Lots of "we should have kept this tactic under the table and not let the public and media in on it" bull.
I can't watch the video now because I'm at work, sadly.
The comments on that thread are indeed scary, zoltan. There's apparently no limit to the sacrifices or other collateral damage that those poster would demand of others if it makes their job easier.
@zoltan
Ah, too bad for that. Watch it when you get home, but have a stress ball with you. You will need to repress the urge to jump through the camera and pummel the cop.
Bacon cooks faster when you are watching it.
The police control the cameras, so they will only aid the police
A fair worry. It is certainly the case that the police could (ergo will in some cases) abuse that control.
But combined with a clear position on that data belonging to the public, we can arrange a system in which consistent abuse leaves a detectable paper trail---something you don't get with a (hypothetical) officer who simple lies convincingly to the jury.
It is not perfect, but it is a net win for the public.
It is also a net win for careful and professional officers, as they will have clear evidence of their care and professionalism.
There is actually another way to go about keeping tabs on Uncle Sam, and its more libertarian in its application, and that's having the citizenry on-camera with their own cameras.
Why don't individuals install cameras in their own automobiles for instance? You can do it now with an iPhone docked on your dashboard, its that easy. Use its camera to wirelessly beam what's going on to your home server. Delete whatever you don't want for posterity from time-to-time.
Wireless transmission is important in a social context, it takes the data and removes it from any situation where someone could tamper with the camera (such as the cops) to manipulate the data. Using a local network with someone else in the neighborhood is also a good way to keep the data away from telco-taps and questionably obtained search warrants for your person or property (the data is at your neighbor's house, didn't use AT&T to get there either). Always keep the data repository physically remote from the scene on-camera.
If even a few thousand people had that going on, that would catch some cops by surprise in court later on! If such a movement caught on, your insurance company would even probably cut you a lower rate because the impact such recordings of claim-generating incidents would lead to significant reduction of legal costs and fraud down the line. The impact on the law-enforcement-social-engineering complex would be acute and pleasant to observe. I wouldn't be surprised if within a year of such a thing catching on, you'd start seeing prosecutors via case-law and politicians via fiat trying to keep such private recordings from being considered equally relevant to cop-cam. Its always been a huge advantage in court that the cop's word is considered golden by default, whereas some poor, illiterate black guy is suspect before the crime is committed, much less his testimony later in court. People having their own cameras would blow that anachronistic paradigm out of the water quickly (though not quick enough).
From Rodney King to that poor guy who got blown away on the BART last year, its always private cameras that expose this type of thing, never public cameras. You want cameras? I think that's great, go get one for yourself.
Permission should be required to film in public (not a quote---BTW---but an idea I'd like to respond to)
I will respectfully and partially disagree.
You don't really have a reasonable presumption of privacy for acts undertaken in public (and neither do the police). If you don't want people to see, close the door. If you don't want them to hear, keep you voice down.
Some qualifications to this position:
* Ubiquitous surveillance is another kind of beast. Anyone should be free to photograph, record, or film you in public in one place and at one time. But that does not mean that they get to photograph, record, or film everything you do in public. No idea how or where to draw the line...
* I'm willing to discuss the appropriate limits on long lenses and parabolic microphones as well. Perhaps I should be able to look around and determine weather or not people are watch or listening.
Some qualifications to this position:
* Ubiquitous surveillance is another kind of beast. Anyone should be free to photograph, record, or film you in public in one place and at one time. But that does not mean that they get to photograph, record, or film everything you do in public. No idea how or where to draw the line...
* I'm willing to discuss the appropriate limits on long lenses and parabolic microphones as well. Perhaps I should be able to look around and determine weather or not people are watch or listening.
Another important qualification here should be sensory spectrum. Supreme Court has had a say here, in regards to cops using thermal cameras without a warrant as being unreasonable (whew!). Expectation of both public and private discourse should always assume human senses only.
I am sure I would be amazed at the information that could be gleamed from the heat and radio spectrums I am part of as I stumble through a given day. There should be an expectation that if I close the door to my house or car then people can't see in. If some guy brings a THz camera to see through my door, that should be illegal, including for the cops if they don't have a legit warrant.
If you can see it, you should be able to document it. Secret cameras in places where privacy is expected like bathrooms and locker rooms would be an exception to that I guess.
Hmm. I was under the impression that matt = DELETED!!!
Right now, it is possible to watch just about any activity without the subject knowing he's being watched; the barrier to entry is the cost, and it's so high that only large, powerful entities live governments can afford to do it. You don't need to look far to find a scandal where the information disparity created by this situation has been abused. Information technology is radically lowering that cost, so that very soon anybody will have this same power. That is terrifying, but not to the public who never had privacy in the first place; it's terrifying to people who get their power and make their living on exploiting information disparity. They're just projecting their fears on the public in hopes that it'll stick and we'll ask them to outlaw the tools we are creating to close that gap, ensuring that all the power stays in their hands. When they talk about protecting your privacy, what they really want is to protect their privacy from you.
$7000 per car still seems a little high. Must be that same "cop math" that inflates pot to $1000 per ounce.
This has been bothering me:
They have a slam-dunk case on the man for maliciously perjuring himself in a criminal matter and they are considering charges?!?
WTF???
linden---
Warum habe ich heir relativ viel deutsch gesehen? Der Artikel ist auf english geschrieben, und du hast es echt total verstehen, aber warum antwortest du auf deutsch? Es ist kein Problem, es ist mir egal, aber warum? Ich habe Interesse an...
Ich habe kein Leben und es ist ein grosse Luge...
Remember that kid last year, who was tasered by a Utah Highway Patrol trooper? The camera showed the whole thing, and the voice recorder caught him lying through his teeth to the sheriff's deputy who was first on the scene to back him up.
It took UHP MONTHS to admit that the trooper had been in the wrong. Without the video, they would never have done so.
"$7000 per car still seems a little high."
Not in Chicago. That's $100 for the camera and $6900 for the get-out-the-graveyard-vote program.
"It is also a net win for careful and professional officers, as they will have clear evidence of their care and professionalism."
I don't trust any cop who is afraid of what the camera and recorder will pick up.
If I were a cop, facing a false charge, I would be hoping that the camera is working.
its always private cameras that expose this type of thing, never public cameras.
That's not correct. I know there have been several incidents where video from cameras inside police stations and jails have resulted in officers getting canned or charged criminally.
-jcr
We wouldn't have the problem of cops vs citizens if the various Nazi police academies across this country did not preach an "us vs. them" mentality.
What do you expect from some insecure Gestapo-minded punk who's already looking forward to bullying an increasingly unarmed public? Next they get brainwashed by their "superiors" and we taxpayers foot the bill of our own demise.
Cops are the enemy of freedom, this is why they think they're better than us and they can get away with murder. Sickening that this BS still happens. We have a bunch of soldier wannabes running around brutalizing Americans. Seems like an act of war if you ask me.
A camera every in police car? Why not! The United States lags behind a lot of its European and Asian counterparts when it comes to video surveillance. They have video equipment in law enforcement vehicles and monitor the business areas of many a city and village. Cameras can help in solving a case, help keep an officer honest, and help limit the amount of fraudulent cases our court systems handle yearly. With the video and cop shows on the television here in the United States we have been given a view of what goes on with the patrol officer. We see DUI's, drug seizures, disorderly people, and even accidents unfold before the camera. The camera can see what the officer sees and what they don't see. The United States need to catch up with this technology and our citizens to get use to having it around.
I predict a new genre on internet video: Girls gone wild on cop car video.
is good
Cops are lame and unintelligent tools. They don't even have the wherewithall to be ashamed of themselves. Did you know that pigs are cannibals? They eat their own. Losers!