Police

Shedding Light on Stop and Frisk

Why is Bloomberg afraid to equip New York City police with body cameras?

|

Police in Union City, California, used to have to investigate at least a dozen complaints a year from citizens claiming mistreatment by officers. Then the cops began wearing miniature video cameras that provide a record of their activities. Suddenly, dissatisfaction abated.

"People come in and talk about making a complaint, but then we show them the video and they moonwalk out the door," Commander Kelly Musgrove told StateTech Magazine last year. Maybe the citizens were lying before. Maybe the officers improved their conduct. But locals somehow don't find much police abuse to report.

That's not the case everywhere. On Monday, a federal judge ruled that the New York Police Department violated the constitutional rights of citizens by stopping and frisking them without a good reason and in a racially discriminatory pattern.

The NYPD carried out nearly 700,000 stops in 2011. What they generally have in common is that when the victims feel violated, it's their word against the cops'. This decision came in a lawsuit filed by 19 plaintiffs, and U.S District Judge Shira Scheindlin acknowledged the difficulty of "finding facts based on the often conflicting testimony of eyewitnesses."

But she devised a measure that will help judges make better assessments: ordering police in one precinct of each borough to begin wearing cameras. The NYPD thinks its stops are reasonable and nondiscriminatory? If so, the videos will prove it.

It can use the help. What stood out in the litany of facts cited by Scheindlin is how rarely the intuition of savvy street cops proves reliable.

Between 2004 and 2009, she noted, New York cops searched 2.28 million people for weapons—and 2.25 million of them, 98.5 percent, had none. Of 4.4 million stops, only 6 percent led to an arrest, which means the cops were wrong 16 times as often as they were right.

Supporters of the policy will take this to prove that bad guys are scared of carrying pistols for fear of being busted. But if they are being deterred, why are cops so often convinced they are not? Shouldn't thugs who leave their guns at home behave less suspiciously than those who don't?

Unless, of course, the men in blue are deciding to stop and frisk pedestrians for reasons that are imaginary or dishonest. That, the judge concluded, is what occurs much of the time.

To anyone who has never been at the wrong end of a police encounter, being accosted may seem like a minor inconvenience. But each stop is "a demeaning and humiliating experience," Scheindlin stressed. Innocent targets testified that "stops make them feel unwelcome in some parts of the city, and distrustful of the police," she said. "This alienation cannot be good for the police, the community or its leaders."

Mayor Michael Bloomberg, however, was having none of it. He responded to the camera mandate in a way that combined hysteria with ignorance. "It would be a nightmare," he fumed. "We can't have your cameraman follow you around and film things without people questioning whether they deliberately chose an angle, whether they got the whole picture."

In fact, the cameras, which can be mounted on a Bluetooth-like headset or attached to a lapel, require no support crew. They are a minimal hassle, at most, and they vindicate good cops. A judge may not believe that someone was making furtive movements or casing a building. Video footage of what officers witnessed can confirm they acted appropriately.

It can also ensure that they act appropriately. Police who know there will be a visual record of each stop have a great incentive not to do anything out of line. Those who face resistance from suspects don't have to worry about being falsely accused later.

All of these effects explain why hundreds of municipalities across the country have outfitted their police with these devices. Even the priciest ones are much cheaper than those installed in squad cars—and they can capture action that eludes dashboard cams.

The latter have proliferated in recent years, to the point that 71 percent of departments now use them in at least some vehicles. But Art Acevedo, chief of police in Austin, Texas, has predicted that "within the next five years, everyone will be wearing a body camera."

Video from street stops promotes the sort of transparency that rewards good behavior and penalizes bad. If Bloomberg is afraid to equip police with body cameras, they're not the problem. He is.

NEXT: White House: Broadband Initiative a "Non-Brainer"

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Related too is on balance, across the country, you record a cop and you’ll see smoke come out of their ears. The very people that record YOU at every turn, have a huge problem when you record THEM.

    You will trust the modern day “police officer” at your peril.

    1. they are no longer police officers and havent been for a while a police officer has to swear an oath to support and defend the constitution, go ahead and ask a so called police officer what oath they took to get the job, 9 times out of 10 the answer will be either none or not the legally required oath of a police officer as outlined in the constitution of the united states, this is how they are allowed to skirt the laws with no retribution

      1. [citation needed]

        As in, show the Constitutional clause which describes police oaths.

        Are you the anti-dunphy?

    2. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, http://www.max47.com

  2. “We can’t have your cameraman follow you around and film things without people questioning whether they deliberately chose an angle, whether they got the whole picture.”

    Captain Obvious says: Bloomberg cares more about the police than he does about the voters in New York.

    1. Well this is the fellow who advocated a general strike by the cops unless gun control was enacted everywhere.

  3. Doom-berg is more worried about everyone kowtowing to his authority and worshiping him as the messiah of NY than what you think after all he has the ability to tax your income on top of the state and feds and will pay to lock you up with the very money he illegally stole from your paychecks in the first place… omnipotence has its privileges. us in CNY wish and pray every day that NYC sinks into the ocean and restores our voting rights finally so we can oust the communist dictator Cuomo

    1. The state of New York is basically setup like the castle system of old where all the money and power is allocated in the central castle and all the peasants live outside the walls and are nothing but servants to the city’s needs.

  4. We have to be careful about adding yet another always on public camera into the mix. Using the camera to record personal interactions are a good thing, but how long will it before they are used to read licence plates, feed though facial recognition systems, etc. to add another means of tracking the locations of all citizens?

  5. So, Mr. Chapman, how are the “no stop and frisk” laws working for you in Chicago? How do the folks living in neighborhoods that used to feature every day shootings in NYC before Rudy & Bloomberg feel about their opportunity to live without constant fear today? Today 50 million tourists a year visit New York. I can truthfully say that the city was a sewer and bordered on lawlessness during the inept Dinkins’ term. I am quite sure that tourism was not breaking records at that time. If you ask the people who live , work and pay taxes in NYC what they think of “stop and frisk” you may be surprised.

    1. …”If you ask the people who live , work and pay taxes in NYC what they think of “stop and frisk” you may be surprised.”

      Fuck ’em. A4. Stuff it.

    2. Stop and frisk didn’t stop the crime. Crime went down just as much in cities that didn’t have it and it was going down before it was introduced.
      As for Dinkins “The rates of most crimes, including all categories of violent crime, made consecutive declines during the last 36 months of his four-year term, ending a 30-year upward spiral and initiating a trend of falling rates that continued beyond his term. Despite the actual abating of crime, Dinkins was hurt by the perception that crime was out of control during his administration.”. Wikipedia bitch.

  6. Bloomberg is would be one of the first to say (to civilians) “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.” Too bad he’s too blockheaded to see that it applies to his army, too.

  7. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, http://www.max47.com

  8. like Thelma responded I am startled that a mother can make $6821 in a few weeks on the computer. did you look at this web sitego to this site home tab for more detail— http://www.blue76.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.