Support Grows for Cops to Wear On-Body Cameras

The push for cops to start wearing on-body cameras while on duty is gaining momentum.
Last week, the American Civil Liberties Union issued a position paper in support of the practice. Although the ACLU is generally opposed to increases in state survelliance, they endorsed the idea as "a way to serve as a check against the abuse of power by police officers."

The civil liberties group is one of the latest to join a growing coalition of academics, judges, journalists, politicians, and others calling for cops to start wearing lapel cameras on duty. The motivations are clear: Allegations of police misconduct are rampant and disputes between citizens and law enforcement officials are highly contentious. In cities across the country, Americans file hundreds of complaints against their local police departments every year. Many of these cases go unresolved or even ignored. Proponents of cops wearing portable recording devices believe that adding an "objective record" of the incidences will help mitigate the problem.
When a federal judge ruled New York City's stop-and-frisk policy unconstitutional in August, she ordered the department to implement a test run of wearable police cameras on the grounds that video footage of police stops could either "confirm or refute the belief of some minorities that they have been stopped simply as a result of their race." (Mayor Bloomberg has so far resisted implementing the program.)
In September, the Baltimore Sun penned an editorial in favor of the practice, saying it will help "restore trust" between police departments and the public.
Earlier this week, Flex Your Rights, a nonprofit that educates citizens about their constitutional rights when interacting with police, told Reason.com that they advocate for on-body cameras because it levels the playing field between police and citizens:
Without contradictory evidence, the officer's word is usually the official story. But the ubiquity of cameras threatens to destroy this power.
The claims that on-body cameras could help are backed by evidence. A 12-month study conducted by Cambridge University, which Reason first covered back in August, found that "when the city of Rialto, California, required its cops to wear cameras, the number of complaints filed against officers fell by 88 percent and the use of force by officers dropped by almost 60 percent." Additionally, several police departments that require officers to wear on-body cameras have reported positive results. Six months after Laurel, Maryland, bought lapel cameras for their officers, they observed plummeting numbers of police force incidences and citizen complaints.
As of yet, few police departments use on-body cameras.
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
Stock Tip to fellow Reasoners: buy DGLY. http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=dgly&ql=1
It's going to $20. They own the patents for these cameras. Just trying to help.
The Patents for These Cameras?
All wearable digital cameras? What?
They make some LE-market wearable cameras; they don't seem to have any controlling patents on "a wearable, study camera", or the GoPro people wouldn't be in business, eh?
So is there no orientation program at reason that includes Alt-Text training?
I'll try:
Hey guys, what time's the circle jerk?
The Las Vegas PD invited the DOJ to audit it's practices and operations in the wake of 12 fatal officer shooting incidents in 2012. Two weeks ago, the DOJ released it's report. The third bullet point in the report was a recommendation that all LVPD officers should wear body cameras. According to wikipedia there are about 18,000 different LE agencies in the US, with over 1 mllion LEO's. That's a lot of cameras.
That's also going to result in a lot cameras that mysteriously get completely destroyed during violent incidents when they are most needed to support the cops' story about how some mother in a minivan had to be beaten into unconsciousness because she became combative when she was stopped for an illegal lane change.
Easy. No camera, no arrest, and two weeks UNPAID leave. No exceptions.
Nice fantasy, bro.
Excellent. Making cops wear cameras will probably cut down on the number of neanderthals that join the force simply to push people around and compensate for other social or intellectual shortcomings. Of course, the number of lawsuits and complaints about cops hasn't exactly changed the police department practice of specifically targeting that exact type of neanderthal in their recruiting strategies.
DISCLAIMER: No offense is meant to neanderthals.
I wonder about the reasons for the post-camera drops in complaints and force. What percentage is accounted for by the officers improving their behavior because they are being recorded, and what percentage is due to the civilians doing the same thing?
It's almost certainly a mixture of both and a win either way.
Yes. An armed society is a polite society (hat tip to unknown Reasonoid). In this case, armed with the unimpeachable truth.
An armed society is a polite society (hat tip to unknown Reasonoid).
An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.
-- Robert A. Heinlein
It will be no different than dashcams. They will be "turned off" when some uppity Negro needs to be run over in a field, covered conveniently to hide batons to the throat, and lost when they go berserk and accidentally forget to do one of the first two when 6 of them beat a homeless ginger to death. And even if by some miracle the recording of them hurting someone does make into the public record, dunphy and his fellow travelers will kick up enough dust to confuse the public.
The only way to make the cameras work is to set up provisions to fire and ban from law enforcement on the first turned off, damage, obscured camera or lost recording from a known incident. That's just not going to happen.
Well, if the places that say their officer incident rate went down along with the complaints are accurate, it does seem to have some effect, so that's something. Something is better than nothing. It also gets them accustomed to being filmed, so that if a non-cop does it to them, they will be less inclined to care, because they are always being filmed.
It's not great, but any improvement is a good thing.
Yeah, I think it's a great idea. Quite often when I see cops (on Cops or some other show) violating someone's constitutional rights, the cop seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that they are doing so. Often it's a matter that they thought someone "looked suspicious" and when they confront them, everything escalates from there. If we could get cops to understand that they are constitutionally not allowed to fuck with us unless we've actually broken the law, and that we have no obligation to cooperate with them at all and that not cooperating is not the same as resisting, that would be huge. I'm sure this isn't a panacea for all of that, but it could be a good start.
I'm optimistic that insurance companies are going to start to put enough pressure on municipalities and LEA's to change this bullshit. The increasing frequency of these incidents had got to be hurting their bottom lines.
Most of the south bay cities are part of a self insurance consortium. They are already strongly considering this option, especially Torrance. Torrance has had a lot of whoopsies in the past decade...
Or have a state constitution that makes police unions impotent, like NC and VA. In completely related news, Police Groups Are Critical of Quickly Filed Charges Against Charlotte Officer.
Presumption of innocence occurs in the courtroom, not the police station. Of course this asshat knows this but wants confuse the situation.
Yeah, that's totally how they conduct investigations into a shooting.
There is no double standard
Somebody needs to teach this intern how to alt-text.
When any of your names is a firearm you'll alt-text when you damn well please.
Ok I'm a retard. I even made an attempt to find out what an alt-text is and am still in the dark. Please explain in baby talk.
Here, let me google that for you. To be slightly more locally specific, usually the images for a story have some witty alt-text that you can see if you mouse over the image. People around here have very high standards for H&R editors and expect good alt-text.
Always-on cop cameras protect good cops and hurt bad cops*.
Damn right.
(* Assuming there are penalties for "randomly missing" footage or "conveniently damaged camera that just happened to destroy the very sturdy flash memory" in a case.
Which is easily done in law; cut the department's funding by 10% for a year if it happens and it won't farkin' happen. Incentives matter.
Plus what EDG said - there are other incentives against police abuse of power.)
No camera footage means automatic dropped charges would be a good policy. Three dropped charges your fired would be another.
Recording EVERYTHING can only help good cops and hurt bad cops. I know of a CHP officer who recorded every single traffic stop he conducted from beginning to end, and a woman took him to traffic court to contest a speeding ticket. She told the judge that the officer called him the N-word and that the ticket was the result of racism. Unfortunately for her, the officer played the entire recording of the encounter for the judge, and she got referred to the DA for perjury. IDK if she was ever charged, though.
Obviously the solution is to require *everyone* to wear body cameras feeding r/t to [insert agencies here].
"Support Grows for Cops to Wear On-Body Cameras.. shock/explosive collars.. harkonnen heart plugs..."
Today's "LEO" is not necessarily your enemy, but they sure as Hell aren't your best friend. Too often it seems if you wish for a non-violent situation to turn violent, just get them involved.
All of us will do well to avoid them as if they were the neighborhood thug.
Yep. This too will be ignored