A couple of years ago, I penned Assume Everyone is Watching (September 2015). There was much discussion then regarding the surreptitious recording of people. The nation was seemingly enthralled with these recordings of police, of arrests, of protests, and more. A defining cry at the time was in favor of more recording, and many called upon police forces to accept and adopt "body cameras" so that an officer's every action would be documented.
The New York Times claimed that by 2015 "95 percent of large police departments reported they were using body cameras or had committed to doing so in the near future." But in the Summer of 2016, the Seattle Times proclaimed that "slightly more than half of large municipal police departments in the U.S." were actually using body cams. Thus, the volume of "committed" may not have migrated to the "using" in the "near future" as might have been intended or perceived. In January 2018, the City of New York reported 2,470 cameras deployed, and about 15,000 more were needed for full deployment.
In January 2018, the New York City Police Benevolent Association's International Business Times questioned the efficacy of the cameras. That story quotes from an October 2017 study that concluded an inability "to detect any statistically significant effects" of the use of such cameras." Opponents cited officer privacy, due process, safety, and cost as arguments against deploying this technology. The National Conference of State Legislatures concluded otherwise. In a study it cites, when officers "were equipped with cameras" the volume of "use of force incidents and citizen complaints against officers were reduced by 50 and 90 percent respectively."
So, there is debate regarding efficacy generally, and there is discussion of the cost/benefit analysis. New York's cost is estimated at $27.5 million, or about $1,833 per camera ($27.5M/15,000) to equip the remaining 15,000 officers. That is significant. The value perhaps is seen in modifying human behavior. As the Times noted it is perceived that the "devices would have a civilizing effect on both officers and civilians." Perhaps we all behave differently when there is a potential we are being recorded?
The 2015 death of Freddie Gray in Baltimore contributed to the discussion of body cameras. Mr. Gray died in police custody. In South Carolina, Senator Scott explained to CNN how body cameras would benefit the investigation of such situations, mentioning Mr. Gray and a shooting in North Charleston, South Carolina. He explained that "we should always have as much evidence from the scene as possible." He contended that "body cameras would help change behaviors."
Coincidentally, Last summer body cameras were back in the news in Baltimore. CBS News reported that "thirty-four criminal cases will be thrown out," and many more were "under review" because "body camera footage appeared to show an officer planting elicit drugs at a crime scene." The report noted that after the video was viewed, two police officers were "placed on desk duty" and another "was suspended." Perhaps tending to prove the efficacy of cameras in assuring ethical police behavior?
In March 2018, the Boston Globe similarly reported that multiple criminal arrests there have been "overturned based on body camera footage" during a year-long "pilot program." It noted also that an internal affairs investigation against an officer "was dismissed due to body camera footage." An ACLU described the cameras as "a more neutral witness" removing some of the "he said, she said" conflict that arises in disputes.
Thus, there are examples of video evidence being used to protect citizens from the police and to protect police from allegations by the public. Video evidence, like all evidence, can cut both ways.
The news about cameras in 2018 has been persistent though. One might wonder if there are more incidents lately, or just more news coverage?
In May 2018, a driver was stopped and tested for sobriety. She failed, as reported by Fox News. She alleged that the arresting officer made unwanted sexual advances. She claimed she was "forcefully groped, fondled" and more "during a prolonged arrest." She hired an attorney and sought relief. The Texas Department of Public Safety did an investigation and then released "nearly two hours of body cam footage." It referred to the complaints as "slanderous" and "false." The driver's attorney issued an apology, complimented the police officer, and accepted responsibility for inappropriately "amplifying these claims."
Meanwhile, in Milwaukee, the police released footage of a January 2018 arrest involving a professional basketball player, Mr. Brown. CBS News reported in May that officers had claimed Mr. Brown "threatened them while they were writing him a ticket." However, it reported that "at no point in the video does Brown appear to be threatening." Despite that lack of threatening, the officers used a "stun gun" on Mr. Brown. After release of the footage, the police chief apologized for "how his department handled the situation," and announced the officers had been disciplined.
In New York, body cam footage made the CBS News in May also. In this instance, a man was retrieving his property from a woman's home. There is seemingly a dispute regarding whether the two lived together or whether he sometimes "stayed over." But the woman would not permit entry. He summoned the police, who advised the man "You have the right to kick the door in, if you want, to gain access." The man broke a window, the woman pointed a gun at him, and then she was arrested. Her attorney takes issue with the police officer's advice regarding breaking in.
In May 2018, a man posted on Facebook "that he was racially profiled" by the police in a traffic stop. He recounted the officer questioning him as to who owned the vehicle and what he was doing in the particular neighborhood. He prognosticated in a Facebook post "Guess I can’t be a pastor and can’t drive a Mercedes Benz and live in a nice neighborhood. Well you know as president of Timmonsville NAACP he stopped the wrong car tonight cause someone needs to answer for this behavior…” SC Now Morning News reported that the body cam video "contradicts his claims. It also noted that the post was "later removed from Facebook."
In New Jersey, there were three recent body camera stories. The First was in late April 2018, involving a traffic stop reported by ABC News. The mother of one of the people in the stopped car arrived to pick up her daughter and others because the stopped car was being impounded. The mother stated she is a "friend of the mayor," and displayed a "badge," while informing the officers she is "the commissioner of the Port Authority." there was a "tense exchange" and the mother "vows to meet with the Tenafly Police Commissioner." The mother resigned from her position at the Port Authority shortly after the video was released.
The second, reported by NBC News in May, involved a motorist stopped for a traffic infraction. She reportedly "cursed, complained when she received a summons," and referred to the city police chief as "a skinhead cop." It was reportedly an emotional interaction, during which the motorist became tearful. The officer responded to the emotion by offering to call an ambulance to assist her with what he perceived as a panic attack. One observer concluded the motorist acted inappropriately, "while the officer “remains calm and proceeds to act in accordance to his duties.”
The third, and perhaps most covered on social media, is the beach beating of a teenager by two adult police officers, reported by the Las Vegas Review-Journal. This young lady was accused of underage drinking, and without a doubt, she failed to do as the officers instructed. Arrests are not always the calm process portrayed by Hollywood. But, there are those who were nonetheless incensed by the video of one of the large officers punching the teen twice in the head with a closed fist. Fox News reported that the local prosecutor has concluded there is no reason to prosecute the officer for punching the young lady. As an aside, Mom always told me you cannot hit a girl, but that may not be a thing in New Jersey?
Of course, the efficacy of body camera video depends upon someone seeing it. The examples cited all involve the decision of a police department or prosecutor to make the video available. And, that raises a converse thought in the minds of some skeptics. In the event a police department declines to provide public access to such video, it is possible that the skeptics will then conclude that either the video does not absolve the officer or department, or worse that it must be incriminating?
In May 2018, WHNT19 News in Huntsville, Alabama reported that the city's police department generally will not release body cam video. The story recounts an incident in which bystander video "appears to show a Huntsville Police Department officer punching a suspect in the back" during an arrest (punching may apparently be different in Alabama than in New Jersey). The news station seeks the body cam video on the theory it is a public record. The city purportedly agrees "to a certain extent," but says "they are not a public record in the sense what is stated in the law that says public records are open to public scrutiny." Not sure what that sentence means. The city noted privacy concerns, and potential civil rights claims, and declined to release the requested video. Does that decision speak to policy or merely circumstance?
Certainly, privacy was an issue noted in various stories about body cameras. In 2016, NBC News reported on concerns of "surveillance on the public," while nonetheless noting that body cam usage was "praised by the ACLU" (American Civil Liberties Union). NBC reported that these cameras could be developed for use with "facial-recognition software," expanding the scope of their impact. Every encounter with police might lead to further scrutiny by an intelligent computer somewhere.
Facial recognition scares people. It smacks of 1984, and people are concerned about their privacy. That facial recognition concern was raised in May also when The Verge and other news outlets revealed that the Orlando Police Department is operating stationary cameras that are tied into a facial recognition program developed by Amazon. The implications of being watched by Big Brother excited social media and generated further discussion.
Is the jury in or still out? The month of May 2018 evidenced a string of instances in which body cameras aided law enforcement in defending its actions. The examples were in a variety of locations and yet were seemingly consistent in their effect of dispelling accusations and innuendos falsely made. Or, confirmed the action (punching girls in the head), but led nowhere. Or, were not released and led to innuendo. And, there are reports that body camera use has revealed inappropriate police behavior and thus protected citizen's rights.
Perhaps these several examples prove Senator Scott's 2015 prognostications that "we should always have as much evidence from the scene as possible" and that "body cameras would help change behaviors." If miscreants are revealed on camera, planting evidence, or punching teenage girls (OK, maybe punching girls is not a problem if you are a cop in New Jersey), perhaps behavior will change. If liars are exposed because video recordings do not match their fabrications, perhaps behavior will change. And, perhaps those benefits of surveillance are worthwhile.
But, there remains a concern in society that our privacy is at risk. There is concern, hue, and cry about where all this video could lead. While it seems likely that body cams are here to stay, despite the costs, many worry that the engagement of facial recognition and artificial intelligence, and Big Brother is the inevitable next shoe to drop. Some will tout benefits from such expanded employment of video and others will decry it. The debate will continue.
