The occupant was said to be violent, so officer Carlos Ramirez approached the apartment warily. A dank smell wafted from inside. Ramirez bristled with body armour, radio, gun and Taser, but before knocking on the door he adjusted just one piece of equipment: a tiny camera on his collar.

A tubby, barefoot man with broken teeth and wild eyes opened the door. He appeared to be high. Ramirez questioned him about allegedly beating and evicting his stepson, a mentally disabled teenager. The man shifted from foot to foot and babbled about death threats.

The encounter, tense but polite, ended inconclusively, a routine police foray into family dysfunction – except for the fact it was all recorded. As he returned to his patrol car and next assignment, Ramirez tapped an app on his phone and uploaded the video. "Somewhere down the line something could happen and what that guy said, his demeanour, could be evidence."

Rialto, a small, working-class city that bakes in the San Bernardino foothills outside Los Angeles, appeared in the films Transformers and The Hangover. Among law enforcers, however, it is becoming better known for pioneering the use of body cameras on police officers.

Over the past year all 70 of its uniformed officers have been kitted out with the oblong devices, about the size of stubby cigars, and the results have emboldened police forces elsewhere in the US and in the UK to follow suit.

The College of Policing recently announced plans for large-scale trials of body-worn video in England and Wales, saying Rialto's experiment showed big drops in the use of force and in public complaints against officers. David Davis, a former shadow home secretary, has backed the idea. It follows "plebgate's denting of public trust.

Rialto has also become an example for US forces since a federal judge in New York praised its initiative.

"I think we've opened some eyes in the law enforcement world. We've shown the potential," said Tony Farrar, Rialto's police chief. "It's catching on."

Body-worn cameras are not new. Devon and Cornwall police launched a pilot scheme in 2006 and forces in Strathclyde, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, among others, have also experimented.

But Rialto's randomised controlled study has seized attention because it offers scientific – and encouraging – findings: after cameras were introduced in February 2012, public complaints against officers plunged 88% compared with the previous 12 months. Officers' use of force fell by 60%.

"When you know you're being watched you behave a little better. That's just human nature," said Farrar. "As an officer you act a bit more professional, follow the rules a bit better."

Video clips provided by the department showed dramatic chases on foot – you can hear the officer panting – and by car that ended with arrests, and without injury. Complaints often stemmed not from operational issues but "officers' mouths", said the chief. "With a camera they are more conscious of how they speak and how they treat people."

The same applied to the public; once informed they were being filmed, even drunk or agitated people tended to become more polite, Farrar said. Those who lodged frivolous or bogus complaints about officers tended to retract them when shown video of the incidents. "It's like, 'Oh, I hadn't seen it that way.'"

Cameras made officers more careful about using force. "It's still part of the business, they still do it. But now they make better use of what we call verbal judo."

Fewer complaints and calmer policing, said Farrar, would reduce lawsuits and expensive payouts.

Images of police brutality have shaken California since grainy footage of Los Angeles police officers beating Rodney King ignited riots in 1992. (Rialto police fished King out of his pool after he accidentally drowned last year).

In May sheriff's deputies in Kern county confiscated videophone footage of them fatally beating a father-of-four, David Silva, prompting suspicion of a cover-up.http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/13/local/la-me-ln-bakersfield-beating-20130513 In those and other cases the officers did not know they were being filmed.

Farrar is a wonkish contrast to the stereotypical abrasive commander of TV dramas. He has several degrees, including a recent master's from Cambridge's Institute of Criminology, which planted the idea of methodically assessing the impact of body cameras.

Upon returning to Rialto (city motto: "bridge to progress") he obtained $100,000 (£62,640) in state and federal funding for the Taser-made cameras – about $1,000 each – plus servers and fibre-optic cables. Each officer has his or her own camera, mounted on collars, spectacles or caps, and is expected to activate it during interactions with the public. Encounters are logged and uploaded to a secure digital cloud service, evidence.com.

The chief advised bigger departments who wish to do the same to scale up incrementally, to iron out technical bugs and let officers get used to the idea.

In Rialto some bristled at the intrusion, fearing loss of privacy and autonomy. "I heard guys complaining it would get them into trouble, but I've had no problems so I'm OK with it," said Ramirez.

Most now accepted cameras as another part of the job, said Sgt Josh Lindsay. A self-confessed technophile, he said they provided context to contentious incidents partially captured by bystanders' phones. "Now you can see the [suspect] punching the officer twice in the face before he hits him with his baton."

Even more valuable, cameras aided evidence gathering, such as statements from domestic abuse victims, he said. "By the time those cases get to court often things have cooled down and the victim retracts. But with the video you see her with the bloody lip. There's nothing lost in translation."

Under California law police are not obliged to inform people of the filming. Local media coverage has spread awareness of the cameras but many, like the barefoot man questioned by Ramirez, appear oblivious. If there is to be a backlash, it is too early.

Even Orwell did not anticipate body cameras in 1984, but the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, a frequent critic of police abuses, said with the right controls accountability gains would outweigh privacy concerns. It urged the department to regularly delete videos, and keep them private, unless needed for prosecutions.

Farrar said controls were in place. "No one wants to see these videos on YouTube."

 LordofHats wrote:
This has more application than police behaving badly. How many times has a cop said 'this is what happened' and the other guy said 'no this happened instead!' Now there will be evidence of what really happened. A cop chases a perp but never gets a good look at him? Video evidence that can be examined.

It's a good idea. Lets see where it goes.

 azazel the cat wrote:
There are pros and cons to this, and I'm torn between the two. While the pros are definitely laid out in the article as mentioned, the always-on recording of civilians could easily be taken as a massive 4th amendment rights violation, as *everyone* is being recorded, irrespective of whether or not there would otherwise be cause to record them.

easysauce wrote:
people are already subject to CCTV recordings, and every electronic move, be in on computer, cell phone, or whatever, being recorded and stored should organizations like the NSA ever want to look at it. your 4th amendmant is not violated every time you walk into a place with CCTV (Which is every single store, ever, and a lot of public places as well, even in canada, its everywhere)

 azazel the cat wrote:

easysauce wrote:
people are already subject to CCTV recordings, and every electronic move, be in on computer, cell phone, or whatever, being recorded and stored should organizations like the NSA ever want to look at it. your 4th amendmant is not violated every time you walk into a place with CCTV (Which is every single store, ever, and a lot of public places as well, even in canada, its everywhere)

The difference is that those CCTV security cameras are not placed there by the state; they represent private interests and thus are not found in the public sphere. (the exception being in the UK, but that is exactly the kinda of Big Brother effect to which I'm referring)

EDIT: and for what it's worth, your argument of "your rights COULD be violated, so they SHOULD be violated" might be the worst argument I've ever heard. Hang your head in shame and feel bad about that.

The same applied to the public; once informed they were being filmed, even drunk or agitated people tended to become more polite, Farrar said. Those who lodged frivolous or bogus complaints about officers tended to retract them when shown video of the incidents. "It's like, 'Oh, I hadn't seen it that way.'"

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Speaking as a Brit, my trust in the police has not been eroded by Plebgate.

Everyone knows the police are not squeaky clean knights in armour. Nor are politicians.

It's pretty obvious that the Tories are prepared to spend as much public money as it takes to get revenge for a very petty matter that happened months ago, and they are banging on this "public trust" drum to justify it.

Ironically, "Plebgate" was recorded on CCTV without sound, and neither the policemen nor the cyclist involved had cameras on them.

easysauce wrote:actually, yes, there are plenty of state placed cctv cameras everywhere....
red light cameras, traffic video cameras, and other state palced CCTV abounds in every major city now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azazel the cat wrote:

easysauce wrote:
people are already subject to CCTV recordings, and every electronic move, be in on computer, cell phone, or whatever, being recorded and stored should organizations like the NSA ever want to look at it. your 4th amendmant is not violated every time you walk into a place with CCTV (Which is every single store, ever, and a lot of public places as well, even in canada, its everywhere)

The difference is that those CCTV security cameras are not placed there by the state; they represent private interests and thus are not found in the public sphere. (the exception being in the UK, but that is exactly the kinda of Big Brother effect to which I'm referring)

EDIT: and for what it's worth, your argument of "your rights COULD be violated, so they SHOULD be violated" might be the worst argument I've ever heard. Hang your head in shame and feel bad about that.

dont put words in my mouth, my argument is not that rights should be violated, so stop with it right there, you are just trolling.

and actually, yes, there are plenty of state placed cctv cameras everywhere....
red light cameras, and traffic video cameras abound here.

cops having cameras on their guns is less invasive then what we already have... and it only makes sense to look back, instead of it being a one way street... ESP since cop dash cams and gun cams would go a long way to PROTECTING peoples rights from being trampled because their word is over ruled by a cops.

the right to privacy, and protection from unreasonable search and seasure, is not violated when you happen to be filmed in a public place, especially when that film can be used to oh, I dont know,

PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS....

Go worry about the actual 4th amendment violations that obama and his NSA are up to,

easysauce wrote:people are already subject to CCTV recordings, and every electronic move, be in on computer, cell phone, or whatever, being recorded and stored should organizations like the NSA ever want to look at it.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Now, as I said well before you decided to make this a binary argument, I see pros and cons to the idea. I agree that in many cases the video evidence would help protect your rights; the difficulty I have with it is that it becomes a question of exactly how far it can go (again, I refer to the UK and its CCTV cameras everywhere).

Necros wrote:I think this is a good idea .. but, wouldn't a cop need to tell the person they are being videotaped? kind of like how you can't just record a phone conversation without telling someone?

 azazel the cat wrote:

Necros wrote:I think this is a good idea .. but, wouldn't a cop need to tell the person they are being videotaped? kind of like how you can't just record a phone conversation without telling someone?

Which becomes particularly difficult when that cop happens to be looking at a busy sidewalk where hundreds of people may be recorded.

Generally speaking, I love the idea of peace officers having GoPros available to them, however it does create some logistical problems. Personally, I think (not too carefully yet, mind you) that cops with GoPros might work well if the cameras are only turned on upon arriving at the site of a response call.

On the surface, that seems like it strikes a solid balance between the desire to have the cops using the cameras, while still respecting the privacy of passersby in public spaces.

 Necros wrote:
I think this is a good idea .. but, wouldn't a cop need to tell the person they are being videotaped? kind of like how you can't just record a phone conversation without telling someone?

 sebster wrote:
I think the cameras are great. They've been used in multiple cases here in Australia, most times substantiating the officer's statement, but a few times supporting the defendant's case and leading to not guilty verdicts. But in all those cases the main point is that the cameras helped the court come to the real truth of the matter.

I also don't think there's really much of an issue with the loss of privacy from a cop having a camera. I mean, if you're being viewed by a police officer, you're already in a position where you have no privacy. If you're interacting with a policeman, then you're either in public, or the cop has reasonable grounds, or a warrant... he has a right to be there interacting with you, and if he doesn't then you've still got all the same legal protections whether he has a camera or not.

 cincydooley wrote:


But but. What about all the added cost!