Police Body Cameras

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**LordofHats**

http://news.yahoo.com/officers-body-cameras-raise-privacy-concerns-143607269.html

OS ANGELES (AP) — Officers at thousands of law enforcement agencies are wearing tiny cameras to record their interactions with the public, but in many cases the devices are being rolled out faster than departments are able to create policies to govern their use.

And some rank-and-file officers are worried the technology might ultimately be used to derail their careers if, for example, an errant comment about a superior is captured on tape.

Most law enforcement leaders and civil liberties advocates believe the cameras will ultimately help officers because the devices give them a way to record events from their point of view at a time when citizens armed with cellphones are actively scrutinizing their every move.

They say, however, that the lack of clear guidelines on the cameras' use could potentially undermine departments' goals of creating greater accountability of officers and jeopardize the privacy of both the public and law enforcement officers.

"This is a brave new world that we're entering here, where citizens and police both are going to be filming each other," said Chuck Wexler, the executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum, a nonprofit police research and policy organization.

The U.S. Justice Department has asked Wexler's group to help develop guidelines for the cameras' use, from when the devices should be turned on to how departments can protect the privacy of those who are inadvertently captured on the footage.

Equipping police with cameras isn't a new concept. For decades police have used cameras mounted to the dashboards of their patrol cars — initially referred to with suspicion by officers as "indict-o-cams" until they discovered the footage exonerated them in most cases.

As camera technology and data storage has become more affordable and reliable, the use of portable cameras has increased over the last five years. Now officers in one of every six departments are patrolling with them on their chests, lapels or sunglasses, according to Scott Greenwood, general counsel for the national American Civil Liberties Union and an expert on the cameras.

With the push of a finger, officers can show the dangers and difficulties of their work. Unlike dashboard cameras, body cameras follow the officer everywhere — when their cruiser stays parked at the curb, when they go into homes on search warrants or when they are running after a suspect.

The cameras, if they aren't turned off, can go with officers into a bathroom or locker room, or capture private conversations between partners. Footage can become evidence in a criminal case, or be used to discipline officers or exonerate them of false accusations.
View gallery
This Jan. 15, 2014 file photo shows Los Angeles Police …
This Jan. 15, 2014 file photo shows Los Angeles Police Sgt. Daniel Gomez demonstrating a video feed …

Without strong policies, experts say, departments could lose the public's trust. The public needs to know cameras aren't only being turned on when it'll help officers. But there are certain moments such as during the interview of a sexual assault victim or talk with a confidential informant when filming may be sensitive or even compromise a case, said Bay Area attorney Mike Rains, whose firm often represents officers and has worked on body camera policies with departments.

The Los Angeles Police Department is now field testing cameras with an eye toward ultimately deploying them to all patrol officers — a move that would make its program the nation's largest. For the six months of the test, underway now, there will be no official policy. Department officials say a policy will be created with input from the community and union, when they know more about how the cameras work in the field.

Union chief Tyler Izen, who represents more than 9,900 sworn officers, said that while there've been no complaints so far, the strategy is risky and could be problematic for his officers as well as the public, which has become an involuntary guinea pig in the trial. "They're basically taking their chances," Izen said.

There's still very little research into the impacts of these cameras on policing and their ripple effects on the criminal justice system, said Justin Ready, assistant professor at Arizona State's department of criminology and criminal justice. But more studies are underway, including two that Ready is involved in.

The police department in Rialto, Calif., concluded a yearlong University of Cambridge study last year that found an 89 percent drop in complaints against officers during the camera trial. The chief has since mandated its deployment to its roughly 90 sworn officers.

Rialto police Sgt. Richard Royce said he was exonerated by the footage during the study.

"I'd rather have my version of that incident captured on high-definition video in its entirety from my point of view, then to look at somebody's grainy cellphone camera footage captured a 100 feet away that gets cropped, edited, changed or manipulated," Royce said.

Greenwood of the ACLU said he's provided input in drawing up the Justice Department guidelines. He said the proposed policy is pretty good, but gives officers more discretion than is wise.

"It's a far better policy decision to mandate the encounter be recorded and deal with the unwanted video," Greenwood said. Because if a situation goes bad quickly and there's no footage, the officer is in trouble, Greenwood said.

Captured video could protect the department — and ultimately the taxpayer— from a false claim and expensive litigation or result in disciplining a problem officer.

One case, also in Oakland, is being used to educate officers in California about the technology. An officer chasing a suspect said he saw the suspect with a gun in his hand before fatally shooting him three times in ¾ of a second. A gun was later found in the grass.

It cost the city $10,000 to have roughly 15 seconds of video analyzed by an expert, and because of the angle of where the camera was placed — on the officer's chest — no gun was seen in the suspect's hand on film, said Rains, an attorney whose firm represented the officer.

Sgt. Barry Donelan, the police union chief in Oakland, said the department initially moved to terminate the officer for an excessive response, but he was ultimately exonerated because the video analysis backed up the officer's account.

Donelan said the danger with such footage is it taps into a human tendency to over rely on video at the expense of other accounts of an event, and can be especially problematic in high-adrenaline situations.

When that happens, "it's just about the camera," Donelan said. "It's the ultimate Monday morning quarterbacking tool."

Remember us having a thread about this several months back about the positives of how the cameras were helping exonerate police officers, but this I think raised an interesting question about how it can inadvertently hurt them.

**Grey Templar**

They should probably be able to turn them on and off as they wish. So they could keep them rolling while on patrol but could turn them off if they were on break or something.

**LordofHats**

I think the issue of them turning it off when it suits them though is a viable concern. I think the best solution (imo) is to have them always on, but the footage itself is handled by an independent body outside the department that can screen video for what is and is not relevant. Relevant video is stored as long as any other evidence, while non-relevant is kept for a set period of time then deleted. What the independent body sees that isn't relevant to a case is never handed over to police or the justice department without a court order (unless it exposes misconduct or some other crime that is just inadvertently captured).

**dogma**

When that happens, "it's just about the camera," Donelan said. "It's the ultimate Monday morning quarterbacking tool."

Probably not the best analogy, given how important film analysis is to athletic success.

**Peregrine**

Allow them to turn off the camera, but consider the absence of a recording evidence against the officer if they're accused of abusing their power. That way you can turn it off when you're in the bathroom, but you can't conveniently "forget" to turn it back on when you shoot someone.

**LordofHats**

Probably not the best analogy, given how important film analysis is to athletic success.

Get with the times brosef

**Ensis Ferrae**

LordofHats wrote:
I think the issue of them turning it off when it suits them though is a viable concern. I think the best solution (imo) is to have them always on, but the footage itself is handled by an independent body outside the department that can screen video for what is and is not relevant. Relevant video is stored as long as any other evidence, while non-relevant is kept for a set period of time then deleted. What the independent body sees that isn't relevant to a case is never handed over to police or the justice department without a court order (unless it exposes misconduct or some other crime that is just inadvertently captured).

Or, have a system set up to where, at the end of shift, the camera's data is wiped clean, if they had no incidents, or responses... Ie, if they were on their patrol but had not speeding tickets, no domestics, or any other call to answer, and no emergencies or anything (so nothing that would/could be used as evidence) then it could get deleted. If they did respond or have some sort of incident, then the persons that are independent of the department in the system find the time stamp for the period of time they were on this response (afaik, police call in at the conclusion of a response as well, to let dispatchers know they are available for another call again, bringing someone in, etc.) and store only that section of footage as evidence.

**LordofHats**

That would save a lot of gigabytes. See we're brain storming this is how gak gets done

**sparkywtf**

LordofHats wrote:
I think the issue of them turning it off when it suits them though is a viable concern. I think the best solution (imo) is to have them always on, but the footage itself is handled by an independent body outside the department that can screen video for what is and is not relevant. Relevant video is stored as long as any other evidence, while non-relevant is kept for a set period of time then deleted. What the independent body sees that isn't relevant to a case is never handed over to police or the justice department without a court order (unless it exposes misconduct or some other crime that is just inadvertently captured).

The problem with an independent body is expense. Departments are cutting budgets, not making them bigger.

Another is size of the data. There is a reason dash cams aren't always recording (the new ones auto turn on when the lights/sirens are hit) and officers can also turn off those. The data takes up a LOT of space and bandwidth, as the new ones instantly send it to a server instead of storing it in the car.

Also an independent body also raises questions of privacy of the public (and officer). They can use the footage to their advantage just as much as an officer could. And how are they going to know what is relevant. It isn't always so easy to tell. An interaction to an outside observer may seem harmless and get deleted.

**LordofHats**

sparkywtf wrote:

The problem with an independent body is expense. Departments are cutting budgets, not making them bigger.

Departments don't make their own budgets. But yeah. it would be more expensive, but letting police police themselves in this respect I think is far more potentially dangerous to privacy and the purpose of the cameras to begin with. Someone distant from the actual subjects has less potential to do harm and with all of them centralized, regulating the procedures is easier. Any government power can be abused, so people pointing out abuse can happen means very little to me. It probably will be abused but I personally find the benefits overall will outweigh the dangers.

Ideally such agencies would probably best exist at the state level, which would save departments and states money over handling it department to department and allow states to adjust procedures as residents and individual needs dictate.

Another is size of the data. There is a reason dash cams aren't always recording (the new ones auto turn on when the lights/sirens are hit) and officers can also turn off those. The data takes up a LOT of space and bandwidth, as the new ones instantly send it to a server instead of storing it in the car.

Data storage is always growing and getting cheaper, so complete non-issue.

**dogma**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Or, have a system set up to where, at the end of shift, the camera's data is wiped clean, if they had no incidents, or responses... Ie, if they were on their patrol but had not speeding tickets, no domestics, or any other call to answer, and no emergencies or anything (so nothing that would/could be used as evidence) then it could get deleted. If they did respond or have some sort of incident, then the persons that are independent of the department in the system find the time stamp for the period of time they were on this response (afaik, police call in at the conclusion of a response as well, to let dispatchers know they are available for another call again, bringing someone in, etc.) and store only that section of footage as evidence.

Yeah, that's sensible.

sparkywtf wrote:

Also an independent body also raises questions of privacy of the public (and officer). They can use the footage to their advantage just as much as an officer could.

How? At least short of blackmail.

**sparkywtf**

LordofHats wrote:
sparkywtf wrote:

The problem with an independent body is expense. Departments are cutting budgets, not making them bigger.

Departments don't make their own budgets. But yeah. it would be more expensive, but letting police police themselves in this respect I think is far more potentially dangerous to privacy and the purpose of the cameras to begin with. Someone distant from the actual subjects has less potential to do harm and with all of them centralized, regulating the procedures is easier. Any government power can be abused, so people pointing out abuse can happen means very little to me. It probably will be abused but I personally find the benefits overall will outweigh the dangers.

Ideally such agencies would probably best exist at the state level, which would save departments and states money over handling it department to department and allow states to adjust procedures as residents and individual needs dictate.

Another is size of the data. There is a reason dash cams aren't always recording (the new ones auto turn on when the lights/sirens are hit) and officers can also turn off those. The data takes up a LOT of space and bandwidth, as the new ones instantly send it to a server instead of storing it in the car.

Data storage is always growing and getting cheaper, so complete non-issue.

It may be getting cheaper, but its still an expensive, and departments are still getting budgets cut, not getting them bigger.

dogma wrote:
Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Or, have a system set up to where, at the end of shift, the camera's data is wiped clean, if they had no incidents, or responses... Ie, if they were on their patrol but had not speeding tickets, no domestics, or any other call to answer, and no emergencies or anything (so nothing that would/could be used as evidence) then it could get deleted. If they did respond or have some sort of incident, then the persons that are independent of the department in the system find the time stamp for the period of time they were on this response (afaik, police call in at the conclusion of a response as well, to let dispatchers know they are available for another call again, bringing someone in, etc.) and store only that section of footage as evidence.

Yeah, that's sensible.

sparkywtf wrote:

Also an independent body also raises questions of privacy of the public (and officer). They can use the footage to their advantage just as much as an officer could.

How? At least short of blackmail.

Blackmail still exists though, and will continue to be used. The blue code of silence is a thing and isn't going to go anywhere.

**dogma**

sparkywtf wrote:

Blackmail still exists though, and will continue to be used. The blue code of silence is a thing and isn't going to go anywhere.

Blackmail is an existing crime. Short of a significant effort to identify any particular person (and identify what they might be doing) who was within the camera's field of view, but not subject to police action, there is no harm a vest cam can cause. As such, I see no privacy issue.

Anyway, it is hard to maintain the blue code of silence when your behavior is filmed and the people with the data don't particularly care about that code. Indeed, that was the substance of Sgt. Donelan's objection.

**LordofHats**

It may be getting cheaper, but its still an expensive, and departments are still getting budgets cut, not getting them bigger.

And ten years ago the typical hard drive was only 750 megabytes. Today its 1 terabyte. That's a 1300%* increase in the span of a decade.

Data storage is a complete non-issue. Cost is not, but the cost of processing, analysis, and personnel will be vastly larger compared to the insignificant cost of storage.

*(check my math I do suck at it)

**SilverMK2**

Perhaps centrally controlled cameras which can only be turned off and on again from central control - the police officer has to call in and get them to deactivate the camera for either a certain amount of time, or until the officer calls in again?

And I don't know if the data will be stored in the same way we store patient information, but we store them on RAID servers, where the data is split over either 3 drives with a 4th holding a reassembly code, or over 4 drives with reassembly codes scattered through each of the 4 drives - either way your data is actually only able to take up less than 3/4 of whatever storage capacity you have.

**d-usa**

LordofHats wrote:
I think the issue of them turning it off when it suits them though is a viable concern. I think the best solution (imo) is to have them always on, but the footage itself is handled by an independent body outside the department that can screen video for what is and is not relevant. Relevant video is stored as long as any other evidence, while non-relevant is kept for a set period of time then deleted. What the independent body sees that isn't relevant to a case is never handed over to police or the justice department without a court order (unless it exposes misconduct or some other crime that is just inadvertently captured).

The government says that's good enough for all the data mining and email and cell-phone snooping they do on everybody else. The NSA think they are not really violating anything if they record everything as long as that data is stored somewhere centrally and they don't look at it "unless they have a good reason to...".

**Ouze**

LordofHats wrote:
I think the issue of them turning it off when it suits them though is a viable concern. I think the best solution (imo) is to have them always on, but the footage itself is handled by an independent body outside the department that can screen video for what is and is not relevant. Relevant video is stored as long as any other evidence, while non-relevant is kept for a set period of time then deleted. What the independent body sees that isn't relevant to a case is never handed over to police or the justice department without a court order (unless it exposes misconduct or some other crime that is just inadvertently captured).

I think this is the best answer in theory but sort of unworkable in practice. If you have 10 officers in a department they're generating 800 hours of footage a day, minimum. Too much to filter through.

A technological answer is better. Perhaps software that automatically scans the GPS location data and purges anything that shows they are inside the department, or that toggles the cameras on and off when they swipe a badge to enter or exit the building. Some combination of all of those ideas.

I am a big proponent of body cameras on police officers, more so if the officers themselves cannot turn them off. The do generate some logistical problems but I think the benefits warrant it.

**Peregrine**

Ouze wrote:
If you have 10 officers in a department they're generating 800 hours of footage a day, minimum. Too much to filter through.

But why would you filter through it? Camera recordings are only going to be relevant if there's an investigation into something, so as long as the original files are intact then it's easy to go back and get exactly what you need. So you just store everything indefinitely until someone asks to see it.

(And of course you impose severe penalties for lost data, so nobody can cover up an incident. Delete your camera data, spend the rest of your life in prison.)

**d-usa**

I think that some of the dash-cam systems only start recording when they lights are switched on (aka: when they are in pursuit or pulled somebody over). Don't know how practical it would be to have a system that automatically records for set parameters like that on a body-cam though...

**Ouze**

Peregrine wrote:
Ouze wrote:
If you have 10 officers in a department they're generating 800 hours of footage a day, minimum. Too much to filter through.

But why would you filter through it? Camera recordings are only going to be relevant if there's an investigation into something, so as long as the original files are intact then it's easy to go back and get exactly what you need. So you just store everything indefinitely until someone asks to see it.

To filter out video of officers taking a dump? I don't think officers have any expectation of privacy in public, but I obviously think they do in their locker rooms and bathrooms. Maybe I misunderstand your approach.

Peregrine wrote:
(And of course you impose severe penalties for lost data, so nobody can cover up an incident. Delete your camera data, spend the rest of your life in prison.)

I see no reason why officers should have any access to the data at all. I would have always-on, filtered as previously discussed. You leave the precinct, GPS kicks it on, you swipe a badge to come back in, it toggles back off.

Interview rooms already have their own recording systems, no change.

**SilverMK2**

So you are suggesting a system where cameras only record when the police are flashing?

**dogma**

SilverMK2 wrote:
So you are suggesting a system where cameras only record when the police are flashing?

Joe Francis may yet recover from GGW's bankruptcy.

**Peregrine**

Ouze wrote:
To filter out video of officers taking a dump? I don't think officers have any expectation of privacy in public, but I obviously think they do in their locker rooms and bathrooms. Maybe I misunderstand your approach.

The idea is that nobody has access to the recordings. You don't have someone manually looking through the files to delete the parts where the person is in the bathroom or whatever, you just store the entire recording on a disk somewhere and ignore it until there's an investigation that requires access to a specific part of it. Remember, my initial comment was in response to someone talking about having an independent group reviewing everything the camera records and manually filtering out the irrelevant stuff, not "filtering" by only recording at specific times.

I see no reason why officers should have any access to the data at all.

They shouldn't in theory, but in practice it might be possible to delete it. Or, someone with access to the data might delete incriminating evidence to cover up an incident. Nothing is absolutely 100% secure, at some point you have to trust a human with access to the data. So you make the system as secure as possible, and then treat any unauthorized editing of the data as a serious crime.

I would have always-on, filtered as previously discussed.

That still doesn't cover things like a bathroom break outside of the police station, talking to a victim/witness that might not want to be recorded, etc. Plus it also doesn't cover potential abuse that happens inside the police station unless it's in a formal interrogation. The better solution is to have an off switch, but treat the use of that off switch as evidence against the wearer if they are accused of a crime. That maintains a reasonable right to privacy, but ensures that you can't just turn off the camera before abusing your power.

**LordofHats**

Good god Peregrine and I and in agreement. I'd say a Horseman of the Apocalypse is involved, but Pere doesn't believe in such things so I'll keep it to myself

To filter out video of officers taking a dump? I don't think officers have any expectation of privacy in public, but I obviously think they do in their locker rooms and bathrooms. Maybe I misunderstand your approach.

The way I envision it the recording just sits on a secure hard drive (kept on a closed network, all access to which is strictly monitored/recorded) and is unseen unless there is cause. If there is cause, a group of analysts, maybe three to five people, sit down and watch the recording within a relevant time frame for the incident they are investigating. They then filter through the recording to create an evidence tape of sorts and present it to the police for their use. All footage is kept for say, two years, then deleted from the system.

Now, some kind of procedure should exist where a Judge can view a recording unedited imo, in case there are accusations that something is relevant but was cut from the tape by analysts or some such, so that he/she can determine if the unedited footage should be made evidence, but maybe a lawyer is better for theory crafting that.

The bathroom thing is, yeah. I mean, who wants to sit and filter through footage of a cop taking a deuce anyway? I draw issue with police being able to just turn the camera off, but I got nothing for dealing with things like that. Peregrine's position might be closest, though I disagree with the camera being off counting against an officer. The lack of footage in itself is enough to create a problem for them, but specifically holding it against them could lead to punishments for honest mistakes.

**Peregrine**

LordofHats wrote:
Peregrine's position might be closest, though I disagree with the camera being off counting against an officer. The lack of footage in itself is enough to create a problem for them, but specifically holding it against them could lead to punishments for honest mistakes.

That's why it should be evidence against the officer, not an automatic conviction. If there's compelling evidence that no crime was committed then obviously that should outweigh the absence of video. Likewise if the camera can be analyzed and found to be legitimately broken (of course turning it off voluntarily should log the event so it's obviously different from a malfunction) it should be considered an honest mistake as long as it was reported immediately and a new camera was requested. The idea is that by making the absence of video evidence against the officer you remove the incentive to "accidentally" switch off the camera or delete the recording, not that failure to operate the camera properly should itself be a crime.