One (or two) HUGE issue to be considered about Body Cameras

 

An officer pulls up to an emergency call and in his/her rush to engage the suspect they fail to turn on the camera...then something goes bad and someone get's shot. Automatic rush of public opinion will be that the officer intentionally didn't turn the camera on because he planned on doing something bad.

 

Officer is focused on the suspect, possible victims, putting car in park, exiting the car quickly, possibly looking for cover, radioing position or situation to dispatch, drawing weapon...and somewhere in there making sure camera is turned on and pointing straight ahead. If camera doesn't get switched on everyone is going to think it is intentional...that's the #1 drawback that I see.

 

Second drawback is Freedom of Information request...Police officer come to your house for a domestic issue and camera is recording. Your inebriated and saying things you wouldn't say in public and your standing there in your underwear cursing. You happen to be the local high school coach or principal and now someone you don't like is requesting the video from the encounter a Freedom of Information Act request. As of now those types of request haven't been 100% ruled on by the courts as far as I know.

 

As a whole I think they are a very good idea, just please don't expect them to be a magic wand that settles all disputes going forward.

 

I don't think anyone has said they would settle all disputes. They're sure as heck better than not having them though.

 

As to your examples where they fail to turn the camera on, not sure how that would be any different than now. You're always going to have a group that are automatically going to side with the civilian, and you'll still have a group that no matter what are going to side with the cop.

Edited May 8, 201511 yr by UKMustangFan

I don't anyone has said they would settle all disputes. They're sure as heck better than not having them though.

 

As to your examples where they fail to turn the camera on, not sure how that would be any different than now. You're always going to have a group that are automatically going to side with the civilian, and you'll still have a group that no matter what are going to side with the cop.

 

My only point would be that many and maybe even prosecutors would use the fact that they forgot to turn the camera on against them as a point of evidence.

My only point would be that many and maybe even prosecutors would use the fact that they forgot to turn the camera on against them as a point of evidence.

 

Sounds like someone needs to invent a trigger that turns the camera on anytime the cruiser door opens.

Sounds like someone needs to invent a trigger that turns the camera on anytime the cruiser door opens.

Need a video of them taking a pee break? :lol2:

Looks like most departments have a policy in place and discipline those that routinely don't turn their cameras on. I think it's becoming automatic for most officers, but the time they are most apt not to do it are when things are happening quickly...the situations most likely needed to be on camera.

Need a video of them taking a pee break? :lol2:

 

I doesn't say anything about not leaving them an off switch.:lol2:

Cops dont need body cams. There are enough people with cell phone cameras to take the place of that.

Cops dont need body cams. There are enough people with cell phone cameras to take the place of that.

 

It seems we only get the very end of the video with a cell phone or not the whole picture. It makes it even worse.

It seems we only get the very end of the video with a cell phone or not the whole picture. It makes it even worse.

 

The end is all people care about anyway, how else would they have reason to loot and steal. Nobody or no media wants a justified shooting or a justified arrest. All They want is chaos and racism.

Deleted it? Wouldn't they be destroying evidence then?

 

Not if the policy was that it should have never been filmed in the first place (hence, it wouldn't even be 'evidence'). And also, I'd imagine that there'd be someone in charge of things like that who was the only person that'd have access to deleting it, otherwise anyone who did something bad would just go delete it themselves and deal with the less severe consequences of that.

 

Again, the hypo was that it was against policy to even record it in the first place. No different than someone redacting parts of a report or something like that.

 

Not if the policy was that it should have never been filmed in the first place (hence, it wouldn't even be 'evidence'). And also, I'd imagine that there'd be someone in charge of things like that who was the only person that'd have access to deleting it, otherwise anyone who did something bad would just go delete it themselves and deal with the less severe consequences of that.

 

Again, the hypo was that it was against policy to even record it in the first place. No different than someone redacting parts of a report or something like that.

 

Police policy doesn't over rule actual law though right? And if something (a crime) is on film I'd imagine that definitely is evidence.

Interesting article.

 

Sources: Police have different findings than Mosby - CNNPolitics.com

Police policy doesn't over rule actual law though right? And if something (a crime) is on film I'd imagine that definitely is evidence.

 

Not always. Think of it like the illegal wiretap in The Wire. They knew the evidence wouldn't come in because the wiretap was illegal.

 

Not always. Think of it like the illegal wiretap in The Wire. They knew the evidence wouldn't come in because the wiretap was illegal.

 

It wouldn't be illegal though, especially in the example I mentioned.

One (or two) HUGE issue to be considered about Body Cameras

 

An officer pulls up to an emergency call and in his/her rush to engage the suspect they fail to turn on the camera...then something goes bad and someone get's shot. Automatic rush of public opinion will be that the officer intentionally didn't turn the camera on because he planned on doing something bad.

 

Officer is focused on the suspect, possible victims, putting car in park, exiting the car quickly, possibly looking for cover, radioing position or situation to dispatch, drawing weapon...and somewhere in there making sure camera is turned on and pointing straight ahead. If camera doesn't get switched on everyone is going to think it is intentional...that's the #1 drawback that I see.

 

Second drawback is Freedom of Information request...Police officer come to your house for a domestic issue and camera is recording. Your inebriated and saying things you wouldn't say in public and your standing there in your underwear cursing. You happen to be the local high school coach or principal and now someone you don't like is requesting the video from the encounter a Freedom of Information Act request. As of now those types of request haven't been 100% ruled on by the courts as far as I know.

 

As a whole I think they are a very good idea, just please don't expect them to be a magic wand that settles all disputes going forward.

 

You left out one that's likely to happen to most officers with camera's too. They die. Battery life on most of them ranges from 2-4 hours. Most officers work any where from 8-12 hours shifts. Still lots of things to improve on with cameras but worth it IMO.