# Should We Put Cameras On Cops?



## Bob Hubbard (May 19, 2011)

> Following allegations police had stolen a laptop and a digital camera  from a suspect's house, San Francisco PD is considering equipping  officers with a head-mounted video camera to document searches and  arrests and make sure they're being conducted appropriately. Is this a  good idea?...
> 
> 
> One of the interesting things is that the cameras, which capture  video directly from the officer's perspective, have been used several  times to exonerate officers.



http://consumerist.com/2011/05/should-we-put-cameras-on-cops-to-keep-them-honest.html

Additional:
San Francisco police to carry video cameras during arrests [SF Examiner]
Keeping Cops Honest with Body-Mounted Cameras [GOOD]
San Jose police get ear-mounted video cameras in battle for image [Christian Science Monitor]
Police Head Cameras Capture Action, Evidence [CBS]
Seattle Mulls Over Police Body Camera Option [KUOW]


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (May 19, 2011)

Funny I was thinking about this the other day.
It clicked because of a few things I had seen, heard, watched, or read over a couple days... including an article about how more and more private citizens are mounting dashboard cameras and videotaping as they drive. Also watching a military show about special ops with cameras on their helmets monitoring a training mission. Also one of the Cop shows on TV  maybe it was NCIS where they were monitoring action via camera on the person. And Finally a few stories about cops possibly being out of line, or claiming probable cause in some questionable actions.

I think it would be a great thing to require law enforcement to have cameras operating anytime they deal with a situation, not only would it protect the officer against untrue allegations, but it would protect the suspects if the officers are out of line. The footage could be used for training new officers, for disciplining officers that are breaking rules, for evidence to convict suspects who are caught breaking more laws. etc.

I really can not see a negative aspect on this other then perhaps the initial cost of equipment, and maintenance on the equipment. But I think cost savings for avoiding potential lawsuits, and problems might more then make up for it.

I am also unsure of any civil rights laws or issues that having these cameras might pose, but I can not think of any issues off hand.


----------



## Bikewr (May 19, 2011)

I saw a TV segment on this as well.    I attended a seminar by a risk-management lawyer a few years back, and he recommended that officers carry small recording devices and record all "transactions" with other people.
Since so many complaints turn out to be unfounded...

The video seems to be just an extension of the same thing.   I can't imagine it being on all the time, so it would have to be self-initiated.   But if that were the case it wouldn't work half the time when the officer suddenly found himself in a "situation".....  
So unless it was in fact always on the officer could always claim he was too involved to activate the thing.
I see a lot of resistance to the idea.   The in-car video is well-proved but actually having the device on your person...  Still a bit sci-fi for most, I'd think.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 19, 2011)

good and bad i guess. I say go for it


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (May 19, 2011)

Bikewr said:


> I saw a TV segment on this as well. I attended a seminar by a risk-management lawyer a few years back, and he recommended that officers carry small recording devices and record all "transactions" with other people.
> Since so many complaints turn out to be unfounded...
> 
> The video seems to be just an extension of the same thing. I can't imagine it being on all the time, so it would have to be self-initiated. But if that were the case it wouldn't work half the time when the officer suddenly found himself in a "situation".....
> ...


 
memory is cheap and small. It would be a fairly small device needed to store even 24 hours of video. I am not so sure that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy for police officers while on duty since we pay their salary. OF course taking a break, a lunch, or using a restroom etc would be perfectly valid reasons to argue the idea because during those times it would be perfectly reasonable to expect privacy.
hell most private employeers can have video cameras in the workplace, phone systems that record every conversation, and programs that monitor all internet activity, so there is no expectation of privacy for the private sector while working either.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 19, 2011)

The problem is, it has to be an always on situation. If you allow for officer control, you will have cases where they will "forget" to turn it on.
Case in DC where 11 responding cars all had "broken" cameras comes to mind.
You can argue the officers right to take a crap without being listened in on, something I can sympathize with, but unless it's an always-on, there will be room for abuse, and there will be those who will abuse it.

Another point in support of 'always on' is how many times have we posted videos where someone has said 'you don't know what was said/happened before the clip shown'.  Always on negates most of that.

ANY such system should also be monitored by a unbiased 3rd party.  A real-time system could also be used where officers doing stops can be monitored in real time. Again, how many clips have we seen where a lone officer has been attacked and often killed? Real time monitoring would allow officers performing stops to more rapidly receive assistance and back up when needed.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (May 19, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> The problem is, it has to be an always on situation. If you allow for officer control, you will have cases where they will "forget" to turn it on.
> Case in DC where 11 responding cars all had "broken" cameras comes to mind.
> You can argue the officers right to take a crap without being listened in on, something I can sympathize with, but unless it's an always-on, there will be room for abuse, and there will be those who will abuse it.
> 
> ...


ya the "forget" to turn it back on or "accidentally" turned it off could be a problem.
that would be the sticking point for police unions though I bet, the moments when they should have privacy.
I imagine it would not be to hard to have a timer on the device so you can set it to be off for 5, 15, 30, 60 minutes before it automatically turns back on. requiring a simple 4 digit code to operate so it doesnt accidentally go off.....
of course I think the power supply would be a big issue as well..../shrug good idea I think.. and something that should be pursued.


----------



## Archangel M (May 19, 2011)

Consant on/constant record isn't going to happen. We can turn off the car cameras if we were so inclined too. You can remove the body camera and say "it fell off" if you were so inclined. 

You write a policy stating that officers shall turn on and record during any call or contact and take disciplinary action if it's discovered they have not.


----------



## Carol (May 19, 2011)

Hmm...I wudda thunk there would be a little more outrage on mass recording of private citizens by government employees.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (May 19, 2011)

I think it would actually help a lot of officers out in court.  No more he said/she said as instead we would have a lot of idiots showing exactly why they were arrested.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 19, 2011)

Carol said:


> Hmm...I wudda thunk there would be a little more outrage on mass recording of private citizens by government employees.


Oh there is, but thats a different topic, as is the stupidity of the various LEA's declaring photography a 'suspicious' activity.  I'll hit both of those at some point too.


----------



## WC_lun (May 19, 2011)

I think one of the best technological advancements in law enforcement has been the dash board camera.  It has helped officers and prosecutors a ton. If the camera doesn't inhibit the officers, I thik this might be a good idea.


----------



## Kenpo Missle 47 (May 19, 2011)

wonder what kind of footage would be captured in countrys like mexico :shooter:


----------



## Carol (May 19, 2011)

Bikewr said:


> I saw a TV segment on this as well.    I attended a seminar by a risk-management lawyer a few years back, and he recommended that officers carry small recording devices and record all "transactions" with other people.
> Since so many complaints turn out to be unfounded...
> 
> The video seems to be just an extension of the same thing.   I can't imagine it being on all the time, so it would have to be self-initiated.   But if that were the case it wouldn't work half the time when the officer suddenly found himself in a "situation".....
> ...



What's even more sci-fi is what we do with video that is being captured.  It can be securely viewed across multiple locations, even multiple agencies, all in real time. 

A patrolman can stop to talk to a person and that conversation can be viewed by detectives across the state.  The signal could be sent across the country.  Perhaps it is sent to an FBI office where an agent runs facial identification software against the video.   Perhaps it is sent two states away where the state police are looking for a fugitive from justice.


----------



## jks9199 (May 20, 2011)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> I think it would actually help a lot of officers out in court.  No more he said/she said as instead we would have a lot of idiots showing exactly why they were arrested.


One unintended consequence that we're already seeing...  Not every agency has cameras, in car or on the cop.  Or even in interview rooms.  But we're starting to see more and more where if there is no video, people doubt the officer's word.  

I'm not suggesting that every cop is perfect or automatically above reproach.  But, in court, especially, the word of an officer should and must carry a certain weight and authority.  And, if an officer loses that integrity, they should be fired.  Cameras are one-eyed idiots, and only show one angle.  They don't show what the officer saw in his peripheral vision; they may not show what an officer perceived.  An officer is making split second decisions, in crisis situations under tremendous pressure, based on what they perceive through the chemical cocktail of a life or death encounter.  Second guessing based on a camera that isn't effected by that, may not be looking in the direction the officer is -- that's a recipe for nightmares.

Will cameras happen?  Absolutely.  I fully expected before I retire, cops will be strapping cameras on as routinely as badges and guns.  But we cannot lose the expectation of integrity and reliance on that integrity of the officer, either.  Cameras should be seen as corroborating evidence, not a replacement for the honest and truthful testimony of the officer.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 20, 2011)

All true.  The problem is, people no longer trust cops.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 20, 2011)

well, for one thing, too many people now have too much sympathy with the criminal

for another, we are too dependant on video, because it is everywhere, and untill we see it, we dont believe it any more.

those things combined have made us less trustworthy of police

plus you know, all the crooked cops.....which are a TINY minority. 

for me? hell, even a crooked cop is better than an honest thief


----------



## Archangel M (May 20, 2011)

Too much media and movies IMO. 

Back in "the good old days" when people all trusted the police and believed they were all upstanding examples of truth, justice and the American way I believe that the instances of corruption and abuse were FAR FAR FAR higher than we have today. But when you can google "bad cop no donught" or see the latest Youtube video of some cop doing something stupid, suddenly people think there is a widespread problem.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (May 20, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> Too much media and movies IMO.
> 
> Back in "the good old days" when people all trusted the police and believed they were all upstanding examples of truth, justice and the American way I believe that the instances of corruption and abuse were FAR FAR FAR higher than we have today. But when you can google "bad cop no donught" or see the latest Youtube video of some cop doing something stupid, suddenly people *Realize* there is a widespread problem.


 
There I fixed that for you.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 20, 2011)

If bad cops were the epidemic some would have you believe, we'd be seeing daily maybe even hourly reports. Still, cops (and judges and lawmakers) should be monitored.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (May 20, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> If bad cops were the epidemic some would have you believe, we'd be seeing daily maybe even hourly reports. Still, cops (and judges and lawmakers) should be monitored.


 
how many cops are currently facing charges for breaking the law?
400 or so just in New York... thats more then 1 a day right?

of course I still think they are the exception rather then the norm with many more cops being good people.
But it doesn't mean anyone should blindly trust them.


----------



## Archangel M (May 20, 2011)

IMO the fact of the matter (all "One is too many" aside...) is that there has been, is, and always will be a percentage of "Bad (X)" X=profession of choice. Humans hold these jobs.

While we should do everything we can to hold that percentage down, I believe that there are some people who will hold the belief that there is a widespread problem regardless of how small we make it. I have said it before and I will say it again. THE POLICE is not some monolithic group that all act the same, think the same, or work alike. We are not. I refuse to accept responsibility for a single cop, or even an entire department tainted by corruption or other problem. I don't act that way and neither does MY department.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 20, 2011)

> From January 2010 through December 2010 the National Police Misconduct  Statistics and Reporting Project recorded 4,861 unique reports of police  misconduct that involved 6,613 sworn law enforcement officers and 6,826  alleged victims.





> The current US average projected police misconduct rate is an estimated  977.98 officers per 100,000 officers (mean 909.31 per 100k) as  calculated using data gathered from all of 2010.


.98%
Note the -point-98, not 98.
http://www.injusticeeverywhere.com/?page_id=4135
More data there, mine as you will.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 20, 2011)

This is a complicated issue and no mistake!  In the end, I think I have to come down on the "No" side for constant monitoring of what our police are doing.  

Leaving aside the rights issues of the fact that they would also be recording "us" if they were always 'wired', these men and women are those entrusted to enforce the laws of the land.

Implicit in that is that "we" trust "them" to hold themselves to a standard of conduct that justifies our faith.  Recording all of "them" all the time demonstrates to the Thin Blue Line that we do not trust them and that has all kinds of consequences on how the police behave and operate and recruit.


----------



## WC_lun (May 20, 2011)

I understand what you are saying.  I think you're right that many officers would feel affronted.  I'm of the opinion that the cameras would support the officers though, much as the dash board cams have.  I do think it would be kind of unnerving to have a camera on board during the normal day of my job.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (May 20, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> .98%
> Note the -point-98, not 98.
> http://www.injusticeeverywhere.com/?page_id=4135
> More data there, mine as you will.


 
yep I had no delusions that the numbers would be high.
1% chance the cop you are confronted by is a dirty cop... actually let me change that, they catch 1% of all cops being dirty cops, that doesn't include the oens they dont catch, whether that is 1 more cop, or 1000's noone can say.
Just for kicks...
I wonder what the chances of the average citizen you meet being a serial killer? Probably less then 1%.
I wonder what the chances of the average citizen being a gang member? Probably once again less then 1%
I wonder what the chances of the average citizen fighting say brain cancer, or lung cancer, or aids.... no clue the percentage... but I think you get my point, and the only point I have ever tried to make when it comes to police officers.
I think that if you have a confrontation with an officer the chances are great its going to be handled professionally, and according to the law, but there is a 1% or higher chance it won't be. Making sure you are not blindly allowing yourself to be at greater risk by that 1% is a good thing. 
I try to plan for the worst and hope for the best. I think when it comes to LEOs most people hope for the best, and dont bother thinking about planning for anything.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 20, 2011)

> I think when it comes to LEOs most people hope for the best, and dont bother thinking about planning for anything.


This is why I have 5 attorneys on my speed dial, and travel with contact info for most of the LEO's I know. Never had to use either though.


----------



## Archangel M (May 21, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> This is why I have 5 attorneys on my speed dial, and travel with contact info for most of the LEO's I know. Never had to use either though.



+1

All of which will be far more effective than planning to fight some rouge cop out of a fantasy episode of The Shield or obsessing about some scenario involving shooting at cops who are trying to force their way into your house.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (May 21, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> +1
> 
> All of which will be far more effective than planning to fight some _*rouge*_ cop out of a fantasy episode of The Shield or obsessing about some scenario involving shooting at cops who are trying to force their way into your house.


 
I really hope this is a hot female cop we are talking about and not some crazy lunatic out of the Rocky Horror Picture show...


----------



## Carol (May 22, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> THE POLICE is not some monolithic group ...



Yes they were!!   :lol:

[yt]Hn9a4BO2YOE[/yt]


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (May 22, 2011)

This technology is coming it really only is a matter of time!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 20, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> The problem is, it has to be an always on situation. If you allow for officer control, you will have cases where they will "forget" to turn it on.
> Case in DC where 11 responding cars all had "broken" cameras comes to mind.
> You can argue the officers right to take a crap without being listened in on, something I can sympathize with, but unless it's an always-on, there will be room for abuse, and there will be those who will abuse it.
> 
> ...


 
Anyone on here volunteer to have 8 hours of their working day entirely monitored with both audio and video?.......including private conversations had between you and a co-worker?  These are always a good idea 'for other people'.

I'd volunteer for 'always on' when the Chief and the Mayor volunteer to carry one around too.

In fact, perhaps these would be a good idea for presidents and members of congress.......they do far more harm with their interactions than any individual officer ever could.


----------

