Calif. city's police to wear head-mounted cameras

[Omar B]

SAN JOSE, Calif. – San Jose police are testing head-mounted cameras to record interactions with the public.
The test using 18 patrol officers comes as citizens' groups criticize the department for too often using force during arrests.
Officers are to turn on the cameras every time they talk with anyone. They download the recordings after every shift.
The cameras are the size of a Bluetooth cell phone earpieces and attach by a headband above the ear.
San Jose is the first major American city to try the devices, made by Arizona-based Taser International. Taser is paying for the experiment, but the price could be high if San Jose equips all 1,400 officers.
Each kit costs $1,700, plus a $99 per officer monthly fee. That's $4 million department-wide each year.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_california_police_cameras

I think it's a great idea, though I would prefer a system that does not turn off because it can still be abused. The form factor is interesting. Why over the ear? It surly does not give a good feild of view. I think it would be way better to have it on a pair of glasses (like in the first Mission Impossible movie) to give a closer approximation of what the officer is seeing rather than an image visible to the left or right missing half the picture.

 

[Big Don]

It ought to limit lawsuits over alleged excessive force.

 

[Skippy]

SAN JOSE, Calif. – San Jose police are testing head-mounted cameras to record interactions with the public.
The test using 18 patrol officers comes as citizens' groups criticize the department for too often using force during arrests.
Officers are to turn on the cameras every time they talk with anyone. They download the recordings after every shift.
The cameras are the size of a Bluetooth cell phone earpieces and attach by a headband above the ear.
San Jose is the first major American city to try the devices, made by Arizona-based Taser International. Taser is paying for the experiment, but the price could be high if San Jose equips all 1,400 officers.
Each kit costs $1,700, plus a $99 per officer monthly fee. That's $4 million department-wide each year.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_california_police_cameras

I think it's a great idea, though I would prefer a system that does not turn off because it can still be abused. The form factor is interesting. Why over the ear? It surly does not give a good feild of view. I think it would be way better to have it on a pair of glasses (like in the first Mission Impossible movie) to give a closer approximation of what the officer is seeing rather than an image visible to the left or right missing half the picture.

Question,


Do you think having to pay another 4 million in taxes each year is a good idea? Anyways not sure where your at but they already have cameras all over the place watching every single move we make so having more is not the best idea. At least in my book. Also, thought this was Martialtalk you know, martial arts related forum.:barf:

 

[The Last Legionary]

You don't like the non-arts discussion, stay out of the non-arts sections, mr "I just got here but want to tell everyone how the site should be".

As to the cops, add a red light that bounced left and right on the cameras, it'd be cool.

 

[Omar B]

Question,
Do you think having to pay another 4 million in taxes each year is a good idea? Anyways not sure where your at but they already have cameras all over the place watching every single move we make so having more is not the best idea. At least in my book. Also, thought this was Martialtalk you know, martial arts related forum.

You say it as if I as an individual would have to pay 4 million a year in taxes for it. Besides, I live in NY and FL, about as far as you can get from CA.

 

[Skippy]

Hmmm,


Didn't know Martialtalk had SS Storm Troopers in training lurking about the threads.:uhyeah:

 

[Skippy]

You say it as if I as an individual would have to pay 4 million a year in taxes for it. Besides, I live in NY and FL, about as far as you can get from CA.

Actually Omar what I'm saying is out here in California they already have traffic lights rigged with cameras, do it yourself car washes & the likes. Not too sure how the set up is where you live but out here they are in paranoid mode bigtime! Case in point the nutter that keeps following me around here in the forums but that's another story. My point is tax payers will have to pay for those cameras & I think we already pay enough in taxes as it is.:uhyeah:

 

[Tez3]

It's a good idea that the general public can see themselves from the police's point of view! You can regard it as safeguarding tax payers money by ensuring the police are doing their job or you can view it as a safeguard for the police or both. Excellent idea at any rate.

 

[Skippy]

The general public can already see themselves when they get tickets via-the mail complete with pictures. Most patrol cars on the streets also have cameras as well so it's a bit overkill. As it stands more and more people here are being hit with this and that tax. My point is it all sounds lovely but somebody has to pay for all that & it will be the tax payers.:uhyeah:

 

[Omar B]

Actually Omar what I'm saying is out here in California they already have traffic lights rigged with cameras, do it yourself car washes & the likes. Not too sure how the set up is where you live but out here they are in paranoid mode bigtime! Case in point the nutter that keeps following me around here in the forums but that's another story. My point is tax payers will have to pay for those cameras & I think we already pay enough in taxes as it is.:uhyeah:

So are you worried about privacy or cost? The average Londoner outside his house is on average captured on 40 separate cameras each day, they don't seem to mind much. If you are not doing anything illegal it'll be there as an aid to you if someone assaults you in any way. On the cops themselves I see it helping with cops being sued or their actions in a given situation are called into question ... I would prefer an unblinking eye to a witness any day.

 

[Tez3]

So are you worried about privacy or cost? The average Londoner outside his house is on average captured on 40 separate cameras each day, they don't seem to mind much. If you are not doing anything illegal it'll be there as an aid to you if someone assaults you in any way. On the cops themselves I see it helping with cops being sued or their actions in a given situation are called into question ... I would prefer an unblinking eye to a witness any day.

CCtv is invaluble for picking up assaults as they happen, picking up motoring offences including hit and runs, and drunk driving as well as picking up bombers of which we have had many over the past decades. It has also proved itself as evidence, it's hard to argue you are innocent or the police are trying to fit you up when it's on video for all to see.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Hmmm,


Didn't know Martialtalk had SS Storm Troopers in training lurking about the threads.:uhyeah:

Stick to the topic please.

 

[jks9199]

Question,


Do you think having to pay another 4 million in taxes each year is a good idea? Anyways not sure where your at but they already have cameras all over the place watching every single move we make so having more is not the best idea. At least in my book. Also, thought this was Martialtalk you know, martial arts related forum.:barf:

Off topic aside: There are lots of martial arts areas here; if you want to only see martial arts stuff, stay in them. It ain't difficult. You don't want to read about politics or other stuff, don't go to The Study, the Urusai Bar & Grill, and the rest.

Returning to the topic at hand... I think it's a dumb idea. It's one more gadget that a cop's got to deal with at a time when he's really got to keep his mind on what he's doing. I'm willing to bet it was the brainchild of someone who spent barely anytime on the street, saw it advertised somewhere, and probably is sitting behind a door with a label along the lines of "diversity relations liaison." It's expensive.

And it won't help much. It'll prove, once again, that the camera is one-eyed idiot. It'll further encourage armchair quarterbacking and second-guessing decisions made in very dynamic circumstances, without the luxury of rewinding to see it again. And without catching the corner of the eye movement or simply watching something side-long...

And it's going to end up doing the same damn thing that the dash cams, DUI videos, and interview videos have done. Judges and juries are going to be wondering why there isn't a video... when the explanation may be as simple as a smaller department doesn't have the money to do it, or because cops in that area do the tests on the side of the road, not at a DUI trailer or some such.

These sorts of cameras serve a great purpose on tac or SWAT teams, who are engaged in higher risk activities and who review what they did. They're even better in training where you can have a good idea of what the guy was looking at.

That said -- the reality is that, over the next several years, odds are good that some version of on-the-body camera gear will become fairly common for officers. Hey; I can think of times when it would have been great to have video but I get frustrated by what's become almost the expectation that the cop is being dishonest if there's no video. The video should CORROBORATE the cop's testimony not replace it.

 

[jks9199]

It's a good idea that the general public can see themselves from the police's point of view! You can regard it as safeguarding tax payers money by ensuring the police are doing their job or you can view it as a safeguard for the police or both. Excellent idea at any rate.

But they won't. How many times have you shown someone how their kid was acting only to have them insist it wasn't their kid, or that the kid only did it because the cop made them somehow? Or have everyone tell you how nice and polite the guy who was a total asshat while you were dealing with him "always" is. They'll all have a reason why it's not really what happened or not really their fault...

 

[Skippy]

:lurk:The entire camera/big brother thing is not good in the long run. More and more I'm out and about doing errands & everyday stuff & I keep coming upon these silly signs that all say ... (Smile, your on camera!) I've even seen these signs entering public parks. That's my issue with the entire camera topic. If we give governments too much control what happens is what we have now. The governments no longer serve the people. The people serve the governments.:lurk:

 

[Skippy]

Stick to the topic please.

Might try telling that to the guy following me from thread to thread attempting to dry hump me.:shooter:

 

[jks9199]

Actually Omar what I'm saying is out here in California they already have traffic lights rigged with cameras, do it yourself car washes & the likes. Not too sure how the set up is where you live but out here they are in paranoid mode bigtime! Case in point the nutter that keeps following me around here in the forums but that's another story. My point is tax payers will have to pay for those cameras & I think we already pay enough in taxes as it is.:uhyeah:

How do red light cameras and do-it-yourself car washes (I presume you're referring to video surveillance by the property owner at one?) lead to the "paranoid mode big time" conclusion?

(And if you feel someone is stalking you here on MT, simply hit the Report To Moderator button on one of their posts, and tell the mod team about it. The RTM button is the red & white triangular button at the top right of each post.)

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Might try telling that to the guy following me from thread to thread attempting to dry hump me.:shooter:

If a post is heated, or in violation of our rules, use the report to moderator function

and let our staff handle it. I'd also suggest you review the site rules, specifically section 5.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

There are traffic cameras all over the place. Cop cars in most cases are required to have dash cams, though there have been some cases where they were found to be inoperative. (DC case where 11 cars had bad cams in violation of law comes to mind here). Requiring the cops to also wear head cams should add a layer of verification to any LEO testimony. (Provided they are in fact worn and work).

I will add however that if LEO's are recording civilians, it must be made clear to them that civilians are going to record them and that is is legal, and not a violation of the "Patriot Act", 9/11 or any of the other made up crap some cops have used to intimidate, threaten and in a few rare cases assault civilians because they didnt want their pictures taken. (Note I am referring to a small selection of cases, not slamming the majority of cops here) These cases however are a tangent, and many can be found in a dig of our archives here, and picked up there if need be.

Costs. Costs are negligible. If a LEO-CAM can validate a LEO's testimony, it can cut court time and costs back significantly. Some cases will be settled out of court or through arbitration at lower cost to taxpayers as a result. $4M sounds like a lot. How much does that municipality spend annually handling excessive force suits? How about when someone insists their rights are being abused and that the cop was abusive and unprofessional? There's enough Youtube footage of such now showing 1 side of things, but never the whole story. LEO's will now have the ability to defend themselves against "I was just minding my own business and he started to curse me out" claims....or self-convict based on their own cams showing it was true. Woe to the one who has a case of "I forgot to turn it on" or "the damn thing was broken" in one of those cases.

 

[jks9199]

A note on dash cams...

I'm not aware of a single state that has mandated them. It's possible that some jurisdictions have local laws requiring them. There's a fair amount of money involved in putting them into cars, setting up a storage system for the data, and keeping them working. Along with policy decisions like whether you can take a car out on patrol with an inoperative camera...

Like I said, I easily can foresee that some sort of worn body visual/audio recorder is going to be increasingly common just like the dash cams have. But I don't like 'em. At the heart of the issue is the simple fact that, as a cop, integrity is a bedrock feature. Yes, there are dirty cops. And cops absolutely make mistakes. But I don't like anything that creates an implication that the cop's word is automatically suspect unless there's a means to corroborate it. In the end -- our word is all that may differentiate a good shooting from negligence or even criminal activity. And a camera won't help in a lot of those cases.