Body Cams : Policing For Greater Good

Across the country a growing number of legislative departments have been debating about the pros and cons of police body cameras. This paper will further explore benefits, as well as the downfalls of using such devices. This paper will also look at specific cases and examine whether or not body cameras were helpful in various situations. It will examine if they were a deterrent in cases dealing with police brutality and domestic violence. It also looks at how they could be misused and assisting some officers in covering up their corrupt behavior.

Within recent years there has been much controversy surrounding police officers and whether or not they should be wearing body cameras to document their everyday interactions with the public. While the use of body cameras may seem to invade the public or police privacy. Police-worn body cameras will be beneficial to law enforcement and civilians all over the world. Police must be equipped with body cameras to alleviate any doubt in the effectiveness of officers. Law enforcement worn body cameras would enhance the trust of the public by keeping both the officers and the citizens accountable for their actions, providing evidence, and helping protect them from false accusations, while protecting privacy

To peep or not to peep, that is the question being asked by many regarding police body cameras in communities. The topic of police brutality is a rising issue in today’s society. Several questions have arose over the use of police body cameras and whether they are a good or bad idea. Police body cameras have has a variety of concern to many communities regarding their potential. Every city has a different trust and relationship for their police force and these concerns vary depending on the community. People have the concern regarding privacy, protection, and impact on the community and more. After researching the problems caused by Police body cameras as well as its background, the current state of the issue, and the potential solutions, it is clear that communities need to bring a solution to this situation.Such as laws, policies, rules, and more to control this new information.

I selected an article about police body cameras. The article cited several studies, as well as the authors’ ideas and thoughts. The article, titled Police Body Cameras, is part of the CATO Institute’s National Police Misconduct Reporting Project, and prepared by Matthew Feeney in 2015. The theme throughout the article is that the use of body cameras will reduce police misconduct. Although we all hope this is the case, we must also look at the other issues involved with the wearing of body cameras. In an effort to gain citizen buy-in and obtain their opinions, they conducted surveys. Interestingly enough, most people did not want the officers to record them, unless it was during an enforcement encounter, such as a traffic stop or arrest situation.

Rialto, California is an example of a city with positive results from the use of body-cameras. In Rialto, police began wearing body-cameras a little less than three years ago. As a result of officers wearing body-cameras, citizens’ complaints against police officers dropped 88 percent and use of force by police officers dropped 60 percent from the previous 12 month period when body-cameras were not in use. Rialto’s police chief said, “When you put a camera on a police officer, they tend to behave a little better, follow the rules a little better. And if the citizen knows the officer is wearing a camera, chances are the citizen will behave a little better” (Lovett).

The dispute of police body cameras truly hit the media hard this week. Blasting from the headlines all citizens were aware that Michael Brown was lethally shot in Ferguson, Missouri. This prompted officers to become fortified with body cameras. This technologically progressive world that we live in today has shaped a world of tweeting, posting and uploading. It’s about time that police departments take advantage of the tools accessible to them, especially with the advancement of equipment. The move forward in technology will help to alleviate speculation on any misconduct perpetrated. There now will be hard honest evidence of any crime committed against a police officer.

They have the power and responsibility to use the force, but citizens expect them to use the amount of force that is proportional, reasonable and necessary for the situation. However, the used of body cameras on police officers will reduce police misconduct like the use of offensive language, including racial slurs, or act with more force than necessary during encounters with citizens. These cameras will keep track of what the officer says or does when at the scene of the crime, keeping them liable. Police Foundation Executive Fellow, Chief Tony Farrar, wanted to test out this theory with a yearlong study. The cameras were distributed to all the patrol officers of the California Rialto Police Department. During their 12 month test period they were haphazardly assigned to experimental or control conditions to see the results and after the test period ended, the results showed very interesting results. “The findings suggest more than a 50% reduction in the total number of incidents of use-of-force compared to control-conditions, and nearly ten times more citizens’ complaints in the 12-months prior to the experiment.” says Chief Farrar (Ariel, et al). Law enforcement officers improved their behavior when using cameras by simply knowing that someone would see their behavior and their performance as officers when the supervisor or the officer in charge was reviewing the camera when your turn

“The San Diego Police Department says that since officers began wearing body cameras nearly three years ago, there have been significant decreases in misconduct allegations and high-level uses of force” (Garrick 1). Along with reducing use of high level force by 16.4% (Garrick 1), body cameras can help prevent serious crime from happening or creating excessive tension. As Rachel Idowu said, “At some point, Boston could have a Ferguson [a killing at the hands of police]. Let’s put the cameras on to prevent that from happening. Rather than be reactive, let’s be proactive” (Marcelo 2). Body cameras also help maintain order by reducing the number of allegations made. According to a report done in San Diego, misconduct allegations decreased by 43.1% from 2013 to 2016 and more serious allegations went down 47.4 %. (Garrick 1). All of these factors are due to police body cameras, which help maintain order in

Police body cameras are becoming more common in major cities around the us, and are meant to lower aggression and complaints brought upon the department's. Though the cameras are only becoming a big topic there have been many studies and debates in whether or not the cameras should be mandatory for all departments. The main and most talked about disadvantage of the cameras is the questions it raises about privacy of cops and the public. On the other hand one of the upsides are how much they will help in court cases by lowering costs and time spent. When in court the cameras can either show is it is a case of police brutality or if the cop handled the situation properly.

In recent years, the issue of law enforcement’s use of excessive force has led to the utilization of body cameras by various police departments. The utilization of body cameras are believed to have several benefits that includes reducing law enforcements utilization of excessive force, as well as, reducing complaints filed against officers. This would also assist in judicial claims filed against police departments. This allows transparency of police officers and can also assist in the image of officers if video evidence is available to back the claims of law enforcement. Unfortunately, there have been previous cases were it was found that law enforcement lied about a series of events. Video footage would lower false claims and could assist in regulating police misconduct (Drover & Ariel, 2015). The major issue that is presented with the utilization of body cameras is the amount it would take to equip every officer with a body camera. This could be seen as an investment compared to the amount of money that is paid out yearly in claims against law enforcement that were the result of the officer using what was perceived as excessive force.

Recently some American police departments, large and small, have started employing the use of small body cameras on officers. These cameras are often hidden or otherwise difficult to see and discern. These cameras are costly, often an invasion of privacy, and easily manipulated. There are currently no laws or regulations regarding the use of these cameras, and no real consequences for misuse of them. As such, body cameras on police officers in the US should not be employed.

Recently, authorized law enforcement agencies and police departments are increasingly adopting the use of body worn cameras (BWC) also called as body cams or cop cams. These cop cams serve as a powerful tool to document evidences, prevent misconduct and false acquisitions of abuse by public against police officers as well as a check on abuse of power by law enforcement officers or police officers thus aid in promoting the accountability, transparency in public interactions resulting in good behavior of the community. Despite of the above stated benefits associated with the use of body worn cameras, several questions and concerns are raising

There is a changing climate in Law Enforcement that is heavily impacting police departments across the country. Many police departments presently have a combat decision that affects an already limited budget which is the implementation of a police officer wearing a body camera. Though this change is seemingly inevitable, it can be an investment that alleviates the department and police officer from allegations of misconduct. Furthermore, body cameras can prove to be an invaluable tool for officers and investigators while helping the department become more transparent and accountable to its citizens.

Next, let’s talk about body worn camera these are very important. This could help put a lot of people in jail or even corrupt officers. In a sample of police departments surveyed in 2013, approximately 75 percent of them reported that they did not use body-worn cameras. The survey was funded by the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services and conducted by the Police Executive Research Forum PERF’s report about the survey notes a number of perceived benefits for using body-worn cameras, including better evidence documentation and increased accountability and transparency. But the report also notes many other factors that law

Pollock points out that “The nation has seemingly become enamored with the idea of all police officers wearing body cameras that would record every interaction with the citizen” (pp. 211, 2017). The ability of body cameras to provide an unbiased account of interactions is an invaluable asset when trying to reconstruct a truthful, chronological interpretation of events. The camera never lies and provides evidence for a case provided from the point-of-view officers involved. As with every topic, several pros and cons are involved with the use of body cameras by law enforcement.