Privacy Concerns in Police Body-worn Cameras

1. Reason (Claim): Citizens privacy is at risk

Warrant: Body-worn cameras raise many privacy issues that have not been considered before. While stationary surveillance cameras generally cover only public spaces, body-worn cameras give officers the ability to record inside private homes and to film sensitive situations that might emerge during calls for service.

Evidence: The Daytona Beach (Florida) Police Department recently changed its policy to require that officers obtain consent, on camera, from all crime victims prior to recording an interview. “This new policy is a response to the privacy concerns that arise when you are dealing with victims of crime,” said Chief of Police Mike Chitwood of Daytona Beach.

Impact: This is import

because Building positive relationships with the community is a critical aspect of policing, and these relationships can exist only if police have earned the trust of the people they serve. Police rely on these community partnerships to help them address crime and disorder issues. If the public no longer trusts the police then they will be less likely to open up.

2. Reason (Claim): The cost may not be worth it
Warrant: This is true because While body-worn cameras can provide many potential benefits to law enforcement agencies, they come at a considerable financial cost. In addition to the initial purchasing cost, agencies must devote funding and staffing resources toward storing recorded data, managing videos, disclosing copies of videos to the public, providing training to officers, and administering the program.

Evidence: Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) survey revealed that 39 percent of the respondents that do not use body-worn cameras cited cost as a primary reason.
The price of body-worn cameras currently ranges from approximately $120 to nearly $2,000 for each device. Most of the agencies that PERF consulted spent between $800 and $1,200 for each camera. Prices vary depending on factors such as functionality, storage capacity, and battery life.
The New Orleans Police Department has launched a plan for deploying 350 body-worn cameras at an anticipated cost of $1.2 million over five years—the bulk of which will go to data storage. One department reported that it will pay $2 million per year, mostly toward data storage, to outfit 900 officers with cameras. Another department spent $67,500 to purchase 50 cameras and will spend approximately $111,000 to store the video on a cloud for two years.

Impact: This is import because Chief Villaseñor of Tucson said that cost was a major obstacle to getting cameras. “In recent years, we’ve faced serious budget cuts and have had to reduce staffing levels,” he said. “It can be hard to justify spending money on cameras when officers are fighting for their jobs.”

3.

Reason (Claim): Impact on community relationships may be at risk

Warrant: This is true because concerns that excessive recording with body-worn cameras may damage the relationships officers have developed with the community and hinder the openness of their community policing interactions. Some police executives fear, that people will be less likely to come forward to share information if they know their conversation is going to be recorded, particularly in high-crime neighborhoods where residents might be subject to retaliation if they are seen as cooperating with police, according to PERF.

Evidence: The Mesa (Arizona) Police Department has also found that body-worn cameras can undermine information-gathering efforts. “We have definitely seen people being more reluctant to give information when they know that they are being videotaped,” said Lieutenant Harold Rankin. Chief of Police Sean Whent of Oakland, California, explained, “Our policy is to film all detentions and to keep recording until the encounter is over. But let’s say an officer detains someone, and now that person wants to give up information. We are finding that people are not inclined to do so with the camera running. We are considering changing our policy to allow officers to turn off the camera in those

situations.”

Impact: This is import because the reason for implementing body cameras was to record everything incase something goes wrong and if something does go wrong during the confrontation then the camera will have been pointless.

http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/472014912134715246869.pdf