The Pros And Cons Of Police Body Cameras

The Long “Eye” of the Law is on You

The article by Loricchio describes a story of how police issued body cameras helped keep an innocent man from going to prison. In Carroll, Taneytown a police officer was released and found not guilty after shooting and killing a drunk driver. Evidence from a camera worn by the officer helped to exonerate him (Loricchio). Police body cameras are like the dashboard cameras on police cruisers, which captures and shows the events that happened. However, body cameras have a distinct advantage over the dashboard cameras. They are able to move with the officer throughout the entire chase instead of only sitting in the car. All police officers should be required to wear body cameras. Body cameras help provide

a clear picture of the actual events, have been known to cause a reduction in the amount of complaints, and deter violence.

An important use of body cameras is that they help provide a clear picture of the events transpired. Which helps the jury see what actually happened and make a fair judgement at trial. Erstad talks about how the video that is acquired from the cameras help provide a clear picture of what actually happened (Erstad). While Hall also goes onto to say that the cameras provide a recording of what the officer sees and hears giving clear evidence of what happened (Hall). This means instead of just hearing about what happened in a testimony, the jury and judge actually get to see and hear what happened during the incident. In Spivack’s article, he explains that the public will be able to acquire and see the data and evidence the police captured in their camera (Spivack). The recording will not be kept private or withheld from the public helping them to know who was truly in the right or wrong. Erstad also explains how the evidence from the video helps to clear the uncertainty of what actually happened. “This becomes their legal ‘Body Armor”’. (Erstad).The body armor that Erstad talks about is the evidence from the camera. So in a case like Taneytown, if an officer must use force to apprehend a suspect it shows how the situation escalated to the point of using force, and whether it was necessary or not. Spivack also goes on the record to say that cameras attached to an officer’s body or uniform has improved the quality of the video overall (Spivack). Unlike the squad car cameras, the body cameras are able to move and show the entire chase since it is attached to the officer. Police car cameras are only on the car’s dashboard so it only captures what happens right in front of it. Qualters adds, “They may well provide powerful evidence in some cases” (Qualters). The evidence from the cameras will be undisputed since it shows the real events that took place. Body cameras not only provide a clear picture of what happened, but also have been a cause of reduction in the number of complaints.

Since Body’s cameras have been used, they have been known to cause a reduction in complaints. Kauffman says that body cameras have been proven to reduce complaints and issues filed by civilians (Kauffman). This shows that the cameras have been a good thing in communities and not the opposite. “California police departments found that the cameras led to an 87.5% decrease in officer complaints” (Erstad). While Kauffman says body cameras also help police officers and local communities strengthen their relationship (Kauffman). A strengthened community will help lead to less violence and crime overall. Stephanson then tells how another police department started to use body cameras and ever since then police complaints have dropped by 22% (Stephanson). This helps show how other departments across the country have also had similar results, causing an increase in civilian and law enforcement relations. Kaleem adds that the cameras will also help be used for police accountability on what the officers did or have done (Kaleem ppA.8). Hall agrees with this saying “They are obviously an asset…. Not only do they help to keep officers accountable, but they are also good to keep the community safe.” (Hall). Nevertheless, while body cameras have been known to reduce complaints, they also deter violence.

Body cameras help to deter and stop violence. Erstad says that the cameras help stop officers from becoming too aggressive when dealing with a person (Erstad). While Garrick adds a statistic saying, “Overall misconduct allegations were down 43.1%.” (Garrick pp B.2). Dropping down 43% means that police officers getting violent when dealing with citizens was cut by almost half just because they had body cameras. While Spivack says that, the body cameras help to protect civilians from abuse by showing whether the cop used too much force, or adding unnecessary violence (Spivack). While Garrick goes on to explain how high level uses of force instances such as physical takedowns and the use of nonlethal and lethal weapons decreased after being implanted (Garrick pp B.2). This helps protect the civilian from bodily injury while being detained or questioned by an officer. Not only does the body cameras protect the civilians from harm, but it will also in turn protect the police officers themselves. Spivack explains this by saying, the body cameras help protect the officers themselves by showing the juries what happened so that there are no false accusations against them (Spivack). Body cameras have helped officers that were accused of misconduct be exonerated in light of new information shown from the body cameras (Garrick pp B.2). This shows how body cameras are beneficial to both sides and not just the civilians or officer’s side. Qualters explains, early reports and experiments have helped show that when a police officer is wearing a body camera, it reduces the level of confrontation for both sides (Qualters). The police officer and civilian both act accordingly since they know that if they do not, it will all be recorded on the body camera. Which in turn makes sure that the situation does not escalate into a violent confrontation. Erstad also says, People usually behave better if they are being filmed (Erstad). Everyone behaves better when they are being filmed because they know other people will be able to see them and what they did. Spivack says that the results have shown that whenever police officers and civilians know that a camera is filming them, both sides behave more calmly and use of force instances becomes less common (Spivack). The data for body cameras has been consistent showing that the actual cameras help de-escalate situations (Garrick). This in turn leads to less injury sustained to both sides in case a conflict arises. While data showing the camera's usefulness has been positive so far, there are also some disadvantages as well.

Some concerned citizens have stated that they are worried that they would end up losing their privacy.

While Stephanson supports the police issued body cameras, he also acknowledges the fact of lack of privacy by saying, the cameras will capture everything that happened which also includes embarrassing moments for victims that they may not want seen (Stephanson). Kauffman also says, “officers have to have conversations that shouldn’t be recorded.” (Kauffman). Lack of privacy is one of the main reasons people do not want police to have body cameras, but knowing this the police have come up with regulations in place in case of instances where the individual does not want footage seen. Spivack even says, the departments have created guidelines and written policies (Spivack). Bahr says, police officers would have to inform citizens that they are currently recording (Bahr). This in turn lets the citizen know ahead of time so that they are not caught off guard. Kauffman also says, law enforcement leaders say cameras do not need to be turned on all the time (Kauffman). This allows the victim or suspect to keep their privacy. Spivack then adds, the police will use the body cameras with balance between management and protection of privacy (Spivack). This gives the officers some flexibility whenever they are recording. Bahr says, officers will be able to turn the cameras off if it is a private conversation or something embarrassing like a strip search

(Bahr).

New information has shown that body cameras are an asset to police officers. They help provide a clear picture of the events taking place, have been found to cause a reduction in complaints filed, and deter violence. The evidence shown by the camera in the case against the officers who shot and killed a drunk driver in Carroll, Taneytown helped exonerate him from all charges. The camera showed that the drunk man stepped out of his car, and began charging at the officer with a hammer in his hand. Body cameras are there to help protect civilians and officers, not cause problems.