Cameras can be used as a “gotcha” for an officer, but most officers and supervisors also see the benefit of having a firs
t-person video recording of what happens during a confrontation or critical response. During the Mesa PD’s rough arrest, the camera did capture the officer dropping a few F-bombs. However, the focus of the incident revolved around the officer’s eyewitness point of view—the punch that knocked the camera off his head. In this case, the camera did exactly what it was deployed to do.
When developing policies for body-worn video systems, police managers must decide whether they will require officers to record all encounters or leave it up to the officer’s discretion to activate the system. They must also set retention schedules based on the type of recorded incident. These policies will shape how the cameras are perceived on the force and determine their effectiveness.
Officer-worn cameras represent the pinnacle of transparency in law enforcement. For that reason, even civil liberties advocates like them.
A typical complaint starts with an accusation of wrongdoing and a denial by the officers. On-body video systems offer an unedited and unbiased account that protects the officer and the citizen’s civil liberties. That’s why the ACLU has publicly endorsed the cameras, saying transparency leads to public trust and trust benefits the community.
Some video systems include a buffer that captures video with no audio of the 30 seconds preceding activation. This “pre event” information protects the officer and agency from unfounded complaints and lawsuits.
Because use-of-force complaints often fall after an agency implements on-body cameras, agency leaders have been quick to embrace this technology. This was an unexpected but understandable side effect, when you consider that behavior often improves under a watchful eye.
Despite some officers’ reluctance to embrace the technology, most experts agree that body-worn video cameras are here to stay in law enforcement. In a world where almost every citizen has a smartphone camera that can record you on the job, you need a video that turns the tide of public opinion to your side.
On-officer cameras are poised to become as much a part of policing as a pen and notepad. The technology will only get better and cost less. When you consider the amount of money spent investigating complaints and defending claims of wrongdoing, the cost of the systems comes into perspective. Agencies considering these systems have to look beyond the cost of the actual equipment and see the importance of developing solid policies for when to use the cameras and how to store, manage, share, and retain the digital files.
Mark Clark is a 27-year veteran police sergeant. He has served as public information officer, training officer, and as supervisor for various detective and patrol squads.
Related Articles:
- Your Rights Under FERPA
- Report Addresses Public Perceptions of Police Use of Force
- Report Condemns UC Davis Handling of Occupy Protests
- Possible Medical Causes of Abnormal Subject Behavior
This article originally ran in Police Magazine.
