Police Cams Sample

Introduction

As we move further and further into the digital age, questions about what is or is not appropriate in terms of technological surveillance have become increasingly popular in mainstream culture both in terms of whether people are for or against these kinds of surveillance measures. Due to issues in the legal sector such a shootings of unarmed minors, riots in cities such as Ferguson, and other major changes in the socio-political climate of the United States, there has been an increase in the number of measures taken to ensure that the public is protected from law enforcement agencies. One such measure is a body mounted camera that is installed onto the uniform of officers nationwide. “A body-mounted camera is a video recording device used by law enforcement officers to record citizen interactions” (Otu, 2016). It is not meant to simply act as a recording, but instead it acts in a number of different ways as a deterrent, recorder, and verification of the issues that happen surrounding an incident.

The first question to ask is why these kinds of technology are becoming so popular. The idea is that by utilizing this kind of technology, officers will be less likely to act illegally against the public but at the same time that violators of public law will be less likely to retaliate against these officers. As a result, it is important to understand not only the ways in which this kind of technology can be used but also how it is perceived by the public. This is in part because of the fact that so many people feel as though motion capture technology violates their personal rights in a public court of law. “Citizens and police officers have the right to counsel in all possible criminal legal proceedings, but a body-worn camera captures this moment like never before and could be perceived negatively” (McCamman & Culhane, 2017). However, even with these objections, there has been a major push toward this kind of surveillance of the actions of officers nationwide. Even as people push back against the idea of increased government surveillance and intervention, this is one movement that has continued to move forward. In fact, “the introduction of body camera programs caught the attention of lawmakers in both federal and state governments. In December 2014, President Obama allocated $75 million of federal funding for police body cameras” (Slean, 2017). It is not simply a single frame issue but instead it encompasses the entirety of the criminal justice system of the United States of America. When this kind of issue permeates media between all different areas of socio-economic and socio-political activity across the country, it is something that must be taken seriously. After reviewing the literature, it is possible to see not only the way than which this is a positive possible technology but also the downfalls of early and overly rapid implementation of otherwise untested technology.

Identification of the Problem

In order to effectively determine how to approach this kind of subject, one must first actually analyze the ways in which the different tires come into contact with one another with regard to the subject. For example, many people have pointed out the idea that body camera technology is useful with regard to minimizing illegal acts committed by officers who were on duty when they feel that they are not being watched. In contrast, some point out that by utilizing body camera technology that those who commit crimes will be more likely to be convicted if they did something wrong while opponents against this kind of technology point out that information could be misconstrued for wrongful convictions. “One fact supporting [the] “maybe” assessment is that law enforcement officers are subject to more complaints by citizens than other public safety first responders; thus, they are subject to more scrutiny by their employers; and as a consequence, the security of their continued employment is subject to more peril” (Lippman, 2017). It is a double-edged sword because for those who are truly innocent it might not necessarily capture everything that would provide them the defense that they desire. Similarly, the same could be said for officers whose actions are taken out of context when viewed from the outside perspective of others. “Within the issue of transparency is a simple explanation for using body cameras: a body camera will provide an objective reality of what occurred during an encounter (Miller and Toliver, 2014). If a camera has recorded an event, and the recording is of sufficient quality to determine precisely what occurred or what was said, it will be easier to hold an officer accountable for their behaviour” (Phillips, 2016). When looking at this, the problem then is not necessarily whether or not this kind of technology can be useful but, instead, if it can be used in the context of the legal system that we have in the United States today. Does the literature and research into the subject show that the implementation of this kind of technology provides positive or negative reinforcement to the current situation in the United States both in the public and private sectors of law?

Literature Review

Reasons for the Implementation – Police Versus Populations

The first area of literature to analyze in terms of research is the reason for implementation of ready to wear body cameras for legal entities across the nation. This new technology has not only taken the United States by storm but, instead, has become a worldwide phenomenon both in terms of wearable technology but also with similar tech that is used such as closed circuit television in the United Kingdom. The idea is that cameras cannot lie and, therefore, provide a third-party viewpoint from the perspective of one of the members of an altercation. As a result, this results in “cameras functioning as “mechanisms of control by the people using transparency to check powerholders” (Wasserman, 2017). This refers both to those who are actually in power as it was originally intended but, also, with the idea that people are often able to get out of conviction due to Legal loopholes because of invalidated testimony. However, this is only the first aspect of why this kind of technology has become so popular and the current culture.

The viewpoint of the arresting officer in an altercation and the defendant who feels that they have been wronged by the legal justice system are often different and cause a further degradation of the legal framework. This brings up the idea of false complaints. For many researchers, this is “a key myth identified in the police accountability literature. In fact, the main problem in this area is developing a complaints system that is easy to access, robust in its investigations, independent, and gains public trust that there will not be any negative outcomes for making a complaint against police” (Palmer, 2016). However, the police are the ones who are held accountable for actions more often than not during an incident which does not alleviate the idea of blame As a result, the question is whether or not one or the other is at fault when they try to relay what actually occurred in any given situation. More often than not, it is primarily an issue that comes from the perspective of the detainee or the person who was arrested. In fact, this is not only an issue that plagues the United States but has been shown in studies around the globe. As a result, the question is how to best mitigate this problem on a large scale.

While the issue of misconstrued information is often laid on the detainee during trial, many will argue that the incident did not happen as it was relayed which is the reason this kind of technology is beneficial. For example, many of those arrested will say that they were wrongfully accused and video would only help their case. In one study from Australia, “the vast majority of detainees (80%; n=709), thought police BWCs were a ‘good idea’. Detainees were most likely to suggest that they were a good idea because they provided improved evidence of events, including arrests (32% of reasons given; n=230). Reasons given typically centred on the recordings giving a more accurate and complete record of events than would be given just through recollection or on the basis of notes or statements” (Taylor, Lee, Willis, & Gannoni, 2017). When reviewing this kind of evidence, it is not surprising that so many people are supportive of this measure from the public sector because they feel as though they are actually being served whereas previously so many people claimed that they were being discriminated against or that things did not occur in the way that they remembered. However, it is not only the public that is pushing for this kind of Reform.

It is not only the public that is promoting this kind of technology because of the possible positive ramifications. “Law enforcement agencies are rapidly getting on the body camera bandwagon because officers are realizing that recording encounters can help rebuild public trust, improve public as well as officer behavior, and protect against false complaints” (Fan, 2016). As perceptions of law and public relations falter, any positive reinforcement is welcome. It is in this way that the overall change is beneficial from the use of this kind of technology but at the same time is not perfect. Perceptions can shift but when both the public and legal agencies both see the positive attributes, it is also important to analyze the negative to act as a counter balance.

Perception of Positive Attributes

Why are both the public itself and legal entities so excited and gung-ho about the implementation of this kind of oversight technology? In the past, it was a common perception that the legal powers of the nation tended to be interconnected and we’re more likely to protect one another then someone who might have been wrongfully accused. Due to recent events, there has been a shift towards the idea of openness and a constant flow of communication between legal bodies and the public in general. “Body-worn cameras increase transparency and citizen views of police legitimacy. This claim has not been sufficiently tested. There have been virtually no studies of citizens’ views of the technology” (White, 2014). However, it is not simply the idea of transparency that have caused so many people to latch on to the idea of digital recording of events as they happened. In fact, legal aids have also seen the positives to this kind of technology in terms of the conviction of people who have committed crimes that might otherwise have gone unpunished. This had been shown in trials around the world both during issues of random violence but also predetermined acts against another person. “Body-worn cameras have evidentiary benefits that expedite resolution of citizen complaints or lawsuits and that improve evidence for arrest and prosecution. The available research offers support for the evidentiary benefits of body-worn camera systems” (White, 2014). This lends to the positive attributes of wearable technology and how it can be used in the future across any number of different fields. It is not a simple yes or no on why someone should use this kind of resource but, instead, there are many different factors all come into play with one another.

This lends to the positive attributes of wearable technology and how it can be used in the future across any number of different fields. It is not a simple yes or no on why someone should use this kind of resource but, instead, there are many different factors all come into play with one another. “Eyewitness perception and error is no small problem in the criminal justice system; research suggests that 64% of convictions that relied primarily on eyewitness testimony were incorrect (Gross et al., 2005). A variety of explanations for eyewitness error have been recognized” (Phillips, 2016). Therefore, wearable technology is only one such use of this kind of information gathering tech. Cell phones, CCTV, and a variety of other methods have also been used to help document events as they occur. This is an era of constantly evolving technology and so what might be state of the art one day could easily be replaced the next. “The advent of digital recording technology, particularly in the hands of the general public, and the growth of social media platforms, allow anyone with a cell phone to record and post a video; the police are often the subjects of these videos” (Phillips, 2016). As a result, it helps to reinforce what occurs and helps to clarify otherwise ambiguous situations. It is important to embrace this kind of Technology but the question is whether or not it is too quickly being used on a wide scale.

Problems with their Use

One major issue is how this kind of technology is used in the modern arena without it being fully accepted or tested. While some people are more welcoming of this kind of technology, others are reticent and it can be seen in how the existing laws are enforced. A key issue is how this kind of technology can be used against the police officers that wear them in comparison with how it can help to defend those people who are being videoed. While officers have long been given leeway and how they interact with their detainees, some worry that this will limit the force that they can employee even when suspect are violent. “The safety of the public depends upon the proper discharge of the police officers’ duties” but “police officers are concerned about body cams because they can be used as strong evidence against the officers wearing them, not just the suspects who may also be recorded by them. Therefore, the question turns upon who is the intended subject of the camera: the suspects, bystanders, or the officers?” (Meck, 2018). However, it is not simply this issue that comes into question but, instead, how the public perceives actions being taken to help protect the police when they, themselves, do not receive identical right to the footage.
In contrast to other kinds of information gathered against suspects of a crime, video footage is not necessarily given to all parties equally. Since legal status is a state matter, each state has differing views on how they should use this new technology. This is important to remember because not every state will use the technology on the same level or with the same ends as a goal. For example, in states, such as Texas, the footage is coming under scrutiny for going against the idea of transparency. According to the Austin American Statesman, “under Texas law, police officers facing disciplinary action have access to their footage before having to answer questions about the incident. Civil rights advocates say this only gives police time to get their story straight – a luxury not afforded to others involved in the incident – before putting anything on record, thus avoiding accountability” (Staff, 2017). This means that even though some will point out the positives of video surveillance with wearable technology, other than instead see it as a furthering of the existing problem of police versus public needs. These are key problems that must be analyzed in determining whether or not it is a positive or negative technology in the future.

Too Rapid of Implementation?

One key issue in this kind of technological use is that of the fact that it is being used too quickly and can lead to further problems if not monitored properly. Some people will latch on to any new technology if they feel that it will benefit the public no matter the consequences to social justice and social perceptions. The recent “widespread galvanization over body cameras exemplifies the human tendency, in times of tragedy, to latch on to the most readily available solution to a complex problem. But as the outcome of [one] case demonstrates, even when high-quality, graphic footage is available, officers may still not be indicted, let alone convicted” (Considering Police Body Cameras, 2015). Even though some people might be more likely to move towards this kind of Technology rapidly in comparison to others, it is important to remember that even though some might be supportive this is not mean that isn’t necessarily for the public good. In fact, when it technology or new policy is enacted to quickly it can have unforeseen ramifications that are unforeseen by those who feel that this might be a positive impact on the General Public. “This rapid adoption of technology in a low-information environment is not new to policing. The allure of the efficiencies and the promises of technology, coupled with social crises and other pressures, make rapid adoption without adequate research a familiar story” (Lum, 2016). In the end, the rapid implementation of wearable technology might benefit the public in the long run but those who are wrongfully convicted in the short-term have fewer and fewer options for recourse when they did not commit a crime. It is this duality that is important to remember since it can be a perilous road to go down when not carefully

Conclusions

The primary conclusion of this study is based on the idea that wearable technology is youthful but still has a number of problems that must be addressed in order to be effective in the long-term. While many people around the world have adopted the idea of wearable technology as the new savior of the legal system, others have, instead, pointed out that there are number of issues that still need to be addressed. “Police departments have been rushing to body cameras without sufficiently deciding what the goal is,” said Seth Stoughton, a former officer and a law professor at the University of South Carolina. “When no one is sure what it is supposed to do, no one knows if it is working”” (Carruthers, 2017). The overall conclusion to the information studied is that there is a wide berth of information that supports this movement. In fact, the information found against these kinds of wearable technology are far fewer than those who are in support of the same kind of technology. For some studies, the question is not about overall effectiveness but on certain instances such as when people resist the police. One such study suggests “that BWCs are an effective tool to reduce R2R incidents and serious external complaints. Specifically, the prevalence of R2R incidents and the prevalence and frequency of serious external complaints were significantly less for officers randomly assigned to wear BWCs” (Jennings, Lynch, and Fridell, 2016). For others, it is the idea that it promotes visibility. In either case, the result is that the technology has positive implications but it must be used in a way that benefits everyone regardless of position.

Recommendation

While the goal of police oversight is admirable, it must be taken in stride. Wearable technology is something that can have a positive impact on the modern legal system if used in the correct way. As a result, it is something that should be used but needs to be limited in terms of wide ranging implementation. This can help to minimize problems with the ways it can be misused while reinforcing existing perceptions of positive change in the issue of transparency in the legal system. It is a fine line that must be walked but can be done with the correct methods of implementation.

References

Carruthers, W. (2017). Study: Body Cameras Have Little Effect on Police Behavior. NewsMax.com.

Considering Police Body Cameras. (2015). Harvard Law Review.

Fan, M. (2016). Privacy, Public Disclosure, Police Body Cameras: Policy Splits. Alabama Law Review. 68(2).

Jennings, W., Lynch, M., and Fridell, L. (2016). Evaluating the impact of police officer body-worn cameras (BWCs) on response-to-resistance and serious external complaints: Evidence from the Orlando police department (OPD) experience utilizing a randomized controlled experiment. Journal of Criminal Justice. 43(6).

Lippman, G. (2017). Police Body Cameras Part II: Will Body Cameras Improve Policing in Florida?. The Florida Bar Journal.

Lum, C. (2016). Body-Worn Cameras—Rapid Adoption in a Low-Information Environment?. Translational Crimonology.

McCamman, M. and Culhane, Scott. (2017). Police Body Cameras and Us: Public Perceptions of the Justification of the Police Use of Force in the Body Camera Era. Translational Issues in Psychological Science. 3(2).

Meck, S. (2018).Focusing the Lens of Justice: The Implementation of Police Body Cameras Is a Management Right, Not a Mandatory Subject of Collective Bargaining. Labor and Employment Law. Florida Bar Journal.

Otu, N. (2016). Police Body Cameras: Seeing May Be Believing. Salus Journal. 4(3).

Palmer, D. (2016). The Mythical Properties of Police Body-Worn Cameras: A Solution in the Search of a Problem. Surveillance & Society. 14(1)

Phillips, S. (2016). Eyes are not Cameras: The Importance of Integrating Perceptual Distortions, Misinformation, and False Memories into the Police Body Camera Debate. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice. 12(1).

Slean, B. (2017). PUBLIC SECTOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND THE UNILATERAL IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICE BODY CAMERAS.

Staff. (2017). Access questions remain for police body cameras. Austin American-Statesman.

Taylor, E., Lee, M., Willis, M., and Gannoni, A. (2017). Police detainee perspectives on police body-worn cameras. Australian Institute of Criminology.

Wasserman, H. (2017). Recording of and by Police: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. The Journal of Gender, Race, & Justice. 20(1).

White, M. (2014). Police Officer Body-Worn Cameras: Assessing the Evidence. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.