Value of body cameras

[pauldun170]

Just to show good vs bad interactions

 

[mizzou]

lol at his explanation on the shovel

 

[Darwin333]

So you'd be OK being under perpetual surveillance at work, video and audio. You wouldn't have any problems with that ever? Lets not forget you could be recorded by accident admittedly you don't have a right to privacy on the street but Cops go into houses and businesses too.

Officers that work in jails and police stations seem to deal with it just fine.

 

[The Merg]

Officers that work in jails and police stations seem to deal with it just fine.

There are still areas that they can go to not be under audio/video surveillance. And most police stations and jails are only video surveillance.

- Merg

 

[rommelrommel]

Honestly, constant audio would drive me nuts. I work under video the vast majority of the time unless I'm in my office. However, it's nice to be able to catch up with my co-workers on our down time, talk about the news, etc. However, if this is all recorded and saved it would have a hugely chilling effect on individual officers.

 

[Darwin333]

There are still areas that they can go to not be under audio/video surveillance. And most police stations and jails are only video surveillance.

- Merg

I am not arguing that officers should be under constant audio/video surveillance, simply while they are doing their jobs and interacting with the public. All kinds of jobs have all kinds of requirements, if you are unhappy with the requirements of your job then you are free to look for employment elsewhere.

 

[Darwin333]

Honestly, constant audio would drive me nuts. I work under video the vast majority of the time unless I'm in my office. However, it's nice to be able to catch up with my co-workers on our down time, talk about the news, etc. However, if this is all recorded and saved it would have a hugely chilling effect on individual officers.

I have never seen it argued that officers should be recorded on their downtime.

 

[The Merg]

I am not arguing that officers should be under constant audio/video surveillance, simply while they are doing their jobs and interacting with the public. All kinds of jobs have all kinds of requirements, if you are unhappy with the requirements of your job then you are free to look for employment elsewhere.

I was just pointing out that working in a police station or jail doesn't mean that you are under constant audio/video surveillance.

- Merg

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I am not arguing that officers should be under constant audio/video surveillance, simply while they are doing their jobs and interacting with the public. All kinds of jobs have all kinds of requirements, if you are unhappy with the requirements of your job then you are free to look for employment elsewhere.

Just to be devils advocate, you're talking about slippery slope stuff. First Cops, then operating rooms, then doctor visits, then people in finance then everyone else.
Yes it would be decades.

 

[Darwin333]

Just to be devils advocate, you're talking about slippery slope stuff. First Cops, then operating rooms, then doctor visits, then people in finance then everyone else.
Yes it would be decades.

If there is a severe nationwide problem of them not being held accountable for their negligent and sometimes illegal actions that severely alter or end lives then I would say it would be just as warranted.

Edit: BTW, any employer in any one of those fields can demand exactly that happens right now and the employee would have to either accept it or find employment elsewhere. Just like lots of employers monitor their employees web traffic. Heck lots of people are in jobs that they are already under constant surveillance as it is.

 

[Darwin333]

I was just pointing out that working in a police station or jail doesn't mean that you are under constant audio/video surveillance.

- Merg

Pretty darn constant and roughly as constant as would reasonably be requested of police. Plenty of districts have already successfully implemented bodycams so I fail to see why it's still a debate that it can't be done.

 

[OverVolt]

If the police wanted them they would have gotten them. The evidence indicates thus far you are actually more likely to get shot when confronting a body cam cop.


I'm guessing because in terms of escalation of force and knowing you will be judged after the fact any kind of risky maneuver you feel is best in-the-moment is going to be judged afterwards if it goes wrong so you end up with the standard comply-taze-shoot and not much leeway to exercise judgement.

I don't think cams are going to shine light on bad cops, their job is tough and its a people problem not an evidence problem. Being critiqued after the fact does not help.

 

[OverVolt]

I feel like along with cop body cams the other caveat is that the footage should never be released to the news. Its ridiculous.

If you listen carefully, the cops explanation is that its an officer safety issue with the guy on the phone going "Hey man the cops are over here harassing me at XYZ" and they have no idea who he is really talking to.

In terms of resisting he doesn't just surrender his phone and accept cuffs, stand up when he's supposed to, doesn't stop arguing with the cops, etc. He doesn't understand that you can be detained for pretty much no reason for 24 hours until the cops figure it out.

I don't see how this went viral at all. I guess maybe the eye thing. He might be entitled to medical damages if it actually harmed him. Thats about it.

 

[OverVolt]

I want a by the book cop. I don't want someone who's playing judge and enforcement, that leads to corruption.
The law applies equally to all or it's not worth the paper it's written on.

Edit: Using your example:
A warning ticket could be issued and parents (if applicable) would be notified.

Well then you're stupid, the average person breaks several traffic laws a day alone and its only getting worse as we create more laws. Police have always enforced the spirit of the law and not the letter of the law. Its what they are trained to do. The letter of the law gets thrown at you later in court. Your method instead makes police the lawyer, judge, and enforcer all in one. You could get pulled over for every red light you run 0.01 seconds, and every double yellow you cross avoiding a duck.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Minor traffic violations aren't technically criminal, right? If it causes traffic tickets to suddenly ramp up, then people should petition them as excessive and vote in new local representatives willing to change the law. If there's a consistent "One warning" policy, then there's no problem regardless. It doesn't make a cop lawyer and judge at all; it is very easy to determine if a guy has a joint on him, seems intoxicated behind a wheel, is speeding, etc. Those are all objective facts, and a cop should be observer and witness to any violation of law. That says nothing about what happens should one want to petition a ticket in court, ask for a plea bargain, etc.

I feel like along with cop body cams the other caveat is that the footage should never be released to the news. Its ridiculous.

If you listen carefully, the cops explanation is that its an officer safety issue with the guy on the phone going "Hey man the cops are over here harassing me at XYZ" and they have no idea who he is really talking to.

In terms of resisting he doesn't just surrender his phone and accept cuffs, stand up when he's supposed to, doesn't stop arguing with the cops, etc. He doesn't understand that you can be detained for pretty much no reason for 24 hours until the cops figure it out.

I don't see how this went viral at all. I guess maybe the eye thing. He might be entitled to medical damages if it actually harmed him. Thats about it.

Can you point out specific times you're referring to? I don't feel like rewatching it, but the dude seemed really calm and friendly up until the cop asked for papers AFTER the black guy already showed his ID. Then when he is on the phone, the cop quickly reaches to grab it from him when he had no grounds to, since there was no stated reason for arrest. Does a cop have a right to immediately know who a suspect is talking to on the phone?

 

[The Merg]

Pretty darn constant and roughly as constant as would reasonably be requested of police. Plenty of districts have already successfully implemented bodycams so I fail to see why it's still a debate that it can't be done.

There are still many issues and questions when it comes to bodycams. Some departments have set up great policies as to when they are to be used and when they are not. However, we hear all the time that people complain that even though a department has a body cam, they are not used enough or it is said that officers are intentionally turning them off or breaking them during encounters. We hear that they should be on all the time with no ability of the officer to turn them on and off. All these questions create privacy issues that need to be sorted out (as well as cost issues).

And the privacy issues are not that simple to resolve. If an officer has a video on the full time and records encounters in someone's house that might be of a personal nature or takes a sexual assault report, how much of that is then accessible via a Freedom of Information Act request? How do you determine when one event ends and another begins? If the officer goes into a restroom for a bathroom break, does the camera continue to record? What if it catches your little kid with his pants down while in there and then that gets released to the public under a FOIA request?

While you might be recorded at work, you can always take a break and go somewhere to not be on audio/video to make that private phone call to your spouse or doctor. Is a police officer never allowed to do that? Are they never allowed to have a private break while they are working?

Then there is a cost issue...

In my area the ACLU has sued a department over retention of plates recorded via tag readers. There is discussion as to what is a valid amount of time that data can be retained. It has been brought up that there is a direct correlation to the retention of body cam footage as well. There has been the argument that the tags should not be stored for more than 72 hours. If that is the case, consider how much a large department will be spending to retain data for such a short period of time. I think this one department has looked at it that the storage alone will cost about $6 million a year.

- Merg

 

[OverVolt]

Around 9:00 -- 9:10 he gets on the phone talking to someone unknown telling them "come over to my fucking moms house the police are harassing me" Around 11:40 - 12:00 after all the resisting/not resisting stuff the cop said "You can't be on the phone with your buddies telling them hey the cops are here ________more fighting______ its an officer safety issue"

And maybe 20-30 seconds prior to that (11:20) he says "Yea you could have SAT there all day long but thats not what you were doing" before more arguing with the cops mid-arrest.

 

[The Merg]

Minor traffic violations aren't technically criminal, right? If it causes traffic tickets to suddenly ramp up, then people should petition them as excessive and vote in new local representatives willing to change the law. If there's a consistent "One warning" policy, then there's no problem regardless. It doesn't make a cop lawyer and judge at all; it is very easy to determine if a guy has a joint on him, seems intoxicated behind a wheel, is speeding, etc. Those are all objective facts, and a cop should be observer and witness to any violation of law. That says nothing about what happens should one want to petition a ticket in court, ask for a plea bargain, etc.

And what is the first thing someone says to a cop when they get stopped for a minor traffic violation... "Don't you have anything better to do?" or "Aren't there real criminals out there that you could be arresting?" Police officers need discretion so that they can at times go after the higher priority criminals, but they still need to be able to enforce the minor violations to be sure that people continue to obey those laws.

Can you point out specific times you're referring to? I don't feel like rewatching it, but the dude seemed really calm and friendly up until the cop asked for papers AFTER the black guy already showed his ID. Then when he is on the phone, the cop quickly reaches to grab it from him when he had no grounds to, since there was no stated reason for arrest. Does a cop have a right to immediately know who a suspect is talking to on the phone?

The subject never actually shows an ID. He tells the officers his name (first the male officer and later the female officer). I would say that the subject was being detained at the time as the officer did tell him to sit back down after he tried to leave once. The subject admitted to trying to open the garage, but could not prove that he lived or that his mother lived at the address. In fact, the female officer even told the male officer that the premise history for the address showed only Asian names at the address in 2015, yet the subject stated that he has lived there on/off for 10 years.

There is a lot of debate, to include by the courts, as to whether the police can keep people from using a phone while being detained. The consensus is generally that they can. I think the issue here is that the officer tried to take the phone, which is not unreasonable, but not sure if necessary. He told the subject that it is an officer safety issue and could see if the subject complied in not using the phone. If he continued to use the phone, I could see trying to take it at that point.

- Merg

 

[Darwin333]

There are still many issues and questions when it comes to bodycams. Some departments have set up great policies as to when they are to be used and when they are not. However, we hear all the time that people complain that even though a department has a body cam, they are not used enough or it is said that officers are intentionally turning them off or breaking them during encounters. We hear that they should be on all the time with no ability of the officer to turn them on and off. All these questions create privacy issues that need to be sorted out (as well as cost issues).

And the privacy issues are not that simple to resolve. If an officer has a video on the full time and records encounters in someone's house that might be of a personal nature or takes a sexual assault report, how much of that is then accessible via a Freedom of Information Act request? How do you determine when one event ends and another begins? If the officer goes into a restroom for a bathroom break, does the camera continue to record? What if it catches your little kid with his pants down while in there and then that gets released to the public under a FOIA request?

While you might be recorded at work, you can always take a break and go somewhere to not be on audio/video to make that private phone call to your spouse or doctor. Is a police officer never allowed to do that? Are they never allowed to have a private break while they are working?

Then there is a cost issue...

In my area the ACLU has sued a department over retention of plates recorded via tag readers. There is discussion as to what is a valid amount of time that data can be retained. It has been brought up that there is a direct correlation to the retention of body cam footage as well. There has been the argument that the tags should not be stored for more than 72 hours. If that is the case, consider how much a large department will be spending to retain data for such a short period of time. I think this one department has looked at it that the storage alone will cost about $6 million a year.

- Merg

Solution: When going to the bathroom take the bodycam off and leave it in your car. Don't cops even have a special code they say over the air when they are taking a whizz or grabbing lunch?

As far as your sexual assault victim, the video should fall under the same laws as the report itself. Seems like we already have laws on the books to account for a lot of that.

 

[rommelrommel]

I have never seen it argued that officers should be recorded on their downtime.

Well, due to concerns about officers turning them off/not turning them on I've seen many people argue that they should be on from start to finish.

Merg noted one of the other big issues, FOIA/ATIP. How long is it kept? Are the departments legally liable to search every bit of stored footage to satisfy a request?

I am not anti-body cam but a lot of discussions haven't been had in most jurisdictions.

 

[Darwin333]

Well, due to concerns about officers turning them off/not turning them on I've seen many people argue that they should be on from start to finish.

Merg noted one of the other big issues, FOIA/ATIP. How long is it kept? Are the departments legally liable to search every bit of stored footage to satisfy a request?

I am not anti-body cam but a lot of discussions haven't been had in most jurisdictions.

Personally I would be happy if a simple law was passed that said only the person or persons involved in the police interaction could request and obtain bodycam footage unless severe force was employed or a court order issued. The public should be allowed to see all instances in which police use force, beyond that I am ok with stringent protocols being put in place.

 

[The Merg]

Solution: When going to the bathroom take the bodycam off and leave it in your car. Don't cops even have a special code they say over the air when they are taking a whizz or grabbing lunch?

As far as your sexual assault victim, the video should fall under the same laws as the report itself. Seems like we already have laws on the books to account for a lot of that.

And then when something happens as they walk to or from the restroom and they don't have their bodycam with them, they'll be accused of "conveniently" not having it with them...

As for the sexual assault victim, if that video is on a recording that is FOIA'd, it will be released. And what about the child that is inadvertently recorded in a restroom. I would go ballistic if my kid was recorded and then the video was released due to a FOIA request.

Part of the issue of having a continuous video is that there is no true delimitation of one event to another. At least if the video is started/stopped, you can say that one particular video belongs to a specific event.

- Merg

 

[The Merg]

Are the departments legally liable to search every bit of stored footage to satisfy a request?

They are (and they will generally err on the side of releasing more than requested).

- Merg