Controversy over Police Video Cameras

**Jenna** · 10-11-11, 01:50 PM

The ubiquity of video in police encounters — some of it promptly uploaded onto YouTube — is creating new frontiers for judges and lawmakers, who must sort out the issues raised by the new technologies.

Courts in several states are considering cases where citizens who videotaped the police have been charged with violating wiretapping or eavesdropping statutes, prosecution that civil rights lawyers say violates First Amendment rights.

If body cameras are widely adopted by police departments — Vievu, the Seattle-based firm that sold Oakland its cameras, has supplied them to more than 1,100 police agencies across the country, according to Heidi Traverso, a company spokeswoman — privacy questions are likely to be added to the legal stew.

“If a police officer is taking a picture of every interaction, one of the things that he may find is me, naked as a jay bird, when my wife calls to complain,” said Franklin E. Zimring, a professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley. “Let’s assume that it’s either against the law or not, but I sure don’t want it on YouTube. The potential for a sort of permanent embarrassment is a looming presence when everything is filmed.”

Police officers argue that the pager-size devices, which are more versatile and cost far less than dashboard cameras, can provide objective evidence in situations that might otherwise depend on “he said, she said” accounts. Indeed, the videotape of the police shooting in Oakland is likely to play a critical role in the investigation by the department’s Internal Affairs division. The department has not released the names of the victim or the officers involved in the shooting.

more here: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/12/us...BzJfBokE6LqACg

**lewisipso** · 10-11-11, 08:57 PM

If body cameras are widely adopted by police departments...

I'll seek employment elsewhere.

**Rhino** · 10-11-11, 09:49 PM

I don't see what the controversy is. Being recorded and recording others is part of the job.

**Pudge** · 10-11-11, 10:55 PM

Originally Posted by lewisipso

I'll seek employment elsewhere.

Honestly, Lew. I wear one, and used to hate it and the concept. I've come to love that thing and use it like second nature now. Mine was full yesterday, forcing me to have to use my digital pocket recorder and I felt naked.

We stated by testing the Vievu, but opted for one a lot smaller and more convienient that is clipped to the uniform pocket. Although I believe the Vievu is probably a little more rugged.

It took some court time and cleared complaints, but I'm certainly over my initial fears.

**Car 4** · 10-12-11, 02:03 AM

Generally, I am in favor of video.....but....a video can be taken out of context just like a statement or utterance. I have seen many videos that work in the favor of the department and others that do not. Sometimes it can be a two edged sword.

Car 4

**Broke Hoss** · 10-12-11, 03:21 PM

I would bet that more officers have been cleared by video evidence than jammed up by it. I know I've been helped by it at least 3 times.

Also, I feel that in cases where video evidence is present; the punishment is often more severe than in cases without it.

**lewisipso** · 10-12-11, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by Pudge

Honestly, Lew. I wear one, and used to hate it and the concept. I've come to love that thing and use it like second nature now.

Just recently we had a case where two officers engaged in a physical altercation with a suspect and fell into a ditch. The fight was pretty substantial in the ditch and the suspect was banged up a bit. There was plenty of public rumor that the officers "worked the guy over" because you couldn't see any video from the car only audio.
Now I don't have a lot to give on the car video as it is what it is. However as seen on this video

the bouncing around that happens at the end is just him getting in the car. I can't imagine what happens when fighting. Not sure about most other places but we seem to go hands on quite a bit.
Public perception has changed with the hour long CSI shows and if the video doesn't show it then it didn't happen. I can see things that the personal camera would not and I don't necessarily mean weapons. Not a fan and that's just my personal opinion. If it works for you then I'm all for it.

**luckyme** · 10-13-11, 03:08 AM

http://www.youtube.com/v/c11t12gReA8&hl

Here's a good video of using the camera in action. This is in broad daylight without much movement. I don't know how good it would be running after someone in the dark.

**Pudge** · 10-13-11, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by lewisipso

Public perception has changed with the hour long CSI shows and if the video doesn't show it then it didn't happen. I can see things that the personal camera would not and I don't necessarily mean weapons. Not a fan and that's just my personal opinion. If it works for you then I'm all for it.

I agree with you. And they do jump around quite a bit. Another thing that people have to consider when viewing it, is we're not camera operators, and due to our stance and tactics, we're not going to pick up what some may want to see.

It's certainly not the end all, but I've come to like it all things considered.

**Rhino** · 10-13-11, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by lewisipso

Just recently we had a case where two officers engaged in a physical altercation with a suspect and fell into a ditch. The fight was pretty substantial in the ditch and the suspect was banged up a bit. There was plenty of public rumor that the officers "worked the guy over" because you couldn't see any video from the car only audio.

Do you think "public perception" would have been any different with no video at all?

**lewisipso** · 10-13-11, 07:09 PM

Originally Posted by Rhino

Do you think "public perception" would have been any different with no video at all?

I do understand what you are saying. However, at that point it would be my reputation and report against their reputation and criminal history.
I just don't care for the the trend being if it can't be seen on video it didn't happen. I was recorded on video once and was accused of doing something I didn't do. I was tried and convicted by some admin at my department and was never allowed to even see the video. It must have been a serious angle issue for them to be able to accuse me of it when it didn't happen. Just sayin. Again if the uniform video works for you I think that's great. I just don't care for the idea personally.

**Morris** · 10-16-11, 07:44 PM

They are not perfect but frankly, after wearing one for over a year, I feel naked not having the VieVu on my chest. And yes, the camera has exonerated me from several IA complaints. Yes, you do have to change a few things and yes, I have altered my speech a bit and bit my tongue more than ever (which Mac will attest to, has been a good thing).

I suggest that like laptops and in-car camera systems, BWCs (body worn cameras) will be come as common place as the radio or the TASER.

**copboy** · 10-17-11, 09:18 PM

The public has become comfortable with the use of in car video, and almost have come to expect it these days. I don't see why the body cam would be any different. My last department used a body cam ( though a cheep one that was just about dead when I left) and it was just second nature to put it on at the start of shift. I think it is just one more way to cover ones butt in any situation.