All Police in California Should Have Body Cameras - Essay Example

All Police in California Should Have Body Cameras. All Police in California Should Have Body Cameras. On October 22, 13-year old Andy Lopez walked down a road in Santa Rosa. In his arms he held what appeared to be an AK-47. A Sonoma County patrol car cruised past the boy and stopped. Sheriff’s Deputy, Erick Gelhaus, stepped out of the car and told the boy to drop his weapon at once. Lopez turned round with the weapon still in his hand. The deputy fired eight shots at the boy, who died on the spot. The ‘AK-47’ turned out to be a BB gun. This encounter sent shock-waves through the community and spread to other parts of California. The fact that Lopez was a Latino added a racist overtone to the incident. Although the ten-second interaction was witnessed by several civilians, there was no consensus on the sequence of events. Gelhaus’ contention that he gave Lopez a warning shout before firing could not be corroborated (Wolfe, 2014). This incident emphasizes the indisputable need to have a reliable record of police encounters in California. This is where advances in technology can play a positive role and provide real-time, accurate footage of police-civilian interaction: Personal Digital Recording Devices, or Body-Worn Video Cameras, are the need of the hour. All Police in California should have body cameras in order to control police misconduct, to provide accurate records, to reduce expenses, to aid in the gathering of valuable evidence and to build up public trust. The use of body cameras makes police officers more careful about using force. The Andy Lopez incident is no isolated aberration in the use of disproportionate force by the police: “The Rodney King and Kelly Thomas incidents are potent reminders about the enormous power that police officers have and how things can go wrong” (Farrar, 2014). A significant volume of inter-disciplinary research shows that being observed creates self-consciousness in all rational humans and alters their behavior. In this context, it follows that when police officers are aware of being videotaped, they will conform to socially accepted standards of behavior and tone down their aggression. This assumption was categorically proved in an experiment by the Rialto Police Department which conducted a randomized, controlled test as to whether police body-worn cameras would lead to socially desirable behavior in the officers who wore them. The results are scientifically conclusive: there was a 60 percent reduction in the use of force by police officers who wore cameras. This was accompanied by an 88 percent decrease in public complaints against officers. The Rialto study provides conclusive proof of the efficacy of body cameras in controlling unnecessary police violence. A corollary to this is that body cameras also influence the behavior of the public who interact with the police. When the public are aware of being under electronic surveillance, they are more likely to adhere to socially acceptable behavior and be pressurized to cooperate with rules and authority (Farrar, 2014). The Rialto police experiment showed that “once informed they were being filmed, even drunk or agitated people tended to become more polite” (Carroll, 2013). Police Chief Farrar asserts that “if a citizen knows the officer is wearing a camera, chances are the citizen will behave a little better” (Lovett, 2013). The use of body cameras by the police encourages both the police and the public to adhere to socially accepted standards of behavior. The use of body cameras by the police provides accurate reports of encounters with the public. This is a great protection for both the police force and the public and the cameras provide “unimpeachable evidence that holds all parties accountable for their actions” (Wolfe, 2014). In the case of police officers, allegations of misconduct can derail promising careers. In this context, body cameras “promise police greater protection from false claims of misconduct” (Wolfe, 2014). Video footage may be used to exonerate them of false accusations. Body cameras provide an effective counter response to the filming of police action by the public on cell phones. Rialto police Sgt. Richard Royce declares, “I’d rather have my version of that incident captured on high-definition video in its entirety from my point of view, then to look at somebodys grainy cellphone camera footage captured a 100 feet away that gets cropped, edited, changed or manipulated” (The Associated Press, 2014). In Oakland, a police officer was exonerated from charges of using excessive force when analysis of video footage showed that the suspect had indeed held a gun in his hand and the gun had later fallen into the grass. The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) conducted a survey which revealed that “officers were exonerated more frequently when there was video evidence” (Wolfe, 2014). Those who lodged frivolous or bogus complaints about officers tended to retract them when shown video of the incidents. Most police departments assert that the use of body cameras helps in the speedy resolution of complaints against officers. In fact, “In some cases, citizens have come to the police station to file a complaint and decided not to after they were shown the video of the incident” (Lovett, 2013). In the same way, body cameras can serve to validate genuine claims by the public of police misconduct. A body camera helps people to overcome prejudice and convince a judge or a jury of police misconduct. This is particularly relevant in most cases where the police naturally have more credibility and are more likely to be believed. The use of body cameras provides both the police and the public with protection against false allegations. By wearing body cameras, police departments can drastically reduce expenses. Although video body cameras are an initially expensive investment, they are cost-effective in the long run. Fewer complaints and calmer policing reduce lawsuits and expensive payouts. Andrea Russi, director of criminal justice for the Warren Institute on Law & Social Policy, reiterates that body cameras “can also be cost effective because misconduct and lawsuits prove to be so expensive for police departments” (Wolfe, 2014). In the case of the federal lawsuit filed by the Lopez family against the Sonoma County sheriff’s office, the department estimates that the cost will run to hundreds of thousands of dollars (Wolfe, 2014). Paul Figueroa, an assistant chief with the Oakland Police Department, asserts that body cameras are “definitely not cheap. But over the long term, just from a liability and management perspective, it’s definitely an investment that’s worth it” (Lovett, 2013). Legal costs can cripple a police department. Captured video could protect the department, and ultimately the taxpayer, from a false claims and expensive litigation (The Associated Press). Body-worn police cameras are extremely valuable tools in gathering evidence. A police body camera “captures what’s really occurring in real time” (Lovett, 2013). This makes it an irrefutable eye witness. A witness or an accused person cannot insert new, false details later and alter the sequence of events. As police officer Burke of the Oakland department says, “Our video cannot be altered in any shape or fashion. What you get once its recorded is the raw form” (Wolfe, 2014). A camera provides unimpeachable testimony. Cameras aid in evidence gathering. Having video evidence in court leads to more convictions, as footage can become evidence in a criminal case. Domestic abuse cases best illustrate this powerful use of cameras. Sgt. Josh Lindsay of the Rialto police department points out, “By the time those cases get to court often things have cooled down and the victim retracts. But with the video you see her with the bloody lip. Theres nothing lost in translation” (Carroll, 2013). Body cameras capture the action of police-public interaction and cannot be refuted. The use of body cameras by the police can be a powerful confidence building measure with the public. As the video footage ensures complete transparency in police interaction with the public, it helps to build community trust. This is a very significant benefit of the cameras. As Police Chief Farrar asserts, “police organizations rarely experience community crises for failing to control crime. Instead, it is the failure of police to control police conduct that most often causes community distrust” (2014). Alleged police misconduct is immediately legitimized, publicized and often sensationalized by the media. This creates a negative image of the police department. In such scenarios, real-time video footage from police body cameras can refute false allegations and bolster community confidence in the police department. The irrefutable proof offered by the cameras becomes a powerful tool which can repair or build trust between police and the community. By holding both the police and the public accountable for their actions, each side is ready to accept the consequences of the interaction in a spirit of mutual good-will. Critics of the police body-wear cameras cite concerns on the invasion of privacy. This criticism is unwarranted as the police have controls in place. This is evident in the stand of the American Civil Liberties Union, one of the foremost watchdogs of civil liberties in the USA: in October, the ACLU officially endorsed the use of body-worn cameras as a method for curbing police abuse (Wolfe, 2014). Peter Bibring, a senior lawyer with the A.C.L.U. of Southern California asserts that cameras “do raise privacy concerns, but ones that can be addressed by strong privacy policies” (Lovett, 2013). Support from civil rights organizations obviously show that the privacy issues of body cameras can easily be addressed. The benefits of the use of body cameras by the police is beyond doubt. Body-wear cameras put a tight rein on police misconduct, encourage conformity to socially-accepted behavioral norms, provide accurate records of police-public interactions and unimpeachable evidence in court, reduce litigation costs and serve as a powerful confidence-building measure in public trust. The proof of the efficacy of cameras is demonstrated by its real-time applications in several counties in California. It is clear that the body-worn police cameras must be made a mandatory part of every police department in the State in order to usher in lasting, positive change in policing. References. Carroll, Rory. (November 4, 2013). California police use of body cameras cuts violence and Complaints. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/04/california-police-body-cameras-cuts-violence-complaints-rialto Farrar, William. (January 2014). Operation Candid Camera: Rialto Police Department’s Body- Worn Camera Experiment. The Police Chief, 81: 20–25. Retrieved from http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display&article_id=3226&issue_id=12014 Lovett Ian Paul. (August 21, 2013). In California, a Champion for Police Cameras. The New York Times: Opinion Pages. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/22/us/in-california-a-champion-for-police-cameras.html?_r=1& The Associated Press. (15 March 2014). Body cameras on police officers raise privacy concerns. The Dallas Morning News. Retrieved from http://www.dallasnews.com/news/local-news/20140315-body-cameras-on-police-officers-raise-privacy-concerns.eceWolfe, Eli. (January 6, 2014). The Unblinking Eyewitness: Should All Police Start Wearing Body Cameras? California Magazine. Retrieved from http://alumni.berkeley.edu/california-magazine/just-in/2014-01-06/cop-camera-hed-here Read More