Police Body Cameras - the flip side

[swimmermom3]

We have been talking on a few threads recently about the police wearing body cameras to record their interactions with the public with the idea being that perhaps situations like that in Ferguson or with Eric Garner could be prevented.

 

I've thought about what it would be like to be a law enforcement officer, especially if you are a good one, to have everything filmed. What I didn't think about was what it would be like to be on the other side of the camera and be the person being recorded. Not everyone who has contact with law enforcement is a criminal.

 

This morning on NPR, the problem of what to do with all of the footage was discussed. Recently in Seattle, a guy made an anonymous request for ALL of the dash cam footage. He can legally do so under public records laws. His plan was to make a Youtube channel with them. He said that lots of people like to watch them for hours, maybe while they are gaming.

 

Think about this.

 

Cost and logistical issues limit local police interest in body cameras

 

Law enforcement officers give speeding tickets. Wouldn't be great to have your employer see that video? Law enforcement officers are called to not just burglaries, but domestic violence scenes, minors in possession, and fatal traffic accidents.

 

It's my understanding that unless we change the public records laws, most everything will be out there with only a few exceptions.

 

Any thoughts. Does this make you reconsider the idea of body cams if you are a proponent?

[5of5]

Interesting question.

 

One thought would be to charge a reasonably substantial fee to get the footage, to offset the cost of processing, etc., which might prevent frivolous requests.  But that wouldn't be a panacea at all.

 

I also wonder if the law could be change to require a reasonable cause as to why you want specific footage, and only provided the footage “needed†instead of the entire day.

[Momof3]

Creepy thought.

[Amy in NH]

I don't think you have a legal expectation of privacy when you are in public.

 

Recordings made in private residences or wherever you have a legal expectation of privacy should only be available under subpoena.

[Murphy101]

Ugh. And rape victims. I'm sure a gal being called in for rape and having a cop be the first responder is really going to appreciate this.

 

To be honest, I'm anti-cop cameras.

 

I'm so sick of cameras every frikkin where in general.

 

The minute they tell me, "oh this law will be great" and follow up with "after we make 200 more laws to cover all the ways it can not be great" maybe. Sorta. Eventually. Oh people will just get over it/used to it.

 

No. How about we just not do that?

[Jean in Newcastle]

In Seattle, they said that footage would be erased after a certain period of time, I thought.  At least footage that was not pertinent to any specific case.  And officers need to ask for permission to record you.  http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattle911/2014/12/18/seattle-police-to-sport-new-unis-new-body-cameras/#29306101=0

[Momof3]

Yeah, but I think there's a difference between a legal expectation of privacy - and having my every encounter with law enforcement aired on youtube. Not that I plan to have any run-ins with the police. :) 

[Murphy101]

Interesting question.

 

One thought would be to charge a reasonably substantial fee to get the footage, to offset the cost of processing, etc., which might prevent frivolous requests. But that wouldn't be a panacea at all.

 

I also wonder if the law could be change to require a reasonable cause as to why you want specific footage, and only provided the footage “needed†instead of the entire day.

You're kidding right? Like only poor folks would use the films for bad ends, so just make it cost something?

 

And if the cops only have to show what they think you need to see, that completely makes having the cop cams pointless. The entire point is that police/justice departments aren't supposed to edit it to only show what they want seen.

 

So that brings it back to my theory that laws that are nothing more than a nightmare to make effective shouldn't be laws.

[Momof3]

In Seattle, they said that footage would be erased after a certain period of time, I thought.  At least footage that was not pertinent to any specific case.  And officers need to ask for permission to record you.  http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattle911/2014/12/18/seattle-police-to-sport-new-unis-new-body-cameras/#29306101=0

 

If they have to ask permission, doesn't that sort of defeat the purpose?

[Chris in VA]

What about minors that are filmed while committing a crime? Would that get sticky, considering court records aren't available to the public for minors, and records are often cleared, and minor crimes are treated differently?

[5of5]

 

And if the cops only have to show what they think you need to see, that completely makes having the cop cams pointless. The entire point is that police/justice departments aren't supposed to edit it to only show what they want seen.

 

 

That isn't what I said at all.  I was talking about the public requesting copies not what the police would record.

[Tsuga]

Momof3, the people who support cop cams usually want the incident recorded, so that the citizen will be protected. So most people would consent if they felt threatened.

 

The funny thing is, a lot of people have no idea how to behave so they would be requesting a video of themselves threatening and harassing the police. I have seen this. A guy once totally harassed a police officer, threatened him, etc. etc. right in front of me (white guy, for the racists among us who are bound to ask if he was black--officer was black, though, it did not seem to be racially motivated at all). The officer is just standing there stone faced like, "eventually this guy will go away." The harasser was screeching, "I HAVE WITNESSES!"

 

That is how nuts some people are.

 

Now mind you I do think there is police brutality and that's why I actually support cop cams and I don't give a flying fart at a rolling doughnut if I'm on YouTube.

 

But we also have a lot of idiots in our city.

 

It goes both ways.

[Tsuga]

What about minors that are filmed while committing a crime? Would that get sticky, considering court records aren't available to the public for minors, and records are often cleared, and minor crimes are treated differently?

 

 

 

And if the cops only have to show what they think you need to see, that completely makes having the cop cams pointless. The entire point is that police/justice departments aren't supposed to edit it to only show what they want seen.

 

So, the idea is this:

 

The entire tape is available to the court.

 

But public records requests will respect privacy of minors, the innocent, etc. etc.

 

So they can and will say no when necessary, but that doesn't give them total control.

 

Does that make sense?

[Murphy101]

If they have to ask permission, doesn't that sort of defeat the purpose?

Yes it does.

 

If the only way I have access to prove/use something is if I can buy it and get permission, then chances are dang high I'm not going to get access/use UNLESS I happen to have money. Has anyone else ever noticed how it seems crooks and jerks always have access to money and loopholes?

[Murphy101]

That isn't what I said at all. I was talking about the public requesting copies not what the police would record.

That's not what I said at all either.

 

Cop records whatever.

 

Public requests copy of whatever.

 

Cop/department decides if the public should see it and what parts of it they get to see.

 

Gee. What are the odds of a crappy department or cop showing it or showing the negative parts?

 

Call me cynical, but I think that makes it pointless.

[5of5]

If the only way I have access to prove/use something is if I can buy it and get permission, then chances are dang high I'm not going to get access/use UNLESS I happen to have money. Has anyone else ever noticed how it seems crooks and jerks always have access to money and loopholes?

 

I didn't see anyone suggest that the person involved in the incident would have to pay for access, etc.  Definitely, through your lawyer, you would have access.  We are talking about third parties that just want to play it on YouTube, etc.

[Momof3]

I guess if I can say no to being filmed than I don't have a problem with it from that end. 

 

But the cops who are involved in bullying, etc. ... what's to prevent them from just 'forgetting' to turn the camera on?

[Sun]

I guess if I can say no to being filmed than I don't have a problem with it from that end. 

 

But the cops who are involved in bullying, etc. ... what's to prevent them from just 'forgetting' to turn the camera on?

 

I would think that if a complaint were filed afterward and the footage didn't exist, that it would not look favorable for the officer involved.

 

I also suspect that a lot of those situations don't start out with the officer(s) intending to use inappropriate force. It just happens in the heat of the moment. Turning it off mid-altercation would seem pretty suspicious, I'd think.

 

One of the best arguments I've heard for the cameras came from an ex-cop who started a body-cam business. He said, "Everyone behaves better when they're on camera." I realized it's true. If someone is pulled over and knows they're being filmed, they're less likely to get belligerent. Ditto for the officers involved. The very presence of an active camera is probably quite likely to reduce the frequency of aggressive responses--kind of like how I'm more likely to yell at DS when I'm alone than I am to yell at him with my great aunt standing next to me.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I guess if I can say no to being filmed than I don't have a problem with it from that end. 

 

But the cops who are involved in bullying, etc. ... what's to prevent them from just 'forgetting' to turn the camera on?

In the article I linked for Seattle (policies will probably be different for different police departments in different states) says that they have to give a reason for why a camera is being turned off.  

[albeto.]

Any thoughts. Does this make you reconsider the idea of body cams if you are a proponent?

 

I don't like it. Privacy is important. Preventing crimes takes more than simply watching everyone all the time.

 

I wonder how well it will be received the first time a victims organization demands priests and ministers to be recorded all the time. Or stepfathers. Or moms.

[Murphy101]

I don't like it. Privacy is important. Preventing crimes takes more than simply watching everyone all the time.

 

I wonder how well it will be received the first time a victims organization demands priests and ministers to be recorded all the time. Or stepfathers. Or moms.

Pigs are taking to the skies! Albeto and I agree on something. Where's the fainting smiley when I need it.... ;p

[KungFuPanda]

"He loved Big Brother"

 

Cameras everywhere, and especially on people, creep me out. In a way, I envy the naïveté it takes to believe that only those with good intentions will access and use the footage.

[lovinmyboys]

What is done with the dash cam footage right now?

[Laurie4b]

We have been talking on a few threads recently about the police wearing body cameras to record their interactions with the public with the idea being that perhaps situations like that in Ferguson or with Eric Garner could be prevented.

 

I've thought about what it would be like to be a law enforcement officer, especially if you are a good one, to have everything filmed. What I didn't think about was what it would be like to be on the other side of the camera and be the person being recorded. Not everyone who has contact with law enforcement is a criminal.

 

This morning on NPR, the problem of what to do with all of the footage was discussed. Recently in Seattle, a guy made an anonymous request for ALL of the dash cam footage. He can legally do so under public records laws. His plan was to make a Youtube channel with them. He said that lots of people like to watch them for hours, maybe while they are gaming.

 

Think about this.

 

Cost and logistical issues limit local police interest in body cameras

 

Law enforcement officers give speeding tickets. Wouldn't be great to have your employer see that video? Law enforcement officers are called to not just burglaries, but domestic violence scenes, minors in possession, and fatal traffic accidents.

 

It's my understanding that unless we change the public records laws, most everything will be out there with only a few exceptions.

 

Any thoughts. Does this make you reconsider the idea of body cams if you are a proponent?

 

No, it does not make me reconsider body cams. It makes me consider laws to protect the public from things like the you-tube stuff from happening.

 

[Tsuga]

"He loved Big Brother"

 

Cameras everywhere, and especially on people, creep me out. In a way, I envy the naïveté it takes to believe that only those with good intentions will access and use the footage.

People aren't supporting this policy because they think that it will be implemented perfectly.

 

 

 

I just think that in our circumstances, and there's way too much background in our city to go over here, there is a reason we decided this was the lesser of two evils.

 

It started with slavery and then we had the anarchists here during the Battle of Seattle and I could go on and on.

 

We have a problem and having people watch is better than nobody watching.

 

 

 

Heck, having it on YouTube is better than not having any access at all. When the police are beating you, you want someone there. When someone's making false accusations, you want someone there.

 

Our state is one of the least corrupt in the union and transparency, transparency, transparency is a BIG part of that.

 

http://mic.com/articles/90963/the-10-most-and-10-least-corrupt-states-in-america

 

 

I personally do not feel like Seattle and Washington State are the bastions of an all-controlling, over-reactive government. I feel like compared to some states we have a great community here. We don't have zero tolerance in schools. We have reasonable CPS. We have homeschooling laws--regulated but personal freedom allowed. We have reasonable laws about all kinds of things. We don't even have an income tax for crying out loud.

 

No, it is not Big Brother trying to keep us down. It is us, we, the people, of this community, saying, "We're going to be more transparent with one another."

 

I feel sad that people cannot imagine a community in which transparency and group work could make something better.