TX - Sandra Bland, 28, found dead in jail cell, Waller County, 13 July 2015 #3

[katydid23]

What's wrong with cops protecting themselves even more? It's not just about physical protection but also protection from allegations of wrong-doing, which would probably go a long way in restoring some trust within the communities they serve and protect, which may - hopefully - also reduce violence, distrust, and disrespect shown officers in some of those areas.

In terms of economics, it may also be useful tool to avoid local and state governments having to pay out multi-million dollar lawsuits as well. That money can be so much better spent on officers welfare, on enhancing community policing, on technology, on increasing officers pay to ensure the right candidates are being attracted, on defensive equipment, on training, etc.

To bring this back to Sandy...we don't yet know what will happen, of course. But what if BE just following departmental procedure or wearing a bodycam could have avoided the necessity of paying out for a lawsuit? Or what if the jail had followed their own procedures properly? These are just small changes - but they have a far greater potential.

JMO and FWIW

Idealistically, one would think that body cams would bring cops protection. And in critical moments like a shootout, then they would. But my LAPD friend has just worn one for 6 months in a trial basis and he hated it for a few reasons. Number one, not even one second of privacy, not even in the bathroom. He could not talk to his wife on the cell without his conversation being recorded, he could not speak to his partner without everything they say to each other being recorded. It is a very stressful job, and they are riding along together, he is training his rookie partner, and they cannot speak to each other off the record. There are lots of important things he would like to say about people they are driving past, or shopowners they deal with. Or other officers or superiors. But with it being recorded they do not feel comfortable because it is still a cloudy issue of where the tapes will end up and for how long.

Also, the worst part in his opinion, is that no one in the public wants to speak to him on camera. He works gang detail in inner city LA, and he needs input from the public. NO ONE will speak to him when he has his camera recording. Even when answering a call. People do not want their problems taped for the world to see. Everyone clams up and that is a big problem.

Another issue is what do we do with these volatile tapes. All kinds of citizens have the worst days of their lives on video, being kept and filed away by the county. Who has the rights to view them?

Another problem is with the cameras and their digital glitches. he had a few times where it stopped recording, and not of his own doing. What if that happened during an altercation. An officer could lose his job, his pension, his freedom even, if a glitch happened at that time and everyone assumed he was guilty of something.

An issue that is more complex is that the body cams do not pick up what is happening off to the side or several feet away. The cams do not pick up the sounds, the images in the corner of a cops eye. They do not pick up on the history a cop may have with a certain individual that would make them suspicious and concerned. So videos are in many ways 'incomplete.' And when an altercation ensues one cannot really see much. just lots of spinning, twisting, whirrling images.

My friend said that body cams have some benefits but also a lot of negatives come with them. And if everyone is wearing them then he is worried that people will not come forward with important information because they fear snitching on camera.

Just a few things to think about. He felt that wearing a body cam 100% of his time made things more stressful at times. Not being able to speak his mind, have any privacy, etc. He is a black officer and he is not 'racist' and wanting to say bad things off camera. Just the regular kinds of things people like to share with co-workers on a stressful job .That's all.

 

[katydid23]

Here is a study that asked the pertinent questions that my friend discussed with me earlier:

4. Key Policy Questions
5. When Will Cameras Be Running, and How Will Subjects Know?
a. Activating and Turning Off Cameras
b. Officer Discretion
c. Exceptions
d. Department Policies: When Officers Should Record
e. Public Notice and Consent to Be Recorded
f. Recording Capabilities
g. Evidentiary Safeguards
h. Tracking Features
i. Video Management
6. How Long Will Law Enforcement Agencies Retain Footage, and Who Can See It?
a. Retention Times and Access to Footage
b. Footage as Evidence
c. Categorized and Uncategorized Video
d. Lengthy Retention Times and Civil Rights
e. Rules for Viewing By Police
f. Rules for Public Access
7. How Is Footage Secured? Cloud Storage of Video Data
8. When Can Biometrics be Collected or Used?
9. Cameras Cannot Tell the Full Story
a. Limits to the Camera’s Point of View
b. Perspective and Bias in Video Interpretation
c. Case Study
d. Interpreting Video Evidence in Court
e. Footage as a Performance Metric
f. Data on Police-Civilian Interactions

http://www.datasociety.net/pubs/dcr/PoliceBodyWornCameras.pdf

 

[katydid23]

Another question that article brought up was about data metrics. It said that future technology would be able to combine data metrics with body cams so the officer could have facial recognition apps, for example, and an alarm goes off if someone is wanted and happens to walk by him. Do we want that kind of thing included?

 

[katydid23]

Once the public and people like journalists realize that ALL cops interactions are recorded and paid for by the public, they will want to view all of them. Do we want arrests for shoplifting or public intoxication to be made available to anyone who asks to see them? Will people stop calling LE for help if they know their 'videos' will be open for public review?


ETA:

 Footage collected by police departments presents a public-records issue. Seattle PD in particular has been bombarded with anonymous public-records requests for footage, and is grappling with how to satisfy the requests in a way that is less costly and time consuming; all footage has to be reviewed, and private details redacted, before it can be released to the public.
 In some departments, like Albuquerque, there have been notable inconsistencies in implementation, where the cameras are not always turned on, and thus do not record incidents involving police-civilian disputes. 52
 The storage and data management costs have been cited by many departments, like Orlando, as a major obstacle to implementation. 53
 Generally, the departments assessed through pilot studies find that the cameras are a worthwhile investment, in particular because they can often reduce viable complaints made against officers, who can use the footage as evidence of their good conduct. 54

http://www.datasociety.net/pubs/dcr/PoliceBodyWornCameras.pdf

 

[katydid23]

Police departments and communities looking to implement body-worn camera programs face many difficult questions that will require them to balance competing interests. These questions include: (1) when will the cameras be running? (2) how will people know that they are on camera and can they ask that it be turned off? (3) who can see the footage and how long will it be retained? and (4) when can biometrics be collected or used?

 

[human]

Seems like Minnesota which had been using the body cams has been addressing the issues. Good info

http://www.mprnews.org/story/2015/05/11/body-camera-footage

 

[katydid23]

Seems like Minnesota which had been using the body cams has been addressing the issues. Good info

http://www.mprnews.org/story/2015/05/11/body-camera-footage

You can see it is a very complicated issue. And it will get more so as more and more people begin asking for the videos to be sent to them. I predict lots of lawsuits in the future.

 

[human]

You can see it is a very complicated issue. And it will get more so as more and more people begin asking for the videos to be sent to them. I predict lots of lawsuits in the future.

Lawsuits because? The article says the info was public already without the cams and certain interactions are private. They seem to be working on issues.

I would think LE would want evidence of what happens. I imagine there are exclusions for going to the bathroim. And I imagine the cams have nothing to domwith them talking in the car or interviewing witnesses.

We are under surveillance everywhere, Restaurants, stores, in the streets. People on their houses and in their yards.

 

[katydid23]

Lawsuits because? The article says the info was public already without the cams and certain interactions are private. They seem to be working on issues.

I would think LE would want evidence of what happens. I imagine there are exclusions for going to the bathroim. And I imagine the cams have nothing to domwith them talking in the car or interviewing witnesses.

We are under surveillance everywhere, Restaurants, stores, in the streets. People on their houses and in their yards.

No. In LA they were not allowed to turn them off at all. Even in restrooms and with witnesses. They may be changing that policy.

Lawsuits that come out of people being recorded when they did not know or consent. Lawsuits when these videos of their interactions with LE get given out to the public. etc etc...


from link above:

The use of body-worn cameras by police officers when they are interacting with or passing by civilians in the course of their duties raises a number of privacy concerns.56 For example, embarrassing dashcam video footage of the arrests or traffic stops of naked women, athletes, and celebrities are sometimes disseminated online,57 and the same privacy concerns exist about the potential for body-camera footage to be consumed as public entertainment. Since body-worn cameras accompany police officers in the course of their duties, they can represent a greater intrusion to privacy than dashcams, since officers can enter people’s homes or places where there is generally a greater expectation and sometimes a legal protection of privacy.
Current state and federal laws leave many police agencies with broad discretion to set policies for when and where subjects will be recorded by body-worn cameras. In ten states, California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington, wiretap laws require “two-party consent,”58 police will have to obtain consent to record from the person(s) they are recording,59 unless specific statutory exemptions apply to law enforcement activities. For example, in February 2014, Pennsylvania enacted Senate Bill 57, which waives the consent requirement for police officers.60 At the federallevel, Fourth Amendment protections generally limit searches of private places such as a person’s home.61 Moreover, the recent case United States v. Jones case suggests that pervasive surveillance of a person’s activities while in public may ultimately raise Fourth Amendment concerns if the surveillance is intensive and prolonged.62

Aside from the limitations imposed by state-level wiretap laws and potential Fourth Amendment constraints, department policy will guide officers as to when they must record. The PERF and IACP model policies agree that officers should have some level of discretion in deciding what and when to record, in particular regarding vulnerable persons, like the victims of sexual assault. Undocumented migrants or witnesses who fear reprisal from their testimony may also be hesitant to confide their accounts to officers who are obliged to record them. Both of the model policies suggest that officers should generally record interactions with subjects when such interactions are related to the officer’s duties. The IACP model policy requires officers record all contact unless the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy, in which case the officer must seek consent to record.63 The PERF report recommends that officers activate their cameras when they respond to a specific call, during law enforcement-related encounters, and particularly during adversarial encounters, unless it is ill-advised to do so for reasons of safety or practicality. 64 Instead of defining “law enforcement-related encounters and activities,” the PERF report defers this crucial question, advising departments to “clearly define” the term for themselves, and to consider providing examples in their policy.65 The Leadership Conference recommends that officers should record all interactions with the public while on duty, except when a specific, well-defined exception applies.66

Police officers’ privacy concerns as employees should be considered in policies developed around footage retention and use, especially considering that their personal information will be routinely recorded. Their privacy rights under state and federal law, and within the context of any contracts they have as employees, should also be considered in the roll-out of body-worn cameras.

One of the reasons lengthy retention times could pose a threat to civil liberties is that video could be used for long-term tracking of individuals. If combined with technologies such as facial recognition systems, which identify individuals by matching images of their faces against database records, footage could be used to build a repository of information on individuals, regardless of whether they are suspected of a crime (even if the underlying footage is not retained, there remains some risk that a facial recognition technology may be used in real time to create non-video records of subjects’ whereabouts and movements). Constitutional lawyer Shahid Buttar has warned that constant video footage from body-worn cameras could lead to monitoring anyone or any police encounter “without the individual basis for suspicion constitutionally required to justify a police search.

 

[EllieBee]

The police department in Rialto, Calif., concluded a yearlong University of Cambridge study last year that found an 89 percent drop in complaints against officers during the camera trial. The chief has since mandated its deployment to its roughly 90 sworn officers.

Rialto police Sgt. Richard Royce said he was exonerated by the footage during the study.

"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 somebody's grainy cellphone camera footage captured a 100 feet away that gets cropped, edited, changed or manipulated," Royce said.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/cops-body-cameras-raise-privacy-concerns-article-1.1722969

 

[Montjoy]

I'd need to see a MSM report stating that police are not allowed to turn off their bodycams when they're using the toilet before I'd believe it. I think we're being sold a bill of goods here.

 

[kareylou]

Just FYI:

I am a piano and music teacher in a school for the arts. The school was required to go to some expense to cut a large window in the wall of the studio. They installed soundproof glass in the window for obvious reasons. This is in addition to a glass window in the door.
I am regularly observed. I have an open door policy, and encourage parents to come and watch private lessons or music classes. In addition I am observed by the county and by the school administration. Younger teachers fulfill their observation hours by observing me. I periodically have to send in videotapes of myself teaching various age levels in order to maintain certification. There have been times I had more observers than students in the room!
I welcome it all, and the feedback that comes with it, including the criticism. I am proud of how I do my job. I do get bathroom breaks (but not often enough) and I have plenty of opportunities to discuss students, parents, and situations with other teachers, although it is always unpaid time. What never happens is me alone with a student where nobody can observe.
How is this remotely on topic? I think people in positions of authority, where there is a power imbalance and potential for abuse, need to be monitored. It is not enough to wait until the abuse happens and then condemn it and punish the offender. The damage has already been done.
I know that we all want to protect children I love children; in fact I have dedicated my life to them and their musical education, but I believe adults matter too.
I am not in any way comparing my job to a police officer's. I am pointing out that observation of me doing my job has not only prevented an abuse of authority, but has helped me do a better job. I think it could be the same for other professions if handled correctly, and once they got used to it.

 

[katydid23]

I'd need to see a MSM report stating that police are not allowed to turn off their bodycams when they're using the toilet before I'd believe it. I think we're being sold a bill of goods here.

That is not the type they went with but there was an option to use that type, which was turned on and off from the station as opposed by the officer.

 

[human]

That is not the type they went with but there was an option to use that type, which was turned on and off from the station as opposed by the officer.

I don't believe it. Men and women filmed while using the toilet? No. Don't believe

 

[bluesneakers]

I don't believe it. Men and women filmed while using the toilet? No. Don't believe

I don't either, and if this were true I think the ACLU would be all over it.

 

[katydid23]

I don't believe it. Men and women filmed while using the toilet? No. Don't believe

No, threy are not filmed usin the toilet. They take off the cams. They just clip on the chest.

 

[human]

http://www.cnbc.com/2014/12/17/the-big-business-of-police-body-cameras.html

The system isn't perfect. The cameras only work if an officer hits the start button.

"If you deliberately don't use the device, then you're going to be held responsible for that," Farrar said.

Lindsay said, the "'I forgot' excuse really doesn't work anymore," though in the beginning, it took officers a while to remember to turn on the cameras.

"It's just like everything else now," Lindsay said. "You don't get out of your car without putting it in park, it's the same thing, we don't get out of our car without turning the camera on. It becomes muscle memory."
The clips stay in the system for as long as needed, and an audit trail of who "touches" the video is automatically generated. Only the chief or two supervising sergeants can delete a clip early, and if one of them tries to do that, the other two are immediately notified and can override that decision.

Has that ever happened? Once. A clip was deleted early when a police officer accidentally kept the camera rolling as he went to the bathroom.

 

[katydid23]

No, threy are not filmed usin the toilet. They take off the cams. They just clip on the chest.

ETA: they did not use the version that was tested earlier, which were not controlled individually. They are now going with the type that can turn on and off.

 

[La Louve]

Hard to imagine the police unions would agree to that.

 

[katydid23]

Hard to imagine the police unions would agree to that.

True. But it was what the public watchdogs wanted. They did not want the cops to be able to turn off the cams because that has been a big bone of contention.