Fairfax County Police Watch: Don't EVER trust them...keep the cameras

"Hit this button here to turn it off and later on blame it on a car door making your gun go off"

Fairfax County Board of Supervisors considering police body cameras

by: Marcus Dash

FAIRFAX, Va. (WDVM)– Fairfax County is a step closer to adding body cameras to the uniforms of all Fairfax County Police officers.

The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors met Tuesday night to discuss the findings of a year-long pilot program of Fairfax County Officers wearing body cameras. The study took place from March to September of 2018. The purpose was to see what effect the body cameras have on police activity and perceptions of police legitimacy in the community. Lee District Supervisor, Jeff McKay, says the report shows a great amount of confidence we have in our officers and the body-worn cameras need to be permanent.

“It is beneficial to people who are on either side of the equation. It’s beneficial to our officers and their safety, it’s beneficial for people who are being questioned or are approached by police officers. To me it’s an investment in a fair justice system,” said Lee District Supervisor Jeff McKay.

The county will draft up a plan to show the full board of supervisors in September.

Fairfax Co. leaders voice support for police body camera program

Michelle Basch | @MBaschWTOP

Fairfax County, Virginia, police tested body-worn cameras in 2018, and several county leaders are expressing support for plans to bring them back permanently.

It’s estimated that a program to outfit some 1,200 officers with cameras would cost almost $30 million over the first five years.

The price tag includes hiring 34 additional people to help handle the video: 23 in the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office, six in information technology, and five in the police department.

Board of Supervisors Chairman Sharon Bulova thinks the cameras are needed. “I think that we should move forward,” she said Tuesday at a meeting of the Public Safety Committee.

Lee District Supervisor Jeff McKay agreed, adding, “I don’t think this board is going to reject this. I would hope this board would accept the body-worn camera program. I think it’s important.”

Springfield District Supervisor Pat Herrity said that he would love to see police get the body-worn cameras because they help determine facts, but he is concerned about the expense.

“It’s pretty cost prohibitive at this stage, in my opinion,” Herrity said.

Also concerned about the price is Mason District Supervisor Penny Gross. “On the one hand it sounds like a really good idea, but on the other hand the cost factor is so huge; and there are so many unknowns, so I’m not quite there yet,” she said.

The goal is to come up with a plan to put before the full board in September.

A study by American University researchers determined that a body-worn camera pilot program conducted by Fairfax County police from March 3 to Sept. 1, 2018 went well.

During the test, half of the officers at the Mason, Mount Vernon and Reston police stations were randomly assigned to wear body-worn cameras, while the other half went about their jobs without the cameras. A total of 191 cameras were deployed.

Among the study’s findings:

— There was no indication that the cameras changed the way officers did their jobs, but the use of the cameras led to a slight decrease in the average number of complaints by members of the community against officers who wore them compared to those who did not.

— 603 people who had interacted with a police officer (some wearing cameras, others not) during the testing phase took part in a phone interview afterward. Asked to agree or disagree with a series of statements, 83% agreed that they were satisfied with how they were treated by the officer they encountered. Older people were more likely to agree than younger, and the percentages of Caucasian and Asian people who agreed were substantially higher than the percentages of African Americans, Hispanics and Native Americans.

— 92% of those surveyed agreed that body-worn cameras should be worn by all officers in the department. Whether the officer they encountered had a body-worn camera or not didn’t seem to have any meaningful impact on their answer.

Residents Support Police Body Cameras In Fairfax County: Study

A survey found residents strongly supported body cameras, but the results were mixed for participating officers.

By Emily Leayman, Patch Staff

MOUNT VERNON, VA—A study of a body camera pilot program for Fairfax County Police found strong support for officers wearing body cameras. The findings of the study conducted by an American University research team were presented to the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday. The board will vote on adopting a permanent body camera program on Sept. 24.

The pilot program ran from March 3, 2018 to Sept. 1, 2018. Officers at the Mount Vernon, Mason and Reston district stations as well as a sample of Motor Squad officers and Animal Protection officers wore 203 body cameras. The three district stations were chosen due to the diversity of the communities, various types of calls for service and incidents resulting in the use of force.

Officers were instructed to turn on body cameras during encounters with residents. Recording could not happen in courts or medical facilities, when a person gave a statement in an alleged rape or sexual assault, and when a person reported a crime and requested anonymity.

American University conducted a telephone survey of 603 residents who had an interaction with an officer during the pilot program. Of these, 92 percent want all Fairfax County officers to wear body cameras, and 83 percent either agreed or strongly agreed they were satisfied with how the officer treated them. These results varied when broken down by age group and race. On the other hand, researchers found no evidence that the presence or absence of a body camera during police encounters had a significant impact on residents' perceptions.

Police Chief Ed Roessler Jr. expressed support for the body camera program. "We already have robust accountability tools with in-car video, the Civilian Review Panel and the Police Auditor," he said in a statement. "We investigate every use of force by matter of policy. The use of body worn cameras will benefit both the community and our officers to ensure that our high level of public trust is maintained."

Two squads of officers were also surveyed before and after the pilot body camera program. Most agreed body cameras would aid in gathering evidence and help settle complaints against officers. Interestingly, one squad's perception about body cameras became more negative after the program, while the other's became slightly more positive. For instance, 56 percent of one squad disagreed that body cameras would improve community relations; that dropped to 52 percent disagreeing after the pilot program. The number of officers in the other squad disagreeing went up from 41 percent to 44 percent.

There were more mixed feelings about whether body cameras would make officers more professional and reduce proactive encounters with community members. Many of the surveyed officers believe body cameras are needed in police departments with community relations problems, corruption or other issues. But they don't believe the Fairfax County Police Department has these kinds of problems.

Several supervisors expressed support for the body camera program, although a few voiced concerns about the cost. WTOP reported that the estimated cost could be $30 million over five years.

You can see the full study results for the police body camera pilot program here.

Like Tha

Both police and civilians support body-worn cameras, concludes study of FCPD pilot program

________________________________________

FAIRFAX COUNTY, Va. — An American University research team that studied a 2018 body-worn camera pilot project Fairfax County Police had undergone concluded that the cameras are supported by both the community and officers themselves.

The program distributed 203 body-worn cameras to officers at the Mason, Mount Vernon, and Reston districts of the FCPD, and the effects were tracked from March 3, 2018 to Sept. 1. Cameras were also given to a small sampling of Motor Squad and Animal Protection officers.

The study intended to find out if body-worn cameras impacted police activity or impacted community members' perception of police.

The research team, which presented their findings at a July 9 Board of Supervisors subcommittee meeting, reportedly surveyed officers as well as community members to track the effect the cameras had.

FCPD summed up the findings with the following statements:

There was overwhelming support among community members for the widespread adoption of body worn cameras.

The majority of community members who interacted with police officers during the pilot program reported feeling positive not only about the personal experience but also about FCPD as a whole.

There was no evidence that the presence or absence of a body worn camera during a police interaction had an impact of the community member’s satisfaction with FCPD.

There was consensus among the officers involved in the pilot that body worn cameras will increase the gathering of evidence and help settle complaints against officers.

Most officers believed that their behavior and that of community members did not change because of body worn cameras.

Morrogh finds cop he doesn’t love. In other news, hell freezes.

Probe of fatal police shooting goes to federal authorities

By Justin Jouvenal/Post

The Fairfax County prosecutor has turned over the investigation of a fatal police shooting of an unarmed Springfield man to federal authorities, citing complications with the five-month-old case.

Commonwealth’s Attorney Ray Morrogh said the U.S. attorney’s office for the Eastern District of Virginia has agreed to continue the probe into the death of 46-year-old John Geer, who was shot during a standoff with Fairfax County police in August. No one has been charged in the incident.

“There is a conflict of interest that has arisen in the case,” Morrogh said Thursday. “And there is a second potential conflict of interest that has arisen out of my office. . . . This is the prudent thing to do.”

Morrogh declined to describe the nature of the conflicts because the investigation is ongoing. The U.S. attorney’s office said Thursday that it could not confirm or deny any investigation or comment on pending investigations.

Police went to Geer’s Pebble Brook Court home on Aug. 29 because of a report of a domestic disturbance. Geer’s father, Don Geer, said his son was upset because his girlfriend, the mother of his two children, had decided to leave him.

John Geer had thrown his girlfriend’s belongings in the front yard. She called police and told them that Geer had a firearm. Police said they tried for about 50 minutes to persuade Geer to leave the home, but he refused.

Don Geer said he watched the climax of the encounter. He said that he could not hear what officers were saying to his son but that he saw him standing with empty hands resting on top of a screen door at the home’s entrance.

At some point, John Geer began to slowly lower his hands and an officer opened fire, hitting Geer in the chest, his father said. Geer retreated inside and closed the door. A SWAT team eventually entered the home and found Geer dead.

Don Geer said detectives later told him that his son did not have a gun on him at the time of the shooting but that there was a holstered handgun a couple of steps from the front door.

Don Geer said it appeared to him that the shooting was unjustified, but he was unsure what to make of the probe being turned over to federal authorities.

“I don’t know whether that’s good or bad — if I had a better idea of why they are doing it, I could form an opinion,” he said.

Geer and friends of his son have been critical of how long the investigation has taken, but Morrogh said police and prosecutors were working to explore all the evidence. He did not think federal prosecutors would have to start from scratch.

“No one wants these things to linger on,” Morrogh said.

Our ink will outlast his career

Under the reign of former Chief of Police Rhorer the Fairfax County Police arrested a man for not wearing clothes in his house while he made coffee, set up an eye doctor on a gambling charge and then used the SWAT team to kill him. An investigation into the charge that the Doctor’s primary clients were cops has never been investigated. The police gunned down an emotionally unstable man because cop who shot him wrongly assumed the man was trying to escape. He wasn’t. The cops also shot dead four other citizens under highly questionable circumstances. The department under Rhorer was sued multiple times by citizens. So did they fire Rhorer? Naw they promoted him. According to news reports Rhorer draws a salary of $191,168 per year as Deputy Fairfax County Executive as well as a concurrent pension from the Fairfax County police of $173000 per year.

Occupation by force

According to the most recent U.S. Census figures, nearly one in five Fairfax residents (17.5 percent) is of Asian descent while Hispanics make up nearly 16 percent of Fairfax’s overall population. Those numbers drop considerably when applied to the Fairfax County Police Department, where only 4.3 percent of officers are Asian and 4.1 percent Hispanic. White officers make up 84 percent of Fairfax County’s 1,360-member police department, significantly higher than the county’s general population (54 percent white). Almost 90% of the force lives outside the county.