Are Body Cameras The Answer To Cases Of Police Brutality?


The St. Louis County grand jury’s decision on Monday not to indict police officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of Michael Brown has sparked national outrage and fueled growing debate over interactions between cops and civilians. While the evidence presented to the grand jury has not yet been released to the public, eye-witness accounts have conflicted as to exactly what happened, leading many to wonder why, in an age where every cell phone has a video camera, no video evidence of the encounter exists.
Now, critics, including Michael Brown’s parents, are calling for sensible reform and encouraging the use of body cameras on police officers. Similar to how police cruisers record traffic stops, these tiny video cameras would record police interactions with civilians, including criminal suspects. Unlike cruiser-mounted cameras, however, these video cameras would be portable rather than fixed straight ahead and record everything the officer sees and hears on duty.
Recording of police officers has become a topic of growing national concern, specifically with respect to police brutality. 2014 saw major media publications on events of police brutality, mostly due to the prevalence of cell phone video footage. For example, on July 17, a NYPD police officer was recorded on a cell phone strangling Eric Garner, an unarmed 43-year-old father of six, to death using a chokehold method banned by the precinct. In the video, Garner can be heard repeatedly saying, “I can’t breathe.” Earlier, in April, a Knox County, Tennessee Sherriff’s officer was recorded by a bystander choking college student Jarod Dotson.
More recently, a northwest Indiana man and woman have filed a federal lawsuit against the Hammond Police Department, alleging police brutality and excessive force during a traffic stop on September 25. The incident was captured on video by the woman’s 14-year-old son from the back seat. In the video, an officer can be seen smashing out the passenger-side window with an axe and forcibly dragging passenger Jamal Jones out of the car. In the video, one of the officers tells Jones, “Just so you know, we’ve got a camera recording here. You’re on a body mike.”
Civil libertarians aren’t the only ones supporting the adoption of police-mounted body cameras. Some police departments are also supporting the move, citing a reduction in complaints against police officers and more complete video evidence to use in prosecution of criminals.
Missouri Democratic senator Claire McCaskill, who supports requiring officers nationwide to wear body cameras in order to qualify for the hundreds of millions of dollars departments receive annually in federal funding, has, “Everywhere I go people now have cameras, and police officers are now at a disadvantage, because someone can tape the last part of an encounter and not tape the first part of an encounter. And it gives the impression that the police officer has overreacted when they haven’t.” The Ferguson Police Department has already deployed 50 cameras donated by Safety Visions and Digital Ally.
The American Civil Liberties Union has said that body cameras “have the potential to be a win-win, helping protect the public against police misconduct, and at the same time helping protect police against false accusations of abuse.”
But while the benefits to cops and civilians alike are clear, the costs to privacy are still unknown.
Citizens in public don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy, meaning that anyone, including the police, has a right to record a police encounter in public. However, that is small consolation for a citizen who has a particularly embarrassing encounter with a police officer. In addition to the encounter being immortalized in video, the video could wind up on some embarrassing YouTube compilations or shame sites if taken in a state where the video is considered a part of the public record.
Additionally, police officers aren’t always relegated to public spaces. For example, an officer responding to a domestic violence call may reveal detailed information about a house’s interior, its occupants, and any possessions therein that could wind up as part of the public record, on the Internet, and in the hands of less reputable individuals.
Some have suggested allowing the police to turn on and off the camera to preserve privacy rights, such as when police are in private situations like using the restroom. Critics retort that a camera system that can be turned on and off at police discretion won’t help protect against police abuse, as cameras will just mysteriously malfunction or fail to record critical footage.
Body cameras also resemble other police surveillance technologies that have been less celebrated by the public. While police body cameras have earned the support of the ACLU, other systematic mass recording techniques, such as automated license plate readers, have drawn its consternation. Automatic license plate readers, which are capable of scanning up to 60 plates per second, are being deployed across the nation, fueled by millions of dollars in grant money by the Department of Homeland Security, the Drug Enforcement Agency, and Customs and Border Protection. Critics are concerned that systematic recording of the citizenry will infringe on citizens’ reasonable expectations of privacy and fuel the development of a police state.
It’s curious, then, that privacy watchdogs which normally treat mass surveillance technologies with caution or skepticism have wholeheartedly approved rapid deployment of body cameras.
Most importantly, police body cameras may be far more one-sided against citizens than current proponents suggest. In many states, the department can claim footage as part of an investigation, thereby locking away the footage from state open records laws. For others, however, the potential for police to unilaterally withhold controversial footage raises serious alarms regarding police transparency and abuse of the system.
In Seattle Washington, a police body camera pilot program was almost abandoned when an anonymous person demanded police turn over all video from patrol cars and body cameras, drawing serious police concern over privacy implications and manpower drain in processing the request. Although the Seattle request resolved amicably, privacy advocates and police departments are concerned about how footage might be used and disclosed. Behind this issue lurks a difficult question: How do we balance the increasing expanse of surveillance technologies with the fundamental right to privacy?
As the outrage simmers and the fires of the Ferguson riots burn out, police organizations will face increasing public pressure to deploy body cameras and record all public encounters. Although pilot programs are showing promising results, body cameras may raise more questions than they give answers. Lawmakers and precincts will need to develop, and quickly, rules that balance government transparency and privacy rights. Without these rules, body cameras could become just another police tool that can be misused against citizens.

Wade Sims is an attorney in Nashville, TN specializing in technology law, internet policy and civil liberties in the Information Age.  A former Major League Gamer, homebrewer,  wine consultant and writer, he loves all things gaming, geeky, gustatory, and alliterative.