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.
