Everyone is entitled to privacy when it comes to law enforcement. To make the public, and the officers protecting them, feel protected, the implementation of new technology in the police force has occurred. Sometimes, this equipment backfires and ends up doing more harm than the good that it promised. When this occurs, a revaluation of what is going on should happen to make sure improvements are made. As shown by the recent privacy violations to the Round Lake Police Department regarding body-worn-cameras, officers need to become more familiar with the technology they are using and stricter policies about their use are necessary to ensure the equipment is working properly.
Recently, issues concerning officer privacy have arisen due
…show more content…
Incidents of police brutality, like those that occurred in Ferguson, MO, have increased the demand for body cameras by the public. With how new use of cameras into routine operations of law enforcement is, the issue of how they to use them and the policies that dictate that are still being developed (Nolin). Regarding the Round Lake officers, the variable of when the camera is filming is the key issue. There is controversy concerning policy procedures for when and how long a body camera should record. The two viewpoints of the issue are to either run the camera continuously or to use them on an as-needed basis (Bakardijiev). As mentioned early with Round Lake police officers, the cameras are only supposed to record during times the officers were working and shut off when they were not needed. Some, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, believe the cameras should record nonstop during the officers’ work day (Nolin). The belief is that the uninterrupted recordings will remove any bias the officers may have on when and where they record (Bakardjiev). However, the nonstop recording is what caused the breach in policy in the first place. It would also be impractical since the amount of time an officer spends interacting with the general public in their 8-hour shift amounts to 17% of their time …show more content…
Officers need sufficient training on the technology they are to use in their job, and policies regarding body cameras use within the police department need to be strong enough to guarantee their success. Across the United States police departments, the level of training and procedures in how to use body cameras vary from police station to police station. Due to this, it is hard to determine what the most effective way to use these cameras is. Those with weak policies are more likely to face legal issues such as the lawsuit in Round Lake. Without knowing how to operate the equipment properly and issues such as placement of the device the technology could become ineffective (Bakardjiev). By training officers to use the equipment properly police officers will be more familiar with it and be able to avoid issues in the equipment. At the forefront of the Round Lake issue, the invasion of privacy must be addressed. The reason cameras are not constantly filming officers is to build a positive work environment and foster trust (Bakardjiev). The ten officers in the lawsuit feel as if that trust was violated. The implications of the lawsuit are those who were in charge of training and ensuring the cameras were working as promised failed, and this has broken the trust of the officers
Police Body Cameras Due to devastating events that have occurred between policemen and civilians, law enforcements find it liable for police officers to be fitted with body cameras. In doing so it is thought to bring an increase in trust in the community, reduce brutality and crime, as well as elucidate good cops still around. I feel body cameras will bring more awareness to police departments when it comes to the honesty in their staff’s actions when they are unsupervised. They can be used as hard evidence in courtrooms, to help make the correct judgment on the situation in question.
Have you ever heard of the idea of body-mounted cameras on police officers? If not, David Brooks will introduce you to the idea that was discussed in an article from New York Times called “The Lost Language of Privacy”. In this article, the author addressed both the positive and negative aspects of this topic but mostly concerned with privacy invasion for Americans. Although that is a valid concern but on a larger scale, he neglected to focus greatly on the significant benefits that we all desire.
If misused, body-cameras can be a violation of privacy. In order to prevent this, proper legislation needs to be enacted in order to ensure privacy rights are protected. The only policy related document regarding police body cameras is the “Guidance for the use of body-worn cameras by law enforcement authorities” which is issued by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. This document discusses that rules should not be enforced only by local police departments, but for Canada as a whole. As this is the only document related to police body cameras, it is undoubtable that there needs to be serious legislation created. As it is suggested that body cameras pose as a risk for privacy rights, it is evident in order to implement them effectively, there needs to be regulation constructed. Body cameras can be an effective and useful tool, but without legislation, they can cause problems. Bruce Chapman, president of the Police Association of Ontario expresses, “We want to do it right. We don’t want to do it fast” when asked about the implementation of body cameras. While body cameras, are important to have in today's society, it is also dire to have it done properly. By enforcing strict guidelines, and documents addressing body camera legislation, it will ensure the process is done correctly. In order to implement body cameras properly, privacy rights need to be assessed. This process takes time, and proves body cameras need to be implemented at a pace legislation can follow. Thomas K. Bud, discusses the worry that privacy will be violated with body cameras. Factors such as facial recognition, citizen consent of recording, and violations of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms all pose as risks. While legislation has not matched their guidelines with modern technology, it proves how important it is to create new documents, in order for changes to be made. Therefore body
There have been lots of modern technologies introduced in the United States of America to assist law enforcement agencies with crime prevention. But the use of body-worn cameras by police personnel brings about many unanswered questions and debate. Rising questions about the use of body cam are from concern citizens and law enforcement personnel. In this present day America, the use body cameras by all law enforcement personnel and agencies are one of the controversial topics being discussed on a daily base. Body worn cameras were adopted due to the alleged police brutality cases: for instance, the case of Michael Brown, an African-American who was shot and killed by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, on August 2014, Eric Garner died as a result of being put in a chokehold by a New York police officer, and John Crawford, shot and killed by a police officer at a Walmart in Beavercreek, Ohio.
In his report, “Police Body-Mounted Cameras: With Right Policies in Place, A Win for All,” Stanley dives into some of the ethical questions surrounding police cameras. He states that cameras can be a “win-win”(1) for both the citizens and law enforcement. It would protect the citizens from unnecessary use-of-force and police misconduct, while simultaneously protecting law enforcement from frivolous lawsuits, complaints, and provide law enforcement with concrete evidence to be used in criminal proceedings. The problem, however; is that if all officers are required to wear cameras, recordings could then be made of peoples homes where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Incidences that may be completely innocent in nature could also be recorded, and incidences of a delicate nature,such as domestic violence calls, would also be recorded. With regard to the Freedom of Information Act, some of these recordings may be released to the public. With that said, Jay Stanley and the ACLU feel that strict privacy guidelines need to be put in place to protect citizens from having recordings of a personal nature released to the public. I have had a few personal encounters with police officers in my area, including having an officer in my home. Deputy Lieutenant Tyler Souther from the Macon County Sheriff’s Department was visiting me and my husband on a
The researcher hypothesizes that the use of body-cameras on police officers would reduce the instances of gainful communication between civilians and law enforcement. The null-hypothesis is that the use of body-cameras on police officers will have no effect on gainful communication between civilian and law enforcement. In determining the implications of how body-cameras effects civilian behavior, the research will include a sampling survey of criminal justice students and information gathered from journal documents related to research on police body-cameras.
Since their inception, police body cameras have been a controversial topic as many do not agree on their effectiveness and legality. To the trained eye, body cameras clearly have no negatives other than the sheer cost of their implementation. Some people, nonetheless, do believe that it is an encroachment of privacy for police to record private and/or public interactions even though it is purely legal. While that may be seen as a negative, it is wholly subjective and must be completely ignored when considering the factual analysis of police body camera use that is necessary to verify their validity. When only taking fact into account, there is no way to deny the nearly infinite benefits of body cameras.
Police officers should be required to wear body cameras because it will build a trust between law enforcement and the community, it will decrease the amount of complaints against police officers, and lastly it will decrease the amount of police abuse of authority. In addition, an officer is also more likely to behave in a more appropriate manner that follows standard operating procedures when encountering a civilian. “A 2013 report by the Department of Justice found that officers and civilians acted in a more positive manner when they were aware that a camera was present” (Griggs, Brandon). Critics claim that the use of body cameras is invasive of the officers and civilians privacy.
After considering the information in this week’s instructor guidance and readings, I have selected the research topic:
Police officers with their body cameras: a history and back ground paper to answer the question if should all police officers wear body cameras, it is important to first look at the history and back ground of the topic. According to article of Journal of quantitative criminology, writers Ariel, Farrar, Sutherland, Body cameras have been given a new eye opener to people about the excessive use of force against their community members. Arial, Farrar, and Sutherland in the article state “The effect of police body warn cameras on use of force and citizens’ complaints against the police: A randomize controlled trial” describe their observation as:
Many numerous police officers have been given body cameras over the last few months. Due to this, there have been videos that were made public which caused an outcry throughout the country. With the increase in body cameras over the country, there has been many setbacks and potential benefits that
Many would think that having police officers wear these body cameras do not pose much of an advantage for law enforcement, but just as it has its advantages and disadvantages for the public, it also poses them for police officers also. A similarity that the public and police officers share when it comes to these body cameras is that it holds everyone accountable. Since there is so much pressure placed on the police officer due to outsider recordings and the negative connotation, the usage of the body cameras provides a sense of relief because it can show both sides of the interaction. Another upside to these body cameras comes from a study performed by the Rialto, CA police department which found that “the cameras led to an 87.5 percent decrease
The idea of police wearing body cameras is seen as having the potential to reduce public complaints against police and police use of force (P Drover, 2015). Because the use of body-worn cameras is relatively new, long term impacts are not known. But, it is felt that the cameras will improve the transparency of the police encounters.
A lot has changed in recent years in our country; however, the relationship between the police departments and residents in many communities hasve not so much. Incidents such as the Eric Garner and Michael Brown cases have awakened the era of digital recordings. Cases like these alarmed communities and police departments, which raised questions on how to deal with police brutality and how to prevent these cases from reoccurring. It is unfortunate that these cases caused a distrustdistrust between the police departments and the public. Experts are trying to figure out ways to solve this issue and prevent these problems from happening again in the future. One solution is to start utilizing body worn cameras.
The increased presence of surveillance cameras is almost compared to George Orwell’s novel from 1984, where he imagined a future in which people would be monitored and controlled by the government. One question that needs to be asked is: do the benefits of law enforcement security cameras outweigh the negative side to it? Although the invasion of privacy is a serious argument against law enforcement cameras, it should be seen as a valuable tool to help fight crime. As long as surveillance cameras are in public places and not in people's homes, privacy advocates should not be concerned. There are many benefits to having law enforcement security cameras, which people take for granted, and are quick to point out the negative.