Another case, Glik v. Conniffe, highlighted the controversy in regards to the right to film and record the police. In 2007, Glik observed an arrest being made by three police officers in the Boston Common. “Concerned that the officers were employing excessive force to effect the arrest, Glik stopped roughly ten feet away and began recording video footage of the arrest on his cell phone” (Glik, 2011). Glik was then approached by one of the officers that asked him if he recorded audio. After Glik confirmed “he was recording audio, the officer placed him in handcuffs, arresting him for, inter alia, unlawful audio recording in violation of Massachusetts's wiretap statute” (Glik). Glik was additionally charged with disturbing the peace and aiding
With more exposure on situations less than favorable or for the sake of public interest, the public can call into question a police department’s ability to properly perform under ethical practices. Furthermore, the American people have the opportunity to get perspective on actual details of a circumstance; whereas one would imagine the suspect in question acted in some way to aggravate or make police officers fearful for their lives, video proof of the situation allows the public to see for themselves what has occurred, and what facts are precise and truthful. With the inclusion of the ability to record the police, both parties involved become liable for their actions, and visual proof has more weight and accountibility than a verbal account of the situation. A good example of the necessity for having the right to videotape the police is when a McKinney police officer, Eric Casebolt, incompetently “pulled his gun on a group of teenagers at a party” to keep them on location in 2015. (Baker, Appeals court: First Amendment gives public right to video police). During this altercation, Casebolt unlawfully restrained a girl, Shashona Becton, who believed her constitutional rights were violated as a result. Without a recording of the incident, there might have been very little the victims could have done to dispute Martin’s behavior and question the McKinney Police Department’s accountability. The fact officer Martin was being recorded might have also made him monitor his own behavior in the video. “Protecting the right to film the police promotes First Amendment principles,” Justice Jacques Wiener wrote in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling (Appeals court: First Amendment gives public right to video police). “Filming the police contributes to the public’s ability to hold the police accountable” (Appeals court: First Amendment gives public right to video
“… if not for bystander Feidin Santana’s video casting doubt on office Michael Slagers version of events, he may not have quickly been charged with murder…” Imagine if this man would have been set free only to think getting away with murder is easy. Seeming that a person is an employee of the law, jurors’ do not expect them to lie. All they need to say is that they felt in danger or claim they were put in a tough situation. “when the cop story first came out, he said he was in a tussle,” said Virgil Delestine…”but the video told what really happened.” With body cameras at the scene this will help increase honesty in policemen because they know they are being recorded. In addition, I feel it would be very effective in building community trust if the police force would broadcast the tapes. By keeping everyone up to date, this will encourage people that law enforcements are not being sneaky and are putting reinforcement in place cops who do wrong.
At the time of trial, Mr. Wardlow tried to suppress the handgun as evidence due to the fact that he believed the gun had been seized under an unlawful stop and frisk that violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right of the people against unreasonable searches and seizures by requiring a showing of probable cause in order to obtain a warrant before conducting such searches. “In a trial motion to suppress the gun, Wardlow claimed that in order to stop an individual, short of actually arresting the person, police first had to point to ‘specific reasonable inferences’ why the stop was necessary.”(Oyez, 2000) Recognizing that an investigati...
There are records of many cases that has created controversies over reasonable or unreasonable searches and seizures. As stated in the fourth amendment,
...e police officers. Miranda established the precedent that a citizen has a right to be informed of his or her rights before the police attempt to violate them with the intent that the warnings erase the inherent coercion of the situation. The Court's violation of this precedent is especially puzzling due to this case's many similarities to Miranda.
"Cop-cams strike a blow for truth, but they strike a blow against relationships. Society will be more open and transparent, but less humane and trusting." This is absolutely true. One of his concerns is that society will be less humane due to the transparent of reality with cops’ cams. However, would you rather have that and know that you are safe or cops violated his authority to mistreat a citizen or worst, commit a crime themselves? So as the ground-level policies of cameras are being implement, state and federal legislation should be enacted in tandem as a result, for the very reasons Brooks offers in this column. Law makers must be urged to pass use and leak laws, making it a felony to publicly leak and post "cop cam" footage that has been obtained by law enforcement during the regular course of active duty. This should be a punishable offense, the consequences should be time spent in jail. In a day and age where we click away our privacy in the most nonchalant manner and justice rarely meted out when it's violated in the most obscene way, it is a moral imperative that we take legislative measures to enforce and protect what privacy we have
If body cameras were required many police officers would be serving time in prison for some of their actions. A vast majority of the victims also would not have been harmed. Following a study done by Rialto, Calif. Police that ran from February 2012 to July 2013. A group of officers wore tiny video cameras while interacting with citizens. According to the New York Times, the video cameras resulted in a 60 percent drop in the use of force and an 88 percent drop in complaints against officers (Amalcar Scott, 2015, p.13). On a different randomized controlled trial, “nearly 1,000 officer shifts were randomized over a 12-month period of treatment and control conditions. During ‘‘treatment shifts’’ officers were required to wear and use body-worn-cameras when interacting with members of the public, while during ‘‘control shifts’’ officers were instructed not to carry or use the devices in any way. We observed the number of complaints, incidents of use-of-force, and the number of contacts between police officers and the public, in the years and months preceding the trial (in order to establish a baseline) and during the 12 months of the experiment” (Tabarrok,
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.
Throughout history there have always been issues concerning judicial courts and proceedings: issues that include everything from the new democracy of Athens, Greece, to the controversial verdict in the Casey Anthony trial as well as the Trayvon Martin trial. One of the more recent and ever changing issues revolves around cameras being allowed and used inside courtrooms. It was stated in the Handbook of Court Administration and Management by Stephen W. Hays and Cole Blease Graham, Jr. that “the question of whether or not to allow cameras in American courtrooms has been debated for nearly fifty years by scholars, media representatives, concerned citizens, and others involved in the criminal justice system.” The negatives that can be attached to the presence of cameras inside a courtroom are just as present, if not more present, than the positives that go hand-in-hand with the presence of cameras.
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.
In “Body Cameras Will Stop Police Brutality.” the author Adam Schiff announces, “With half of the police department wearing cameras recording each interaction with the public, the department experienced an 88 percent reduction in complaints against officers.” This statement shows protecting the officers because this shows the cameras did something to deter the people who made false accusations against the police officers because their was evidence. Schiff also acknowledges that, “…shifts without cameras experienced twice as many use-of-force incidents as shifts using the cameras.” The fact that the use of excessive force was cut in half due to cameras shows that the citizens are benefiting due to this because the officers knew that it wouldn’t be their word against a civilian and the body cameras hold them accountable and makes them believe that they have to answer to the law as
Releasing information about police officers is an important discussion between law enforcement and the media. Over the years, is been argued whether police should have the right of privacy, or their personnel information made public. This information can contain officer’s identity and private files. Should the officers’ information be release? In what situations should law enforcement have a right to privacy? Several articles in the document “Police Officers’ Right to Privacy” exemplify the court rulings and legislative actions regarding the matters of officers’ information being release.
It is important in regards to employment as well as for public perception. As the public and communities observe ethical behavior in off duty officers, they are assured that officers are not above the law. When unethical behavior occurs public perception changes. Social media and media have recently brought unreasonable force issues to the public, which has had a domino type affect which has escalated from communicating about unethical behavior and reexamining standards, to individuals rioting and protesting against law enforcement and police officers in general. Not all officers are unethical, most are ethical; one officers’ actions are being alleged by society that all law enforcement officers are unethical. This is a generalized supposition, conveyed by one person’s actions: it is erroneous. Law enforcement agencies must adhere to the high ethical standards that is essential to officers; they are responsible for ensuring ethical behavior standards are developed and used within its own
Skolnick, J., Fyfe, J. (1993) Above the law: Police and the Excessive use of force. United States: The Free Press
A few issues are the police officers themselves, the court system, and simply knowing what to do in certain situations. I have three recommendations that help these issues such as body cameras, a special court system, and retraining police officers. First, the body camera idea has been floating around the news lately. As previously stated, President Obama has funded these cameras and they will be implemented soon, however, I would like to recommend on how to use them. The camera could be on the waist of the officer along with their utility belt. The cameras must be turned on during their shift and turned off at the end. At the end of the day, someone will review the camera footage and write reports on the officers. The pros of this recommendation is the feedback and seeing the actions of the police officers to be used in the courts, while the cons could be people inferring with the footage or the officers blocking the camera somehow. The cost of these cameras is the consequence, because there are an abundance of police stations and for every cop to have a body camera would cost millions of dollars. My second recommendation would be establishing a special court system that handles murders committed by police officers. The judge could review the body camera tape, hear both sides, and then make his or her decision. It could reduce rioting and uproar within communities. A pro of this court system is simply
Stanley, Jay. "Accountability vs. Privacy: The ACLU's Recommendations on Police Body Cameras." American Civil Liberties Union. N.p., 09 Oct. 2013. Web. 15 May 2014.