Police Vest Cameras: A New Necessity or an Invasion of Privacy?
In today’s day and age, Law Enforcement officers face many new challenges in comparison to generations past. You may think that with advancements in technology and new methods and techniques that a police officer’s job would be significantly easier than an officer working twenty years ago. However, these new advances in technology also present many downfalls, one being an increased liability arising from false accusations against Law Enforcement agencies. In an effort to promote safety and protect police officers from false accusations, some police departments are choosing to implement and use vest cameras. Although widely contested and controversial, vest cameras prove to be beneficial to a local department in several ways.
Vest cameras provide a very crucial piece of evidence that can be used in court. Criminals often give false testimony, which could possibly influence a jury to acquit them of the crime in question. Vest cameras are an actual video of the incident. Video doesn’t lie; it is material
…show more content…
Video footage can prove to consume excessive amounts of storage, which in turns raises additional concerns for police agencies. How long should video camera be stored? What method should be used to store it? The overwhelming amount of data storage required raises legitimate questions and potential problems.
Vest Cameras also pose another valid concern: are these devices possibly an invasion of privacy? Law Enforcement officers must inform individuals that they are being recorded, and civilians are also questioning the constitutionality of these vest cameras. On the flip side, imagine wearing a camera one hundred percent of the time at your job. The continuous use of cameras could also be considered a major violation of privacy for police
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.
Based on my research I went from all for officers being forced to wear body cameras to being indecisive on which side is right. On the up side of officers wearing body camera, it could be a way the people can regain trust in the system, something that has decline over the years. The down side to that is that people right to privacy and figuring out the perfect way for the pubic to see what’s going on without seeing who is really involved. Another pro is that police officers will probably think before they react and being sure they are following all rules and regulation to ensure they are doing the job the way it’s supposed to be done. Then there is the issue with how to fund this project with the right man power and the money to be sure it’s done right. So, doing this assignment has open my eye to the pros and cons of forcing officer to wear body cameras and made me think about both sides with an unbiased
“A body-worn camera in public policing is a miniature audio and video recording device which allows recording of officers’ duties and citizen interaction,” notes Thomas K. Bud. Police body-cameras are significantly growing in popularity across Canada. While legislation has not confirmed definite rules regarding the use of body-cameras, local police departments have begun their implementation. Canadian police services involved in these projects include Toronto, Victoria, Edmonton, Calgary, and Amherstburg Police Services. The results of these projects have revealed mixed thoughts regarding body-camera effectiveness. Is it a good idea for police to wear body-cameras? While the cost of police wearing body cameras seems prohibitive, police wearing
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.
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.
Law enforcement officers make an oath to serve and protect, and they are expected to uphold this oath to the best of their ability, but recently there has been an increase in the number of civilian deaths at the hands of law enforcement. Since the rise in this alarming trend, public distrust of law enforcement officials is at an all-time high. This has caused the public to demand the use of body worn cameras be made mandatory. Some people argue that imposing this new technology can cause unintended problems such as, violating privacy laws or interfering with how police interact with the public. However, these concerns can be easily solved once more policies are created to guideline usage. High profile
There has been scrutiny from some but I think the requirement to wear body cams outweigh any other reasons to not wear them. The cams provide tons of things to include misconduct, are procedures being followed, their decision making, and tons of data for training cops on what to do and to not do while being assigned as a cop.
Any cop can tell you they have never had an incident where a person in their charge was hurt, but how can one know for sure whether or not the officer is telling the truth? Body cameras help to regulate the behavior of police officers. By having evidence of their day to day proclivities, offers have an incentive to behave a certain way when viewed. The camera acts as a psychological guide to help ensure the best performance and behavior from an officer. A case study was made to see how cameras affect the police officers psychologically which shows that, “People adhere to social norms and alter their behavior because of the awareness that someone else is watching.
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
Video cameras are being deployed around the nation to help with crime solving, but some people are concerned about their privacy. Having cameras to monitor public areas have shown to be useful in situations such as identifying the bombers of the Boston marathon in early 2013. There have also been issues with these cameras however, as people are concerned they are too invasive of their privacy and have been misused by police officers in the past. Some people want to find a balance in using cameras in public so that they can continue to help with crime solving while making sure they are not too invasive and are properly used.
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.