By: Brian Deaver
My grandfather served 25 years for the Baltimore County Police Department.  Over the holidays, he told me just about every noteworthy encounter he ever had on the job: that time he threw a guy out of a third-story apartment window; that time he shot out someone’s tires in a car chase; and that time on Halloween night when he found a man’s head in the backseat of an abandoned vehicle and thought it was a prank (it wasn’t a prank). Eventually, the conversation shifted to the current state of affairs between law enforcement and average, every day citizens. Recently, in the wake of the Ferguson Grand Jury decision, many jurisdictions, including Baltimore County, are requiring their officers to wear video recording devices on their uniforms.[1] “I’m all for it,†exclaimed my grandfather, “it not only protects the wrongly accused individual from any corrupt law enforcement practices, but it protects innocent officers acting within the scope of their employment from being victimized by thugs.â€
Like my grandfather, most people are in support of this new technology for a number of reasons. As my grandfather pointed out, it allows both the officer and the wrongly accused to vindicate themselves through a more reliable form of evidence. The big problem with the Ferguson case was undoubtedly how unreliable the eyewitnesses’ testimony was: were Mike Brown’s hands up? Was Mike Brown running away from Officer Wilson when Wilson delivered the final shots? Relying on eyewitness testimony, it’s hard to ascertain the truth, especially when some eyewitnesses saw conflicting things. Bring an on-person camera into the mix, and all of the sudden things become a little more clear one way or the other.
A great deal of civil unrest exists between officers and citizens, especially citizens of minority and low-income demographics. The on-person cameras will also serve the indirect function of putting both the officer and the individual on notice.[2] In other words, the camera encourages officers and individuals to act more reasonable, thus lessening any possible prejudices from one side to the other.[3] For example, if an officer were to possess any prejudices toward a certain class of people, he would be less likely to act on those prejudices while the camera was recording his actions. Similarly, if an individual possessed an unreasonable hatred for law enforcement, he or she would be less likely to show that hatred while being filmed.
There are, however, some noteworthy policy concerns against these cameras. One concern is that having everything on camera might hinder an officer’s ability to exercise discretion in making arrests. Say, for example, an officer is responding to a local bar fight. Without the camera, the officer may very well break up the fight and make no arrests. However, with the camera, an officer might feel more compelled to make an arrest, as “hard†evidence of the fight now exists. So, inadvertently, these on-person cameras might lead to an unwanted increase in minor offenses that would have previously gone uncharged.
In the 70s, the new technology available to officers on patrol were hand-held radios. When I asked my grandfather what it was like when the radios were first installed into the squad cars, he said “a lot of [his] fellow patrolmen didn’t like them at first, some even intentionally broke their radios so they could continue to use payphones.†Similarly, there is a growing concern that these on-person cameras will either be used improperly or ineffectively, thus wasting substantial taxpayer dollars. Just a few weeks ago, outside of a gas station, an officer shot a teenager.[4] This officer had been issued an on-person camera the morning of the incident, but had not yet attached it to his uniform, so no evidence was available to show the events that had taken place.[5] While there was no evidence of foul play (that is to say, no evidence that the officer intentionally left the camera back at the station), it shows a reasonable concern that this technology will either be wastefully implemented or fought by the officers themselves.[6]
While negative policy concerns are worth consideration, they in no way should deter jurisdictions from introducing these on-person cameras to all of their patrolmen. “Eventually,†said my grandfather, “those who were stagnant to change saw the benefit of the radios and came to find them more convenient than stopping to use a payphone to check in with [our boss].†Like with the hand-held radios, officers will adapt to the on-person cameras and find them a more convenient form of evidence collection than surveying for eyewitnesses. While it may take a few years to systematically implement this new technology, on-person cameras will simplify the practice of law enforcement and work to undo the civil unrest that currently exists across our nation.
[2] See Christopher Mims, What Happens When Police Officers Wear Body Cameras, The Wall Street Journal (Aug. 18, 2014, 5:28 AM), http://www.wsj.com/articles/what-happens-when-police-officers-wear-body-cameras-1408320244.
[3] Id.
[4] Nick Wing, Police Officer Who Killed Black Teen in Missouri Had Been Issued Body Camera, Wasn’t Using It, The Huffington Post (Dec. 24, 2014, 12:50 PM), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/24/antonio-martin-body-camera_n_6377626.html.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.