© www.bloomberg.comOne model of the police body cam.
For a select group of Washington police officers, the cameras are always rolling, capturing their every interaction with the public on film. Soon, the same could go for officers in the two Maryland counties neighboring the District. On the Hill, some key officials are mulling whether the Capitol Police should be next.
The logistics of, and rules for, pinning cameras to the shirts of the roughly 1,800 sworn officers who protect Capitol Hill -
a heavily secured site with its own privacy concerns and 535 opinionated lawmakers - would be immensely complicated. So far, there's no indication that the Capitol Police, who declined to comment for this article, will request money for such devices.
But Jim Konczos, the head of the union that represents the officers, is interested in pursuing the idea. "With technology changing and just
the events throughout the United States, either pro-police or anti-police, cameras actually serve a great function," said Konczos, the U.S. Capitol Police Labor Committee chairman. "I know
a lot of these departments are still trying to work out the privacy aspects, but that's not one individual department, that's going to be the whole program nationwide, but I still think it's a valuable tool."
Comment: In implementing the cam program, will the police be more accountable in their official interactions with the public? Will they offer-up without bias or tend to release particular videos to their benefit? Citizens say that withholding the recordings from the public undermines the transparency and officer accountability.
One example: Los Angeles Police Department doesn't intend to release the recordings unless required by a criminal or civil court proceeding, considers them as evidence and exempt from public release under CA public records law. LAPD noted the Police Commission and Inspector General, along with the district and city attorneys' offices would have the authority to review the recordings (in their spare time? all of them? or only ones with negligible PD error?). They reference a privacy consideration involving police/criminal/victim interaction being made public. This is LA's take on protocol.
With multiple departments in a cam trial period, and rules as you go, it remains to be seen as to whom or what is the final "keeper" of the cache and what the stipulations will be for viewing and release. And in the meantime? ("I know a lot of these departments are still trying to work out the privacy aspects..." " the kinks are still being massaged...")
According to the Police Executive Research Forum
recommendations (not official rules), the individual officer is to be responsible for downloading the camera at the end of his/her shift. (That sounds foolproof. This harkens back to Darren Wilson who illegally logged in his own gun after shooting Michael Brown.) And, officers should be permitted to review video footage of an incident in which they were involved, prior to making a statement about the incident. (Unfair advantage?)
When implementing body-worn cameras, law enforcement agencies must balance privacy considerations with the need for police transparency regarding the accurate documentation of events and in the collection of evidence. This means unified decisions as to execution across the nation as to when officers are required to activate cameras, how long recorded data is retained, who has access to the footage, who owns the recorded data, and how to handle internal and external requests for disclosure. So far there seems to be "discretionary interpretation" and "variation in protocol" amongst the participants in all of the above.
Comment: In implementing the cam program, will the police be more accountable in their official interactions with the public? Will they offer-up without bias or tend to release particular videos to their benefit? Citizens say that withholding the recordings from the public undermines the transparency and officer accountability.
One example: Los Angeles Police Department doesn't intend to release the recordings unless required by a criminal or civil court proceeding, considers them as evidence and exempt from public release under CA public records law. LAPD noted the Police Commission and Inspector General, along with the district and city attorneys' offices would have the authority to review the recordings (in their spare time? all of them? or only ones with negligible PD error?). They reference a privacy consideration involving police/criminal/victim interaction being made public. This is LA's take on protocol.
With multiple departments in a cam trial period, and rules as you go, it remains to be seen as to whom or what is the final "keeper" of the cache and what the stipulations will be for viewing and release. And in the meantime? ("I know a lot of these departments are still trying to work out the privacy aspects..." " the kinks are still being massaged...")
According to the Police Executive Research Forum recommendations (not official rules), the individual officer is to be responsible for downloading the camera at the end of his/her shift. (That sounds foolproof. This harkens back to Darren Wilson who illegally logged in his own gun after shooting Michael Brown.) And, officers should be permitted to review video footage of an incident in which they were involved, prior to making a statement about the incident. (Unfair advantage?)
When implementing body-worn cameras, law enforcement agencies must balance privacy considerations with the need for police transparency regarding the accurate documentation of events and in the collection of evidence. This means unified decisions as to execution across the nation as to when officers are required to activate cameras, how long recorded data is retained, who has access to the footage, who owns the recorded data, and how to handle internal and external requests for disclosure. So far there seems to be "discretionary interpretation" and "variation in protocol" amongst the participants in all of the above.