The introduction of policies concerning the use of cameras by police has developed into a controversial quagmire of citizens’ personal and legal rights versus the police ability to perform their duty in what often amounts to problematic situations. Myriad incidents over the past several years have citizens and policymakers questioning the need for more transparency when it comes to the actions of police, in many instances to avoid “he said she said” situations in actions ending up in court. These charges can range from abuse of power, to the illegal and excessive use to force, to incidents that end up in citizen fatalities.
Over the past few years high profile incidents and criticism of police overstepping powers have law enforcements agencies throughout the country equipping officers with body cameras that report their actions, which can be then used to damn or exonerate police actions in given situations, with transparency as their purpose. With accountability in mind, it is somewhat doubtful whether this policy actually helps or hinders law enforcement. To this end, policy must be carefully developed. Without it, according to The Leadership Conference (2016), “there is a real risk that these new devices could become instruments of injustice, rather than tools for accountability.”
On background, the need for more effective policy has flowed from a spate of officer involved shootings over the last few years. The fervor started in 2011 with what was not a police shooting, but implicated many of the same issues. Trayvon Martin was killed under uncertain circumstances by George Zimmerman, who was acting as a vigilante in place of police officers. Questions around what led up to his death prompted questions, and when Michael Brown was killed by officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson in 2013, calls for reform reached a fever pitch. Brown was unarmed, but Wilson claimed, somewhat incredibly, that his life was in danger because the larger Brown had charged him.
As Wilson discussed Brown as if he was a grizzly bear, some opined that mandatory police body cameras would have provided the truth on what happened, letting the world know whether the shooting was justified while also deterring officers from doing the wrong thing. If they were on camera, the logic held, they would be less likely to engage in reckless or intentional violence. Some departments and even states have responded by adding mandatory body cameras in order to clear up these situations and quell the public outrage.
Still, more shootings around the country, including some picked up by citizen camera phone, have prompted calls that police are not doing enough. In Ohio, John Crawford was killed by police as he handled a pellet gun in a Wal-Mart. Young child Tamir Rice’s death by cop was captured on a city surveillance camera. Eric Garner’s death was captured by citizen phone, and Philando Castille’s Minnesota death was captured through a live stream his girlfriend broadcasted on Facebook. In these cases, with police officers arguing acting recklessly and hyper-inflating the extent of their “reasonable fear,” the public has seen that the he said, she said nature of police shootings is not good enough. Continual killings have brought on calls to reform the system and bring more accountability to policing, and various state legislatures have given this issue an important look.
Policy problems from a public administration standpoint is exampled by the following from the state of Florida, which legally exempts their use in certain circumstances but retains allowed recordings “for a specified period” (Florida Senate, 2015). From a public administration standpoint, this assures equal access to law enforcement for defense of action purposes as well as a citizen’s complaint-filing window. The policy also provides for further legislative exemption review on the basis of warranted “public necessity” (Florida Senate, 2015).
Clear in the above policy is the balancing of the rights of citizen and that of law enforcement to maintain the public peace. Beyond that, policies must be drawn up with which at times can present conflicting interests, since policies, according to internal police publications, “must take into account…effects that cameras have on privacy and community relationships, concerns raised by frontline officers, expectations that cameras create, and financial costs” (Community Policing Dispatch 2014). The latter is of ultimate administrative concern in communities where budgets are limited. Considering the various interests that must be satisfied both on a community level and from a legal standpoint, the problems associated with formulating policy as a public administration charge include a wide and often conflicting range of interests.
Decision-making when formulating policy inevitably includes both internal and external considerations and influences. Williams (2015) brings both in terms of policy formulation down to its essence in the following example…
…dedicated officer may not believe a colleague with years of honorable service would ever be capable of losing control and shooting an unarmed person. Likewise, a young black man who has experienced unjust interactions with police, may have no problem believing that every officer is capable of taking an unproved and deadline action even in a non-violent situation (para. 3).
On one hand, courts have a responsibility to ensure the most accurate result to which body cams can significantly contribute, while police must often use discretion when it comes to force necessary in subduing unruly citizens, an action which filmed may not tell the entire story of the event, or, may be interpreted by various players one way or the other. Considering this discussion, it may seem as if there are two distinct stakeholders: police and individual citizens, the latter of which, as external stakeholders, have a major role in accepting body cam policy as valid, an acceptance which eventually “spreads and impacts the larger criminal justice system.” In terms of policy making, the notion of lobbying by stakeholders must be held in check at the risk of a policy favoring one side or the other.
Recommendations from a policy perspective encourage a clear, non-biased approach that favors no one and everyone based on rights already inculcated in law. A main recommendation is that policy include input of every person, group and/or agency, legal or otherwise, affected by it: “supervisors and frontline officers, legal advisors, police unions, prosecutors, and the community” (Community Policing Dispatch, 2014). Implementation of a policy according to Community Policing Dispatch (2014) and from a public administration perspective must fall solidly on the evaluated, the police, who must, for the policy to be effective, use the camera at all times, adhere to consent when possible, record any interviews, and be trained in the use of cams and the expectations involved in their use. All agencies connected with their use and subsequent evaluation must also be “on the same page,” so to speak; evaluation as an evolving policy ensures that the policy is in practice supporting the standards it is designed to protect and to meet.
When it comes to police activities there will always be a degree of suspicion concerning various negative personality traits and intentions of individual law enforcement personnel. It is simply a social fact. As such, whether or not individual policemen or women necessarily like the idea of the camera should and must be irrelevant. Any suspicion that an individual is misusing the technology and/or the policy to disparage an honest video record of what might be an officer’s overstepping and/or violent response to a situation needs to be believable and clear cut. Any suspicion or attempt to circumvent that intent is viewed as unethical and counter to the purpose the policy is intended to support—ethical and correct behavior on the part of law enforcement, and, an aid to the justice system in determining culpability both on the part of law enforcement and public behavior.
