Police Body Cams can Threaten Civil Rights
https://www.yahoo.com/news/police-body-cameras-threaten-civil-215851117.html
The number of U.S. police departments outfitting their officers with body cameras increases each year, but the cameras can pose a threat to civil rights if the departments fail to set rules that govern when officers review footage from their cameras, according to a new report.
The vast majority of the nation’s biggest police departments allow officers to watch footage from body cameras whenever they want, including before they write their incident reports or make statements, said the report , which was released Tuesday by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.
“Unrestricted footage review places civil rights at risk and undermines the goals of transparency and accountability,” said Vanita Gupta, former head of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division and current head of the Leadership Conference, in the report’s introduction.
Because an officer’s memory of an event may be altered by watching body camera footage, doing so will likely alter what officers write in their reports. That, in turn, can make it more difficult for investigators or courts to assess whether the officer’s actions were reasonable based on what he or she perceived at the time of the incident, states the report, “The Illusion of Accuracy: How Body-Worn Camera Footage Can Distort Evidence.”
Body camera programs are in place at 62 of the 69 largest U.S. police departments, according to a scorecard released Tuesday by the Leadership Conference. Most of those departments—55, or almost 80 percent—allow officers to view their footage whenever they want.
The Leadership Conference report advises that police departments institute a “clean reporting” policy, under which officers write an initial incident report before reviewing any footage. Only afterward would they watch the footage and write a second, supplementary report.
“We make the case that in the interests of consistency, fairness, transparency and accountability, clean reporting should be adopted as a standard practice for all police departments with body-worn camera programs,” writes Gupta in the introduction.
Some policing experts say officers should view the footage before writing a report to make sure the account is correct.
“They want to be as accurate as they can,” Lance LoRusso, an ex-cop and current Atlanta attorney who represents police officers, told the Associated Press . “This specter that every time an officer looks at the video they’re going to lie and adapt their statement just is infuriating because we want the officers to write the most accurate report they can.”
Tags
Who is online
62 visitors
oh and
I still fail to see how it is a "threat" to civil rights.
Because an officer’s memory of an event may be altered by watching body camera footage, doing so will likely alter what officers write in their reports. That, in turn, can make it more difficult for investigators or courts to assess whether the officer’s actions were reasonable based on what he or she perceived at the time of the incident, states the report,
"I'll check the camera to see what I have to admit to."
Morning steve
You have made good points in all your comments .. I do not know if civil rights are being violated, but do not think an officer should not be able to view their body cam footage at will. The intended purpose of the body cam is to protect officers and civilians should accusations of misconduct arise or when deadly force is used... not serve as a Dear Diary device when writing reports.
Just my thoughts
Thank you
I also dont know if civil rights are being violated either but I'll bet occasionally they are.
Not every police officer .... should be a police officer.
It happens in every field where people have power over others. Not everyone is suited for the job, some tend to abuse their power.
LOL Is that what ya call tongue tied.
Agreed .. sadly those officers that should not be officers (even if their numbers are small) have done and continue to serious harm to Law enforcement officers reputations Nation wide.
I am no law enforcement cheerleader, having been involved during the late 80's .. I saw things that were mind blowing, but 'we' were the cops! Body cams are designed to expose that behavior while protecting all involved at the same time!!
Yep I am thinking so... kinda interesting how I contradicted myself in the same sentence : )
LOL But I think most of us still got it, what's that say about us and the english language ?
Hmmmm ... I on't know - but I do know the brain has a autocorrect feature which can be nice - but can also get one in trouble.
The English language is a cruel torture device, filled with contradiction ... I before E unless after C : )
So an officer referring to a recording of the incident, to make sure his report is correct is a bad thing? How stupid is that?
That, in turn, can make it more difficult for investigators or courts to assess whether the officer’s actions were reasonable based on what he or she perceived at the time of the incident,
What the officer PERCEIVED at the time... not later after watching it re-lived. That's kinda late. The officer already did what he did. If he doesn't remember he should put that in his report.
This is where asking questions helps. Watch the video, ask the officer why they made certain decisions. But then again, they are second guessing the actions of a person who had a second or less to make a life or death decision.
The idea that the citizens demand that these cameras be put to use then try to not allow the officers to use the video is a bit ridiculous.
Questioning begins after the officer gives his account, his report is his account.
Altering his account by allowing him to re-live the video before he gives his written account and some are likely to add things they didn't catch at the time to their reports.
they are second guessing the actions of a person who had a second or less to make a life or death decision.
Was it a life or death decision is likely part of the question to begin with.
..........................................................................
I have a lot of respect for most police officers, My best friend growing up's dad was chief of police in the town we lived in. They lived next door and I had many chances to meet and be around some off the officers. Not all police are good guys, some just love the power. Those are he ones who abuse it. Those are also the same ones who would change reports after seeing videos to protect themselves if they did wrong.
Given the officer is the one wearing the camera, the officers report should include the video.
Hence why the video should be reviewed by the officer with their chain of command and be submitted with the report. The idea of the video is to augment the officers report. But in this, it seems that nobody want's that.
I didn't see that. I saw that people dont want police officers using the cam videos to help them write their police reports.
I agree, a police report is supposed to be that officers account of what happened and what he did. Its not a review of a video. its HIS account.
And that video should augment that account. But that can't happen if the video is not reviewed by the officer.
Because it debunking their narrative that all officers are criminals and that they are actually doing good.
Where has anyone stated that 'now they don't want them'? The issue is whether officers can USE the video as a reference to write their report of an incident. The idea that an officer won't 'alter' their 'recollection' and reflect that in their report is naïve. They're human. Another issue is that defendants have to litigate to review those same videos.
If the office tells the truth and the video tell the truth all sink up. No problem.
IF the officer can not remember... that is the truth and he should say so.
if the officer lies and the video shows it, he's busted.
No viewing of videos before reports are written.
Then what is the point of the video? We may as well use the cell phone video of the crack head that happened onto the incident after it started.
Why wouldn't / shouldn't they. It's a recorded record of an incident.
I already stated two reasons why.
I'm not seeing how reviewing the video would change the reality of what is on the video, therefore, I don't see why it would be a problem. Emergency situations are, by nature, chaotic, being able to review the footage as part of the report seems would allow for a more complete report.
This has already been addressed by technology and policies. Many of the first cameras took advantage of low light capabilities in modern technology so review of the video would show more clearly in low light/night what occurred. Is wasn't too long before juries watching the excellent video were wondering why the officer did not see something that was plainly on the video. The things that those juries were seeing turned out to be beyond the visible spectrum of the officer (but not his/her camera). A large number of the cameras now worn by officers will not "see" beyond the visible spectrum of the human eye.
I'm glad that we agree on that point. Now, how about an answer to my question.
How exactly? Technology is incapable of documenting what an officer 'perceives'. We aren't talking about what an officer SAW per se, but what MOTIVATED the officer to take a given action. There are a plethora of cases in which the video SHOWS what happen yet the officer claimed to PERCEIVE that they were in immanent danger. Photo spectrum can't capture that PERCEIVE threat. A detailed report of the officer's 'best recollection' PRIOR to viewing ANY video of the event is a much better way of capturing how the officer PERCEIVED the event.
Oh and BTW, when more than one officer is present, their TWO 'versions' of the event can be evidentiary. If BOTH officers watch the video, they can get their stories 'straight' before writing their 'independent' reports.
I still have many of the original hand written reports my father filed during his career as a LEO. His handwriting sucked and his reports got him put 'on a desk' more than once.
At it was weak at best. Anybody with a brain knows that the initial reports generally have several mistakes. To eliminate them, review of the video. It not only keeps thing truthful, it eliminates any doubt about what happened.
I guess where the camera is pointed and where the officer was looking is taken into account as well Because they are not always seeing the same thing at the same time either.
the point of the videos was never intended to be a record keeping device for the police that's why they write police reports.
Cameras were put in place to watch over those who watch over us.
It's not. Memory is a peculiar aspect of our psych and is quite unreliable, the recordings are light and sound waves that can survive repeated dissection and the image is the same. It removes the inherent inaccuracies. Cam footage protects the wearer from unfounded allegations and the subject from similar misrepresentation.
Cam footage also condemns the wrong. Watching your own wrong doing would help a person know what to say to help mitigate it , even if it is a lie.
So, police officers need to write their police report. Then allow them to watch any videos but, get their account first.
Which is why I'm baffled about why people don't want officers to reference them in their reports.
Which is why I'm baffled about why people don't want officers to reference them in their reports.
Maybe people want the truth and because officers could alter their report to shield themselves from the truth .
Protecting the police is not the main goal here protecting everyone is.
Pictures/video's don't lie unless one is REALLY good with Photoshop and video editing software ........... like CIA or NSA good.
That said, i don't see the issue.
I think I do.
If the camera is not on for the entire time, it's possible that a key part of the conflict will not have been recorded. That said, I think it's relatively easy to determine that.
If the camera is on for the entire time, there's obviously no issue.
Like you said, if that happens, then all bets are off. In fact if a camera "magically" misses a key part of the conflict my suspicion of the cops involved automatically gets peaked. I think most feel the same way ..... except for the cops who did it obviously.
I showed this article to a few law enforcement friends of mine over lunch today. Once they finally stopped laughing at the premise and agreed that the camera violates civil rights a joke, they all have said that not reviewing the video is not only stupid but it sets people up for failure. The special investigator even stated that if she couldn't review and reference the video her whole report would just say "see video "Officer *******, date, case #". She also stated that if there were any questions then she would answer them.
Protecting the police is not the main goal of these cameras, protecting everyone is.
Talk with shoplifters they probably think store cameras are a joke too.
The special investigator even stated that if she couldn't review and reference the video her whole report would just say "see video "Officer *******, date, case #"
If a police officer cant remember what he just did enough to write a report on it, he probably shouldn't be a cop to begin with. Sounds like your special investigator could stand to review her cases better as well.
What they were laughing about is the idea that it would violate any civil rights.
The way she and her department see it, the officer is wearing the camera. It is a tool available to the officer for use. And that is how they use it.
That's very reassuring considering no tool the government has is ever misused or abused. sarc !
I guess it's too bad for some of them (the bad eggs) that: Protecting the police is not the main goal of these cameras, protecting everyone is.
It's something that was forced onto the law enforcement agencies, so some use it as an investigative tool.
Many Tools are duel purpose.
I have no problem with police using tools, that's what they're for. I do have a problem with police misusing or abusing tools.
If a police officer cant remember enough to write a report he probably shouldn't be a police officer. They have been doing it for many many years. (without the assistance of a police cam video to help guide them)
BE honest in your report, if you dont remember something... say so.
Police body cams are an oversight tool, don't compromise them by allowing the police to use them to help cover up the truth. That 's totally contradictory to why they were installed to begin with.
Write the damn report as the officer remembers it. The video speaks for itself, so should the person behind the power over the rest of us.
The camera is there to assisst. Like it or not many departments are using the camera for just that.
Think about that. They are writing a report about something that happened. How do you expect them to put something into a report that can't be remembered?
Using them to complete the reports, many thing, that is exactly what they were implemented to do. They protect the person they are interacting with, they protect the police officer, they ensure accuracy of the reporting.
And it backs up the report, just like the report backs up the video.
This whole thing boils down to you don't think that officers should be able to view and write their report with the assistance of the video. Reality is, many do just that. They see the body camera as a tool that assists them, just like a dash camera.
Many Times I can't remember details like exactly how many people were there, where was everyone standing at that particular time. what happened one split second before the next...
I'm not sure.... means "I'm not sure"
I say it all the time when I'm not sure.
...................................
Like I'm not sure why I'm trying to convince anyone of anything." LOL
that is not a given !
They should, but it is not always the case. That is why they should be done separately. If they sink up ... Great all is cool.
IF they dont.... why ?
..................................................................
Do you trust your fellow man to have unwatched power over you?
I sure as hell dont. Police cams help oversee those who have the power to oversee us.
That is their many purpose. And rightly so IMO.
I dont want to see them misused, given a chance most things are. I doubt this is an exception.
I'm passing along the information I was given by law enforcement in my area. In fact the department that patrols my neighborhood is not even required to wear the cameras.
I dont doubt that. I hope you live in a nice area and none of you ever have any unwarranted problems with any police officer. Sincerely I do. I am a friend of the police and have been for most of my life. My best friend growing up's dad was a police officer and became chief of the small town we grew up even . I watched the police (dog) like I said a small one dog town. (lol) when they went on vacation even.
I had the opportunity to meet a lot of police officers and have much respect for them. I also saw and know, not every police officer should be a police officer, that is why I for one am grateful for the oversight of those who we hire to oversee us.
PS:Thank you for a nice debate.
Steve
Not a problem. It's actually nice to be part of one that doesn't devolve into a name calling mess.