Video cameras are already used to deter crime and catch criminals in their attempt to flee, and they are integral in providing key evidence in the court of law. The problem with most cameras, though, is that they are limited in their mobility. They may be able to pan from left to right, but they can’t physically chase a suspect down the street.
That is, until now.
An increasing amount of police departments around the country are equipping their officers with mounted cameras to record their interactions with everyday citizens.
Groundbreaking Ruling
Although some departments had already instituted voluntary programs to equip their deputies with cameras, a recent ruling by a New York judge has brought the program into the national spotlight. Judge Shira Scheindlin recently ruled that New York City’s “stop-and-frisk” law was unconstitutional because it infringed upon the rights of African American and Hispanics who were being disproportionally targeted by some officers.
In her ruling, Scheindlin ordered that five precincts in the city will be part of a pilot program that requires officers to wear mounted cameras during their patrols. She believes the cameras will keep officers from overstepping their boundaries, and it will provide valuable evidence in corroborating an officer’s story.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg vowed to appeal the ruling, calling the change a “nightmare” for both the city and law enforcement officials. Bloomberg believes the stop-and-frisk techniques have been integral in reducing violent crime in the city, but as attorney Mel Welch said in his examination of the ruling, “the Constitution was drafted was to limit authority and grant unalienable rights to its citizens.” Welch added ‘safety’ is all too often being used to justify stripping citizens of their constitutional freedoms.
Welch went further in his explanation, saying he completely understands that citizens agree to give up some of their rights in certain situations, i.e. a person can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater or “bomb” on an airplane, but the stop-and-frisk policy was unjustly violating the protections guaranteed in the 4th amendment through a weakly defined “suspicious activity” clause. Before the technique was ruled unconstitutional, an act such as looking over your shoulder or adjusting your backpack could be seen as a suspicious action that gave officers enough of a reason to preform a search of your belongings. Viewed in this light, there is little doubt that Judge Scheindlin made the correct ruling by deeming the practice unconstitutional.
Will the Cameras Work?
Although there have yet to be any studies on the effectiveness of mounted cameras on police officers, some departments across the country have already began to experiment with the devices. Departments in Arizona, California, Texas, Idaho and North Carolina have allowed officers to be fitted with the devices, and most have experienced encouraging results.
- In Rialto, California, citizen complains dropped 88 percent once officers were equipped with cameras.
- Use of force dropped 59 percent during the same stretch in Rialto.
- Officers in Scottsdale, Arizona, weren’t keen on the idea of mounted cameras, until one of their officers was hit with a citizen complaint. After reviewing the incident on the camera, it was determined the complaint was fabricated and the complainant withdrew the motion, saying they “must have remembered it wrong.”
After the incident in Scottsdale, many officers put in a request for a mounted camera, and some even went out and bought one on their own.
In one of the few incidents caught on mounted camera, you can see how deputies used non-lethal force to subdue a suicidal suspect, and their quick thinking likely saved this man’s life. (Be advised the below video shows a man being hit with a Taser.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qER9NwYzOGM
Not Everyone Convinced
Although more departments and officials are warming to the idea of mounted cameras, not everyone is convinced. The Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, one of the many union groups representing police officers in New York City, said their “members are already weighed down with equipment,” and “additional equipment becomes an encumbrance and a safety issue for those carrying it.”
The PBA believes the money used to fund the pilot program should instead be used to hire additional forces and to provide extensive field training.
Proponents of the cameras believe the devices will more than pay for themselves by preventing false accusations against officers and by providing key evidence during trials.
Related source: Coldewey.cc, NBC, The Associated Press
