
Experiment on the effect of body-worn cameras on police use-of-force (2013) [pdf] - cmsefton
http://www.policefoundation.org/sites/g/files/g798246/f/201303/The%20Effect%20of%20Body-Worn%20Cameras%20on%20Police%20Use-of-Force.pdf
======
harlanlewis
There's a petition for officers to wear cameras on petitions.whitehouse.gov
that's rapidly approaching the required signature count:

[https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/mike-brown-law-
req...](https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/mike-brown-law-requires-all-
state-county-and-local-police-wear-camera/8tlS5czf)

It will be interesting to see how some of the access / privacy details are
worked out. For example, the mike Brown shooting happened on a public street,
but what if it had happened in a private residence? Would the police recording
be publicly available?

Edit: There are also innumerable instances of police providing damaged,
incorrect, or no footage at all even of events that were filmed. The Ferguson
police, after beating a handcuffed man in a jail cell and then charging him
for destruction of property for getting blood on their uniforms (no link, easy
to google), submitted jail footage that was a) 12x speed, rendering it
useless, and b) of a different time than the incident. Simply capturing video
is not enough, it must be stored and later provisioned by a 3rd party.

~~~
kasey_junk
I'm no constitutional expert, but I'm having a hard time figuring out how the
federal government could possibly have the authority this sort of law would
require.

~~~
dragonwriter
> I'm no constitutional expert, but I'm having a hard time figuring out how
> the federal government could possibly have the authority this sort of law
> would require.

Requirements to make and keep records which demonstrate compliance with legal
restrictions are a routine and essential part of the enforceability of many
laws, so, to the extent that the Constitution explicitly imposes restrictions
on the States and explicitly authorizes Congress to enforce those restrictions
through "appropriate legislation" (especially in light of the necessary and
proper clause), Congressionally-imposed recordkeeping requirements to
demonstrate compliance would seem to be within the scope of the Congressional
power thus granted.

This is relevant because the 14th Amendment commands that "No State shall
[...] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of
the laws" and provides that "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by
appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article".

Even with the way the Supreme Court has limited the authorization clause of
the 14th Amendment to (unlike identical language elsewhere) only authorize
_corrective_ legislation, so that it might not be possible for Congress to
impose a general and unconditional requirement, Congress could still impose a
requirement on _particular_ states as a consequences of past violation of
Constitutional due process or equal protection occurring under the power of
those states.

(It could also do it by making it a prerequisite for, say, federal law
enforcement assistance funding, or access to federal law enforcement
databases, etc. -- and it could do both in parallel, so it would be required
_both_ for states found to have past violations for which it serves as a
remedy, _and_ for states wishing to federal assistance for law enforcement.)

~~~
kasey_junk
"(It could also do it by making it a prerequisite for, say, federal law
enforcement assistance funding, or access to federal law enforcement
databases, etc. -- and it could do both in parallel, so it would be required
both for states found to have past violations for which it serves as a remedy,
and for states wishing to federal assistance for law enforcement.)"

This is a much more likely to work approach (but not what the petition is
asking for).

That said, the political realities of police cameras are going to make this a
fight that will not be won on the federal level (especially not in the current
environment where getting anything done seems to be seen as treason).

Local laws on the other hand could be easily implemented.

~~~
dragonwriter
> This is a much more likely to work approach (but not what the petition is
> asking for).

Petitions aren't generally detailed legislative proposals, and their
relationship to concrete legislation is similar to the relation between the
first draft of requirements for complex computing system and the concrete
implementation.

> That said, the political realities of police cameras are going to make this
> a fight that will not be won on the federal level

Probably not; OTOH, issues like this that make any progress are rarely pushed
exclusively in one venue, and even if they aren't _won_ at the federal level,
attention there can be a key factor in driving media attention to efforts and
driving public awareness. (Plus, heck, the white house petition site has
plenty of people petitioning for changes in policies of particular private
corporations, so something that's a legitimate public policy issue where the
federal government could plausibly do something close to what is requested,
even if it would be exactly identical and is unlikely in the current political
climate, is actually fairly reasonable.)

------
JshWright
The cops in my town wear cameras. I also happen to be a firefighter/paramedic
in my town.

This has given me a reason to ponder these cameras quite a bit...

It's not uncommon for me to be in someone's house, while they are in some sort
state that they would probably not want to have recorded (if someone is having
a heart attack at 2 in the morning, they are not generally concerned about the
fact that they sleep naked). Now you have a situation where a cop with a
camera is walking into the room... Most folks don't even realize it's there
(it's black, and blends in with their uniform pretty well).

Should the LEO disclose he's wearing a camera? "Hey, I notice you just fell in
the shower and are naked, soaking wet, and in an awkward position. Just FYI...
I'm wearing a camera."

This doesn't even begin to cover the HIPAA implications...

In general, I'm very much in favor of cameras on cops. I think it helps keep
everyone on their best behavior in potentially confrontational situations.
That being said... I have been in situations where the presence of the camera
has made me very uncomfortable.

~~~
mabbo
It's not like the police take the cameras, and immediately post them to
youtube. If complaints are made, video can be reviewed by those who need to
review it. If it needs to go to court, censoring can be added.

I do see your point. I would counter with: if we are to claim we're free to
record the actions of the police while they work, surely they have the right
to record what goes on as well.

~~~
JshWright
Sure... my point is just that the issue is more complicated than it seems to
be on the face of it...

Law enforcement officers end up coming into contact with everyday people in
very compromising positions, often through no fault of their own, and in their
own homes.

Like I said, I fall on the 'pro-camera' side of the debate, but there are a
lot of often overlooked implications that I feel need to be part of the
discussion.

~~~
sitkack
I think you are in the weeds at this point.

~~~
JshWright
Perhaps I am. I was simply trying to relate a personal experience with these
cameras, and the fact that they have made me feel uncomfortable at times (for
the sake of the folks I'm caring for). It seemed germane to the conversation.

Maybe someday it'll be routine enough that it doesn't enter my mind. For right
now, it's frankly a bit of a distraction (in situations where a distraction
can literally be fatal).

~~~
sitkack
I understand that. The petitions state in intent of direction and action, I
don't put much weight in specifics at this level. And in your case, there
should be some exemptions for doctor patient privilege. You need the trust of
the person you are serving to know how to treat them. If they mixed drugs or
took a drug they didn't have a prescription for you need to know. But if they
think the camera will testify against them, they won't seek the help they
need.

This is why there should be a federal standard about the collection of
signals. I would _absolutely_ like to know that when I see a camera on an
officer that the event is being recorded and accessible during discovery
later. Even if I don't know the officer in question and that the audio, video,
etc won't be prevented from being archived or be altered. Cryptographic
signatures and one way encryption are key in this regard.

The cameras should be treated as a trusted third party, not an optional tool
under the purview of the officer. There should be a public ledger that is
subject to review of who requested unencrypted access to recorded signals.

------
BrandonMarc
Relevant, from Schenier:
[https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/04/police_disabl...](https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/04/police_disablin.html)

TL;DR - Voice recorders installed in police cars, and after a time it was
found that a significant number of the recorders were missing or tampered
with. Go figure.

Playing devils' advocate, though ... it's far too easy to criticize in
hindsight what happens in a split second, both sides potentially fueled by a
combination of fear and adrenaline.

~~~
ricree
One could just as easily say that about a great many crimes.

------
TDL
A simple law mandating that all officers wear body cams is probably not going
to be all that effective. As another commentor mentioned, it's not real clear
how this could be handled at the federal level. The threat of these cams being
turned off is real and there will need to be laws to mete out punishment if it
happens (which will be incredibly difficult.) All that being said, this is
probably a good step in raising awareness of the usefulness of body cams.

[http://www.fox8live.com/story/26283883/officer-involved-
in-m...](http://www.fox8live.com/story/26283883/officer-involved-in-monday-
shooting-had-body-cam-turned-off)

------
dang
Url changed from [http://www.scribd.com/doc/130767873/Self-awareness-to-
being-...](http://www.scribd.com/doc/130767873/Self-awareness-to-being-
watched-and-socially-desirable-behavior-A-field-experiment-on-the-effect-of-
body-worn-cameras-on-police-use-of-force).

A related article that fell through the cracks on HN last year:
[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/business/wearable-video-
ca...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/business/wearable-video-cameras-for-
police-officers.html?pagewanted=all).

------
justizin
"Importantly, there are still somewhat similar cases taking place, despite
efforts to stop such behavior through better training and prosecution of rogue
officers."

Is this an Onion University study?

Anyway, seriously, while I love the idea of body worn cameras for police
officers, in practice they are in control of whether the camera is recording
or not, and tend to 'forget' to turn their cameras on more often than not.

~~~
conkrete
I would think with current technology, an always-recording system could be put
into place at a fairly low cost. Certainly an interesting idea for anyone
looking for a new starup idea involving cameras and bullet proof vests.

~~~
harlanlewis
Indeed. The Ferguson police in fact have a couple dashboard cameras and body
cameras for officers to wear, however none have been installed due to the
$3k/per expense (no link, easy to google).

It's staggering how low accountability is on law enforcement's priority list,
especially given the amount of money available for "crowd control" military
hardware.

~~~
thaumasiotes
> It's staggering how low accountability is on law enforcement's priority list

Huh? Why would they want to be accountable? Accountability would be a priority
of the _populace_.

~~~
harlanlewis
Priorities can be mandated. Dealing with externally-set priorities is a fairly
regular subject on this very forum (damn you, marketing!).

No government agency should be solely responsible for selecting what is and is
not its job.

