
Police complaints drop over 90% after deploying body cameras - riqbal
https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/03/police-complaints-drop-93-percent-after-deploying-body-cameras/
======
jcrei
In many cases, the police doesn't care that they are being filmed. There's
this new documentary coming out called Do Not Resist, and there was an article
on the WSJ about it with the following quote "The most disturbing thing is
that it simply doesn’t occur to the sheriff that the footage might be
disturbing. He has no problem letting a film crew show this massive
contraption built to withstand roadside bombs in a military convoy lumbering
through his small town, because the notion that military vehicles aren’t
appropriate for domestic policing is foreign to him."
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
watch/wp/2016/09/30/...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
watch/wp/2016/09/30/do-not-resist-a-chilling-look-at-the-normalization-of-
warrior-cops/?utm_term=.5364143bb8d8)

~~~
throwmenow_0139
I talked to a police officer in Germany and he told me that police abuse
happens even if they wear cameras. He said that those who wear cameras simply
don't record their colleagues who are hitting people i.e. looking to another
direction deliberately. And I'm sure that if you start to punish them based on
those body cameras, you'll see that the police officers will give you biased
footage.

Although I can imagine that police officers start to change their behaviour
because they're watched (there are studies showing positive changes in
behaviour due to surveillance), there must also be more education for the
police officers in regards to baseline probabilities so that they realize that
black and white people aren't different in behaviour, this could help them to
realize that their intuition is not profound. I think helping them to
understand cognitive biases is a good way to start a shift.

All of this requires that they aren't doing abuses deliberately, though.

~~~
NoGravitas
Police officers have started putting their car hoods up when they make stops,
to block the dash cams.

~~~
jws
This is not true. A pair of images recently made the rounds of the internet
with that speculation, but that was not a traffic stop.

Some models of police cars overheat if left running and parked on very hot
days. The officers leave the cars running to power their electronics and
lights. Some officers were trying to ameliorate that situation.

Snopes can tell you more.

~~~
fil_a_del_fee_a
Snopes is biased. Police cars are engineered to run 24/7 in the blistering
heat with all electronics running. That is why there are specially created
models from GM, Ford, and Dodge that are beefed up to handle the stress of
every day police use.

~~~
hx87
And if that fails, they can always buy hybrid models that don't need the
engine idling all the time.

------
headmelted
I'm a little surprised that in the article, and in the comments here, there's
such a presumption of guilt on the part of the police.

I understand that this is a controversial topic in the US, probably moreso
than elsewhere, and for very important reasons, but is it really impartial for
the study, the article, or the comments here to draw the conclusion that
police were "better behaved" because they were being filmed?

Maybe the public were better behaved when they being filmed.

Maybe the police were, in some cases, behaving as they normally do but the
public were less inclined to raise complaints that may have been spurious as
they knew there was evidence of the actual exchange.

I don't doubt that behaviour of individual officers is a factor and was likely
affected in a positive way here, but I'm deeply skeptical that a 93% drop in
complaints is solely down to bad police officers playing nice for the cameras.

The presumption of innocence needs to be a two-way street, surely?

~~~
richmarr
> ...there's such a presumption of guilt

There's a long catalogue of evidence that the police have been insitutionally
racist (and other issues). Specifically in the UK, but I suspect the US has a
similar catalogue of evidence.

> Maybe the public...

The conclusion drawn seems like the most realistic explanation. Your
alternatives don't seem credible considering the change also occurred when
police weren't wearing cameras.

[Edit: "have been" rather than "are" insitutionally racist, evidence is in the
past and will hopefully stay that way)

~~~
the-dude
Do you mean not investigating rape rings because of fear of being called
racist?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploit...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal)

~~~
richmarr
What's your point? Are you claiming that a significant base of evidence is
somehow disproven because of one incident?

~~~
the-dude
My point is that in Western Europe police is being accused of racism because
they employ statistical profiling.

Which is then called racist by its opponents.

~~~
lostlogin
With the track records of the police forces involved, are you surprised people
have a degree of scepticism?

~~~
the-dude
What track record of the Dutch police? Do you have sources?

If anything, the Dutch police force is one of most docile of the world. And my
feeling is this holds true for the UK as well.

~~~
lostlogin
Excuse the Daily Mail link sorry and the other link is a police murder with
the mayor discussing police racism. The Dutch police are very good by nearly
all accounts, but it's not hard to find accounts of racism. The UK police have
a very long and much worse history of racism with the Met being front and
centre (less so now than 10+ years ago though). I won't post a link for them
as it is extremely easy to find many many cases unfortunately. Pick you
examples with them, beatings, killings, harassment, illegal searches etc.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3163974/Boy-13-handcuffed-motorcycle-police-
officer-run.html

www.nltimes.nl/2015/07/09/hague-mayor-admits-police-racism-chief-breaks-down-
over-fatal-arrest/

------
perlgeek
I wonder how much of the effect comes from the cameras and their perception,
and how much comes from the oversight that the study itself provides.

And how long it's going to last.

We are all on our best behavior when somebody's, but it typically doesn't last
forever. Eventually the effect wears out.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for it, I'm just skeptical of long term numbers
outside of studies. Still, if it reduces complaints and incidents, it'll well
be worth it.

~~~
fsloth
It's a well known effect that just being aware of being in a study modifies
peoples behavior.

~~~
reitoei
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect)

~~~
fsloth
Thanks. I knew I wanted to quote that study but had forgotten the name :)

------
kriro
Since this study is from the UK where (at least in London) it feels like there
are cameras pretty much everywhere...I wonder if a citizen concerned with
police abuse could get a sort of citizens warrant to tap into these feeds to
make their case? Or maybe automatically track police with these cameras with
some sort of recognition system and have a review board do sample tests on the
material in some way? Are those alternatives that are considered (compared to
body cameras)? I like the general psychological notion of "adding extra
surveillance of citizens creates extra surveillance of the state forces as
well". Might even serve to create some sort of "enough surveillance" balance.

How does access to security cameras generally work? You can get access to the
material for court cases to defend yourself, right?

~~~
vidarh
In all of the EU, EU data protection law provides for subject access to
recordings. Specifically in the UK, the UK Data Protection Act requires that
anyone that operates surveillance cameras have procedures in place to process
subject access notices.

In other words: You already can get access to them. No warrant needed. There
are exceptions, e.g. recordings can be withheld if subject to an ongoing
criminal investigation (but in that case, if you're involved, it will be
evidence that your defence have a right to get access to).

This is not limited to government operated cameras, but all operators (and
private cameras make up the vast majority of cctv in the UK)

~~~
DanBC
Yes, you can get access of video of yourself.

> > I wonder if a citizen concerned with police abuse could get a sort of
> citizens warrant to tap into these feeds to make their case?

Can a concerned citizen monitor other footage? Under English law probably not.

------
bboreham
This bit is as interesting as the headline:

> there was no significant difference in complaints between officers wearing
> cameras that week and those going without.

~~~
plopilop
I'm shooting in the dark, but can this be explained by the fact that people
don't know whether the officer has a body camera or not, but won't take the
risk? tbh I don't know how big/noticeable they are,.

~~~
7Z7
Don't you think it's more likely that the police involved - who all knew about
and experienced wearing the body cams for a portion of their shifts - modified
their overall behaviour, than assume that the unrelated public - who very
likely don't know that police are trialling the cameras, were told when they
were being recorded, and who probably haven't individually had multiple
interactions with police before/during the trial (ie. to learn and modify
their behaviour, even when they knew they were not being filmed by body
cameras) - all managed to modify their behaviour, without conferring or
conspiring, in line with the trial time?

~~~
plopilop
Honestly, I have no clue about the proportion of police abuse vs. false
claims. I assumed the latter was more important, but I'm probably wrong, now
that I think about it.

------
paublyrne
I welcome anything which reduces the sense of police citizens and non-police
citizens being on different sides, or in some sort of opposition.

A similar trial in the UK had similar results recently

[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/29/police-
with-...](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/29/police-with-body-
cameras-receive-93-fewer-complaints-study)

~~~
andyjohnson0
That appears to be the same study referenced in the TechCrunch article.

~~~
rikkus
The TechCrunch article reference a study made in the UK but 'global' (it
references several sites), though shows a photograph of a police officer
wearing a US flag.

------
javiramos
There has been extensive research on recording physicians during patient care.
The results almost unanimously conclude that recording physicians improves
performance, quality, and compliance [1].

[1]
[http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1673991](http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1673991)

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Kind of like traffic cameras? If you know you're being watched, you'll conform
to the letter of the law, most of the time.

That link is just about hand washing. I'd hoped 'performance, quality and
compliance' meant something more, maybe related to patient outcomes. Got
anything else?

~~~
javiramos
Joe, I recommend Unaccountable by Martin Makary. Martin also has extensive
list of academic publications relating to the monitoring of physicians as a
way to improve patient outcomes.

[https://www.amazon.com/Unaccountable-Hospitals-
Transparency-...](https://www.amazon.com/Unaccountable-Hospitals-Transparency-
Revolutionize-Health/dp/1608198383)

------
anovikov
Maybe another explanation is that many complaints are false and people stop
complaining when they know they can be proven lying? Just like proliferation
of smartphone cameras virtually eradicated any UFO sightings.

~~~
Retric
I think it's cultural, UFO sightings may be just if not more common with
people regularly flying drones. People just care less. I have seen plenty of
flying things I can't identify, I just never assumed Aliens.

------
cm2187
The thing is when the novelty aspects wears off, people (policemen and
citizen) will tend to forget that they are being recorded. A bit like people
are outraged that the NSA is recording them naked on skype. But a year later
they would be back at it again and wouldn't even think about it.

That's how many documentaries are made. You follow a guy with a small
camcorder, the guy knows he is recorded, behaves, but it is impossible to curb
his attitude for too long and after a few weeks you start capturing natural
reactions, he sort of forgot the camera.

Smart people will do a better job at keeping in mind that they are watched,
but the sort of people involved in confrontations with the police, whichever
side is at fault, is more often than not not smart.

So would be curious to see the real long term effect.

~~~
mikeash
The NSA recording your Skype calls has no tangible consequences. An official
police camera recording an officer's misconduct can cause that officer to lose
their job or freedom. I don't think they'll forget, and even if they do, the
bad ones will get ejected from the force.

~~~
heroprotagonist
I agree, with the caveat that this will only be effective as long as there's
some kind of penalty for the camera getting turned off or 'breaking'. This
seems to be a recurring theme, wherever they get deployed. One example is the
police killing of O’Neal in Chicago in July. The officer involved there had
his camera turned off. This might have been an issue with training the officer
with the equipment, but it's hard to truly know.

A separate issue is that these body cameras need to be deployed universally or
they lose credibility and effectiveness. One example of this is Korryn Gaines'
death in Baltimore in August, where there is some question of whether the
police were wearing bodycams during a raid after a 7 hour standoff at the
woman's home (she was armed). The police wouldn't confirm there were any
bodycams present until a photograph was found which showed a bodycam on one of
the officers at the door to the woman's apartment at some point during the
standoff. The police claimed then that none were present for the raid, and
only a few support officers outside were wearing them.

The problem here isn't whether they were or weren't wearing the cameras in
that particular incident, or whether there was anything suspect about the
police' performance there. The problem is that it is completely _possible_ for
the police to cover up events that the bodycams are supposed to provide
accountability for by simply refusing to admit that there was a camera in use
until someone shows up with a photograph. I don't believe that's what happened
in that case, but I do think it's plausible that some police department will
eventually do this to avoid public scrutiny during some embarrassing or
controversial event.

I'm not really certain how we could make police accountable, in a fair
fashion, for instances where the equipment legitimately fails. I think some
penalty here should be on the department instead of individual officers, but
I'm not sure what that punishment should be. Equipment failure in the field
isn't unheard of, but if checks are performed before going on duty and there
is regular maintenance, then it should hopefully become a rare occurrence, and
even more rare for it to occur during an event where such a record could
provide substantial testimony to the police's behavior during some situation.
I'm sure the tech isn't completely stable, yet, but solid reliability needs to
be one of the highest priorities for any such program.

~~~
Kenji
The camera should directly upload footage to a server that is not owned by the
police but a different branch of government that does not have any incentives
to shield the police.

------
njharman
I wonder how many of those "stopped" complaints would have been frivolous or
made in hopes of cash settlement. Even if only a few percent, body cameras
seem like a no brainer, good for everyone. Except to corrupt people (on both
side of badge).

------
AstralStorm
It is trite, but oversight certainly curbs abuse of power.

~~~
Kiro
And false complaints.

~~~
mSparks
Having been arrested for intervening in the UK when a police officer was being
totally unnecessarily violent to a young lad about 15 years old.

And then filing a complaint to be told I was never arrested.

All I can say is. Not soon enough.

I'd say the main reason for the change in behaviour is it stops the lying
scumbags lying.

Hopefully they don't have direct access to the footage so can't doctor it
themselves.

~~~
jomamaxx
"intervening in the UK"

You probably should not be 'intervening'.

Because it's pretty hard for a regular civilian to judge what the 'appropriate
amount of force' is within certain limits.

I mean - obviously if the cop was just beating someone blind, you can
'intervene' \- but aside from that - it's probably just best to whip out your
iphone, record, let the officer know you are recording.

~~~
mrgoldenbrown
Here in Massachusetts, a lot of officers would consider recording with your
phone intervening, and they would punish you for it. It took several cases of
the state supreme court ruling that this was NOT OK before police finally
curbed their behavior and stopped (or reduced greatly) their hassling of
people recording. I think the court even got snarky about it at one point,
saying something like "Despite our previous clarifications on this issue,
police continue to violate citizens rights" or something similar.

~~~
jomamaxx
It's not unreasonable for cops to be concerned by it - a lot of people were
'up in the cops' face about it - not just casual recording.

When you work in very difficult situations, and there are people filming you
it can get dicey.

There are a lot of 'antagonists' out there who will do everything they can to
prod cops into doing something they shouldn't, basically harassing them.

So it goes both ways.

Clearly - we should be allowed to video cops - but we also should not be
allowed to harass or interfere with them unless there is something crazy
happening.

But again - 'interfering' with a cop doing his job is a very risky thing
because you never have the proper context, you don't know what is really going
on. Physically assaulting a cop is grounds for him to fight back pretty
aggressively.

Again in normal situations, it's not a problem, but there are tons of videos
of cops trying to arrest someone, and then 'a mob' of friends trying to stop
the cop.

Of course, they may feel their friend is being 'unjustly arrested' \- but
that's not up to you or I type thing. It can get pretty sketchy out there.

Check youtube. Cop tries to arrest, guy flees, cops put him down on the
ground, 10 people try to harrass cop, pulling at his arms, pushing him back -
very scary. Someone's going to get hurt.

It's a new dimension of civility and we all have to figure out the new social
norms.

------
losvedir
> Against all expectations, there was no significant difference in complaints
> between officers wearing cameras that week and those going without.

Is no one else alarmed by this? Maybe I'm jaded by A/B testing, but if the A
doesn't win or lose to the B, then I generally chalk up the effect as
exogenous. Could it not be something else - anything else - that changed the
number of police complaints from one year to the next?

~~~
devindotcom
They mention this in the paper. The chance of all 7 depts changing their
reporting simultaneously is pretty vanishing. Much of the paper is dedicated
to understanding the cause of the lack of difference between experimental
groups, check it out.

------
turc1656
Oh gee, you mean to tell me the criminals in uniform out there to "serve and
protect" us suddenly stop violating our rights when they MIGHT be held
accountable? I say "might" because there is still no guarantee since the blue
wall of bullshit is quite dense.

93% is an absolutely staggering statistic. No other change to police policy
even comes close. And the beauty of it is that in addition to hopefully
clamping down on bad cops, it also has the delightful use of protecting and
exonerating the good ones who receive knowingly false complaints from people
who are just being spiteful against cops that arrested them.

93% is a number that cannot be ignored. This, alone, is reason enough to
justify the cost to get every single cop in this country suited up with a
camera. It keeps everyone in check and acts as expert testimony that produces
(in most cases) crystal clear memory of events for everyone to examine.

As a white male growing up in a very diverse area with a fairly high
percentage of minorities, I never really believed those who claimed seemingly
unbelievable stories of police mistreatment and excessive force. I had never
personally experienced it, nor even bore witness to it at any time. I thought
they were all lying through their teeth to stick to a claim of innocence and
how the police steamrolled them. Now, looking back, I am left wondering how
many of those stories were true. And I grew up in the 90's! I can't even
imagine what really went on in the 60's and 70's.

Far too often we see videos detailing out horrible acts by law enforcement.
Acts that if anyone without a badge were commit, EVEN IN SELF-DEFENSE, would
in many cases land us in jail for a very, very long time. I wonder how many
people I grew up with have criminal records today simply because they weren't
the correct skin color.

------
jbmorgado
It's quite strange that the article immediately jumps to the conclusion that
is (only) the police that is behaving better.

Why don't they even pose the possibility that the people being policed,
knowing there is a camera, either behave better or at least, knowing there is
a camera, don't make false claims about police mistreatment, knowing that the
police now has proof about what really happened?

~~~
dbwdyhtbaby
The article explicitly states that the drastic decline report rates were the
same in weeks where they weren't wearing the cameras.

~~~
jbmorgado
Exactly and that only reinforces my point.

The policemen would know when they where using the cameras or not and could
react accordingly, the people being arrested or having any interaction with
the police wouldn't, so they behaved properly in both occasions and/or didn't
make false claims about mistreatment by the police.

------
WalterBright
I'd wear a body camera simply to protect myself against false accusations.

------
austincheney

      Specifics on how exactly this is happening are unclear.
      Is the officer less confrontational to begin with,
      avoiding escalation? Or are suspects and complainants
      more wary of their conduct? Is it some combination of the
      two, or are even more factors involved? To determine
      these things would be a far more complex and subtle piece
      of research, but the study does suggest that officer
      behavior is probably the most affected, and that other
      effects flow from that.
    

Clearly the brilliant researchers of Cambridge don't have teenage children.
The answer is simple. People in emotional need of attention will act out (and
escalate) as necessary so long as there remains feedback (whether positive or
negative, healthy or harmful).

I suspect this sort of irrational behavior is most frequently displayed
against the police officer, but in some cases can be caused by officers (they
are people too). The only distinction between officers and non-officers being
frequency of experience dealing with confrontation.

Despite the behavior being completely irrational (often out of control) there
remains a fear of accountability. Will video evidence go out to your parents,
spouse, coworkers? How embarrassing, right? The magic is that this fear of
accountability is immediately present. The irrational behavior has to ramp up,
similar to rage, and so is not spontaneous. This indicates the accountability
fear is a constant reminder to not embarrass yourself, particularly when there
is evidence that will appear on YouTube.

------
nyolfen
A related headline from this morning: Not One New York Police Officer Has a
Body Camera

[http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/04/nyregion/despite-
national-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/04/nyregion/despite-national-
trend-new-york-police-are-slow-to-adopt-body-cameras.html)

------
Overtonwindow
It is very sad that we've (had to?) militarize our police force in America to
such a degree that there's really no going back. I don't fear the police, only
an interaction with them. Despite the cameras it seems no one is safe from
escalation and death. Even with cameras we will only see the aftermath.
Someone will still be dead.

------
losteverything
My inner statistics alarm goes off when I read such a high percent ( 90+ )
change. If this were my study I'd really need more data? Etc

------
ccvannorman
Whether or not you agree with police violence, oversight, or power, body
cameras are the best way we have right now to document exactly what is going
on.

If the courts decide to change how the police interact with the public, it
will probably be on the data of thousands or millions of minutes of body
camera footage. At that point the court can make a very clear decision: Do we
want this to continue? Because with the footage it will be (more) clear
exactly what is going on.

------
ctack
I want to see these on politicians.

~~~
ctack
It's been on my mind for awhile. It's a similar situation: people in positions
of power and responsibility which can be and are abused.

The political situation is even more important. The billions that go missing
in economies due to corruption likely have a greater affect on poverty and
crime than police brutality.

------
SCAQTony
Along with body cameras better training and specialized units to deal with
those suspects who are ostensibly mentally ill would save a lot of time, money
and lives.

30 UK police subduing a mentally ill man carrying a big knife:
[https://youtu.be/cX5CPx4RKWw](https://youtu.be/cX5CPx4RKWw)

------
ComodoHacker
I wonder whether body cameras on people would have the same effect?

------
foolinaround
We really should have body cameras on our politicians.

------
Chris2048
I'd like to see this for security in general e.g doormen/security/bouncers

------
asciihacker
It seems that the body cam often "falls off" just before the cops tase, beat
the shit out of, or kill someone.

~~~
JshWright
Do you have any evidence to support the claim that this happens "often". Your
use of scare quotes seems to indicate that this is intentional behavior. Can
you back up such an accusation?

------
icantdrive55
Police unions will fight cameras. They will do cute, pilot programs in certain
neighborhoods to fool us.

I would like to see all police officers be required to have a cam on(at all
times)while on shift. It would just be like carrying a gun.

"If you don't want to carry a gun---you just can't be a police officer. No
Andy Griffith's on this force. Times have just changed. We carry guns-- we
carry cams! If you do well on the test, and pass the psychological; you're
hired. Good Luck. We hope to have the best, brightest, and most ethical on
board."

It will never happen because police departments are so scattered across the
US, and know one is ultimately in charge.

(On at all times. No covers for cams. One the whole time while on shift. Maybe
a bathroom break exclusion, but I feel that would abused.)

~~~
jomamaxx
Many cops welcome the cameras because it's their vindication and get-out-of-
jail ticket for people making false claims.

If I were a cop, I'd want one for sure.

~~~
JshWright
I know a lot of cops, including many that wear body cameras. They are
universally in favor of them, for the very reason you mentioned (they all have
stories of times they were accused of misconduct, but had video evidence on
their side).

~~~
mrgoldenbrown
Please have them come to Boston and convince their fellow officers. The union
here is fighting them tooth and nail, even after being given financial
incentives to pilot them.

------
angry_octet
If only all that footage was available... Then we could use opencv to count
the number of donuts consumed in real time!

------
neximo64
So people try to get back at cops to deal with their anger of being caught for
their menial offences..

