Hands Up, Roll Tape 1
Hands Up, Roll Tape:
Perspectives on Police Body-Worn Cameras
NAME
PROFESSOR
COURSE
DATE
Hands Up, Roll Tape: Perspectives on Police Body-Worn Cameras
In recent years, the already fraught relationship between US law enforcement and the communities they police has precipitously declined. Distrust, fear, and even hatred of law enforcement percolate amid accusations of police misconduct, including what are perceived by many in the general public to be the unlawful killings of unarmed African American men from New York to Baltimore to Los Angeles. This tense and volatile environment has given rise to urgent calls for greater transparency and accountability in policing. For many, police body-worn cameras (BWC) provide the most effective answer to these calls. For these proponents of BWC, to have cameras rolling at all times and in every encounter between police and the community is the greatest hope of ensuring that police are truly fulfilling their duty to protect and to serve. Opponents, however, assert that BWC are not the cure-all to resolving the conflicts between police and their communities. Rather, they suggest that body cameras bring with them a host of problems, many of which are known, such as privacy concerns, but many of which may not yet have been revealed. Two articles exemplifying these diverse perspectives of police body-worn are the celebratory research study conducted by Jennings, Lynch, and Fridell in 2015 and Thomas A. Bud’s far more skeptical analysis, published in 2016.
In Support of Police Body-Worn Cameras (BWC)
The article entitled “Evaluating the Impact of Police Officer Body-Worn Cameras on Response-to-Resistance and Serious External Complaints” (2015) by Jennings, Lynch, and Fridell presents a highly optimistic view of the incorporation of BWC in everyday policing. The authors focus in their study principally on the impact of these technologies on police behavior, particularly in high risk situations, such as situations in which officers encounter suspect resistance, aggression, or threats. The article is based upon the authors’ randomized, experimental study of eighty-nine police officers in an effort to determine what effect, if any, the presence of BWCs as on police conduct. The authors conclude that officers wearing BWCs are less likely to react aggressively or violently to suspect resistance or threats. The authors write, “Taken together, the results from this methodologically rigorous, randomized experiment all point toward the effectiveness of BWCs for improving police-community relationships and reducing a host of tragic events that can result from negative police-citizen encounters” (p. 485).
At first blush, this argument seems to operate from a host of ethical and moral principles that are irrefutable: the authors prioritize police and citizen safety as the highest concern, with police-community relationships a close second. Further, the authors presume that a more modulated police response is always the most desirable one. Such perspectives may be challenges, however, on a number of fronts. One of the most problematic warrants at play here, for instance, is the assumption to a more moderate response-to-resistance paradigm will automatically reduce incidences of violence and other extreme outcomes leading to citizen complaint and/or officer censure. Even more problematic is the assumption that improved officer responses will equate to improved community relationships. It is by no means assured that when officers modulate their responses, they will gain (or regain) the community’s trust and cooperation. Likewise, the design and execution of the study is problematic insofar as the sample size is relatively small and the classification and categorization of officer responses relatively vague. There can be no certainty as to whether or not the authors’ findings can be extrapolated to the US law enforcement community as a whole.
In Opposition to Police Body-Worn Cameras
In contrast to Jennings et al.’s highly optimistic assessment of the potential of BWCs to end police misconduct, repair police-community relationships, and save countless civilian and officer lives, Bud (2016) sounds a far more cautionary note. In his article, entitled “The Rise and Risks of Police Body-Worn Cameras in Canada”, Bud identifies an array of pressing social and legal concerns that can be associated with the advent of BWCs. Whereas Jennings et al. (2015) focus their lens on two critical issues (response-to-resistance and serious external complaint) when assessing the efficacy and appropriateness of BWC, Bud expands his attention, considering the wider-ranging implications of these technologies. Significantly, Bud’s analysis is based not upon an experimental study, but on extended practice, exploring the effects of these technologies on real-life, real-world policing.
Among the most significant concerns raised by Bud in his analysis relate to issues of privacy and property rights. First and foremost, as Bud notes, the cameras’ small size and mobility make protecting citizens’ privacy virtually impossible. This is true not only for suspects and complainants but for average citizens whom the officer may encounter during the course of is/her daily work. Even when citizens are advised that they are being recorded, there is little time or opportunity for them to reasonably grant or withdraw consent. This further extends to issues of privacy protections as they relate to the security of the individual person and his/her private home and property. This is especially evident in regard to investigatory practices and evidentiary standards. As of yet, Canadian law, like US Constitutional law, has yet to definitively determine the status of footage obtained through the use of BWC, including determining its legal admissibility in a court-of-law.
Bud also raises serious concerns regarding the financial implications of these technologies. He argues that the costs of incorporating BWC are exorbitant, far more than the average police department facing increasing budget cuts, can absorb. He suggests that in an effort to appease public demand for a largely untested and unproven technology, department operating costs will likely have to be trimmed elsewhere, potentially reducing access to tools and strategies that are proven to work, such as building a larger police force with better trained and equipped personnel and more robustly staffed shifts.
Bud’s analysis presents an important distinction from Jennings’ et al.’s approach insofar as it does not operate under the same set of ethical and moral assumptions or warrants. It does not assume a one-to-one correlation between modulated officer responses and improved community relations and safety. Further, because it cannot make this assumption, it also cannot prioritize response-to-resistance and the minimization of serious external complaints as the study’s principal concerns and key indicators of BWC efficacy. Instead, Bud argues that before any knee-jerk assumptions can be made to herald BWC as the miracle remedy for this tragic and tragically growing problem, it must be remembered that the benefits of these technologies remain largely speculative and that there are a host of considerations that must be accounted for, from privacy rights and budgetary constraints to legal implications.
Conclusion
In the face of growing tensions between law enforcement and the communities they serve and amid the tragic loss of civilian and officer life, police body-worn cameras would seem to offer hope for a dire and worsening situation. Jennings et al. (2015) celebrate the advent of these technologies as an effective tool for modulating officer response-to-resistance and reducing the frequency of severe external complaints. They cite this as proof that BWCs will improve police-community relationships and save lives. However, in his study of BWC use by Canadian law enforcement, Bud (2016) urges caution, arguing that the benefits of BWCs have yet to be proven and that pressing concerns related to their use, such as privacy rights, budgetary constraints, and legal considerations, are often ignored—to the detriment of law enforcement and civilians alike. Both studies make compelling and largely persuasive arguments, and taken together, they reveal a fundamental truth about BWCs: they may prove to be an effective tool, but they are just that—a tool. There is no magic bullet; there is not perfect potion. Repairing police-community relations and preventing needless loss of life will take time, profound effort, and an unflagging commitment to human rights and the sanctity of life, both civilian and law enforcement.
References
Bud, T. K. (2016). The rise and risks of police body-worn cameras in Canada. Surveillance and Society, 14(1), 117-121.
Jennings, W. G., Lynch, M. D., & Fridell, L. A. (2015). Evaluating the impact of police officer body-worn cameras (BWCs) on response-to-resistance and serious external complaints: Evidence from the Orlando police department (OPD) experience utilizing a randomized controlled experiment. Journal of Criminal Justice, 43, 480-486.