A yearlong study on body cameras worn by police has yielded predictable but valuable results. The cameras improve the behavior of law enforcement officers and citizens and tend to positively inform other areas of policing. The study provides evidence that
A yearlong study on body cameras worn by police has yielded predictable but valuable results. The cameras improve the behavior of law enforcement officers and citizens and tend to positively inform other areas of policing. The study provides evidence that body cameras, though not a panacea for bad policing or citizen misconduct, are a positive step toward greater transparency and accountability by law enforcement and the general public. Law enforcement agencies around the country should seriously explore using them.
Researchers at the University of South Florida published the results Oct. 12 of a yearlong study of the Orlando Police Department and its use of body cameras. The study, which began in March 2014 and ran until February, looked at the behavior of 46 officers who wore body cameras and 43 who did not. Among officers who wore the cameras, researchers found a 53 percent reduction in response to resistance and use of force incidents and a 65 percent drop in external complaints. The study also found the cameras helped improve evidence collection and report writing, as officers have a chance to review incidents on video. In September, the U.S. Justice Department awarded Orlando police $497,480 to buy 450 more body cameras, an encouraging show of federal support to fund an effort that evidence now proves works well.
The clamor for officer-worn body cameras came in the aftermath of a spate of deadly incidents between police and civilians, often unarmed African-American men. With each new death, calls grew for increased investigation of police tactics and possible abuse. Law enforcement agencies around the country began requiring their officers to wear body cameras. So far, the devices have provided an invaluable, unbiased witness to controversial police interactions with citizens, in some cases resulting in the arrest of abusive police officers and at other times exonerating cops who followed proper protocol.
Body camera footage recently helped exonerate police officers in Cleveland who responded to a domestic violence call that turned deadly. Officer David Muniz was shot in the chest by a man who had allegedly threatened his wife and landlord with a gun. A bulletproof vest protected Muniz, who can be heard on camera continuing to negotiate with the shooter. At one point, the man, who had a loaded gun at his side, begged Muniz to kill him. Muniz responded calmly, “I know you shot me, but I’m not going to shoot you.” The man eventually pointed his gun at other officers, who fired and killed him. Muniz and his fellow officers waited seven months while an investigation into the shooting took place. This was likely no easy feat given that they worked for the same department that employed the officer who fatally wounded 12-year-old Tamir Rice in 2014. Ultimately, body camera footage served as the witness that proved Muniz and his colleagues acted honorably.
Law enforcement agencies throughout the bay area are divided on body camera usage. The Pasco County Sheriff’s Office has outfitted its entire force with cameras. Tampa police are engaged in a pilot program. But St. Petersburg police and the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office still won’t commit. There are legitimate and serious questions about privacy, but those are not insoluble problems. It is time for bay area law enforcement agencies to sort out those issues and get off the fence.
Though legitimate questions about body camera usage remain, it is only a matter of time before they become as standard as police radar or dispatch systems. Concerns surrounding privacy, data storage and public access to footage do indeed need to be addressed. But thanks to USF researchers and Orlando police, questions about the cameras’ merit, properly and soberly employed, should finally be put to rest.
