Cons of the police body cameras

Body Cameras are a form of video and audio surveillance device that law enforcement officers may use to track their interactions with the general population, violent suspects, and their colleagues. A video monitor, a microphone, a charger, and an onboard data retrieval system are the common components of a police body camera. Since the camera technology is smaller than most police vehicles, officers may wear body cameras in a number of places. The instruments are either clipped to the officer's jacket or fixed to the officer's headgear. Hence from there, the Camera captures both the audio and video footage of the interactions from the officer’s perspective. The majority of the body camera system also has a cloud-based data storage service with built-in security features to protect against destruction and tampering of the video evidence. In the United States, the escalating killings of a civilian by the law enforcement have driven body cameras to the forefront of solutions to the epidemic of police misconduct. In 2014, the Obama Administration proposed to invest 263 million dollars in federal funding to support body camera research, distribution and training to transform the technology into a significant public safety market (Ariel 519). In a tech-Savvy era of the smartphone where anyone can record and share live events in real time, the inquiry of on-duty officers using body-mounted cameras to capture real-time events as the unfold has come under extreme scrutiny. Use of body Camera provides a background into the problem of police misconduct and hence highlighting arguments for and cautioning against body camera technology. There are an increasing number of states, and legislative departments across the United States have been debating the cons and pros of the use of the technology. Although the body camera can improve police transparency and accountability, there is some limitation that affects the use of the body Camera.

The police body cameras might be a major invasion of privacy which is a huge issue in this order (Harvard Law Review 44). Visualize a police officer capturing a particularly traumatic incident, and the intimate footage could be used in cases or even leaked online thus affecting the concerned family or even friends. There is also exploitation of some police footages in shows such as Cops. Additionally, the use of body cameras may deter potential witnesses or informants from approaching the police officers since it can compromise their identities (Ready 447). Credible witnesses may be hesitant to come forward to help to assist in investigations due to fear of retaliation or fear of public exposure (Ready 449). Therefore, people may view the body cameras as surveillance machinery rather than a machinery used for accountability and accuracy. Hence the body cameras don’t exactly sound like something that can be used to build trust between the police and the civilians. Also, regarding privacy, it is easy to overlook the pervasive and indiscriminate nature of the cameras. The body camera has been described as a win-win situation for both the police and civilians but only as long as the civilians’ privacy interests remain protected (Stanley 27). The body Camera can raise concerns on how the Fourth Amendment will apply to the new forms of government technology. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to be secure in the persons, houses and papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, Shall not be violated.The routine recording of police and civilians interactions can violate the Fourth Amendment thus evoking notions of a surveillance state (Ariel 530). For example, when an officer obtains a search warrant on a private residence but the warrant doesn’t authorize him to examine everything in the home. A body camera can capture evidence indiscriminately and therefore may unlawfully extend the officers visuals to the areas outside the scope of the warrant. The Fifth Amendment also protects us against testifying against ourselves. Hence if a policeman is recording us during an incident that may affect us to spit some incriminating statements, the statement cannot be used against us (Ariel 516).

Also, the body cameras are disadvantaged because they cannot eliminate biased reviews or even give the full picture of any situation (Jennings 555). Additionally, known that the body camera’s angle is limited to that of the officer’s point of view, those who watch the footage will only see the situation from the officer’s perspective hence finding it harder to comply with others point of view. Though the footage will show the exact footage, there can be multiple interpretations based on the viewer's purpose (Jennings 557). Thus body cameras may result in biased conclusion on a situation which can be a hindrance in delivering the truth and justice about a situation recorded by the camera. Hence dismissal of personal statements and testimonials in court because of the video footage can only display one point of view. Hence great cautiousness must be implemented when using the footage as concrete evidence.

Another disadvantage of police body camera is those cops wearing the camera are more likely to be assaulted. A study published in the European Journal of Criminology indicates that crime rate against officer’s increase by 15% when the officers use the body worn cameras (Ariel 517).A combination of the body camera in addition to the early warning creates awareness that the encounter is filming, therefore modifying the behavior of the agent as well as the assailant. As long as the attacker is aware of the filming of the actions of the officers, they are likely to react to any actions against the police in pursuit. Hence it may endanger the life of the officer. Additionally, the usage of the camera can incriminate a victim. Therefore, he or she may attempt in the forceful grabbing of the camera from the police hence leading to assaulting the officer.

Although the Cameras can provide crucial evidence for a case, the recording, like technology, can still be manipulated (Stanley 46). The recording equipment must be manually activated when interacting with civilians or recording of statements during investigations. Therefore, the officer may choose when to activate the camera and when to deactivate it. They also can decide for how long the storage of the footage and when it should be accessible to the public. The footage, therefore, can be easily manipulated through editing of some of the file footages that may incriminate the officers. Therefore only a tamper-proof camera

Another limitation of the camera is that it is vulnerable to the technological issue that may prevent proper functioning of the device at times. It can be due to obstructed lens, dead battery, and damaged components thus affecting the investigation and appropriate operation of the recording devices. Also, regarding technology, the body camera has a limited angle and viewing coverage unlike the naked eye hence it may not fully capture the incident from different perspectives and different point of views. The limitation in the point of view can hinder the investigation. For example, a survey of an officer involved in a shooting incident that might have taken place from the camera’s point of view may miss a crucial a major piece of the puzzle in investigating a case. There the body camera has some limitations since one cannot rely solely on them to tell the whole story of a major incident. Therefore this could result in missing important statement of a witness or crucial behavior of citizens or officers.

Furthermore, the equipment is very expensive. The potential costs involved in the use of the body cameras include the cost of the device itself, the maintenance, and costs associated with storing and maintaining the video footage and the collection of recorded data. The storage costs of the video file footage can run into the millions of dollars in some large cities. For example in Duluth, Minnesota, their hundred and ten officers worn camera generate 8000 to 10,000 video footages per month. These videos are kept for at least 30 days and in many cases longer. Additionally, there will be incurring costs associated with the retrieving and cataloging footage in response to investigations and public information request. The prices of the body Camera vary significantly between the models and manufacturers and cost an average range of between 500 dollars to 1000 dollars. Moreover, implementation of new technology requires a lot of training of personnel who will be using the equipment and operate the cameras effectively on the job.

The issue of continuous police misconduct, need for more substantial proof, and an absence of public trust cannot be solved by just implementing the use of body cameras (Harvard Law Review 20). The pervasive galvanization over the use of body cameras epitomizes the human tendency to latch on to the most readily available solution to a complex problem. The underlying problem doesn’t necessarily mean that the police only need constant surveillance to comply within the limit of the law (Harvard Law Review 24). There are no standard policies and regulations concerning where, when and how the police body camera and the usage of its data and what to do if rising concerns and oppositions should occur.

Although there are many limitations of police use of body cameras, there are still some advantages of the use of the machinery. There is need for further research and implementation of some policies for the use police body Cameras to be effective.

Part 2

My role in the group on the team was the rebuttal officer researcher and also the time tracker of the group. My role included doing extensive research to develop facts that would be useful in rebutting in the debate. Also, developing arguments and proofs to contradict or nullify other evidence that has been presented by the adverse party we are discussing. My role also included collecting the different facts from the group members to develop a strong case to rebut our opponents in the debate which we stand against the use police body cameras. My significance in the group ensures proper organization of facts and evidence to avoid contradiction and repetition. Additionally, my role involved coordination and integration of the research points and materials to develop a strong counter argument in the debate. I choose this position because I’m better at researching and organization of data than my peers who are better debaters and speakers which is an advantage in our group and debate.

Also, as the time tracker, my role was to ensure efficient usage of time given in the discussion. I provided optimum utilization of the time provided in the debate through providing giving of fact and information in the limited

I was able to fulfill my duties effectively since our group was able to collect the facts and figure timely and efficiently. The delivery of the debate, the diction, and presentation of the argument throughout the debate was quite impressive and outstanding. The counter arguments and rebutting was not just for the sake of arguing but was based on substantial evidence on which the team and I had developed. For example, though there were many advantages of using body cameras by police, more than the cons as evidence in books, research, and internet sources. We were still able to present a substantial amount of proof in rebutting the advantages of the use of police body cameras. Other ways in which we were able to help the group through the mock trial was; through the presentation of a video of a mock trial competition and a real test while taking notes comparing their word lists with what they see in the video. Also the random question of facts to develop grasping of the facts and figure that would be useful in the debate. Though one may argue that we delivered our arguments in a slower manner, we conveyed the arguments in an efficient manner, clear articulation and expressed clearly throughout the debate.



































References

Ariel, Barak and Farrar, William A and Sutherland, Alex. "The effect of police body-worn cameras on use of force and citizens’ complaints against the police: A randomized controlled trial." Journal of quantitative criminology (2015): 509-535. Springer.

Harvard Law Review. "Chapter Four: Considering Police Body Cameras." Considering Police Body Cameras (2015): 20. Cambridge.Harvard Law Review Assoc.

Jennings, Wesley G and Fridell, Lorie A and Lynch, Mathew D. "Cops and cameras: Officer perceptions of the use of body-worn cameras in law enforcemen." Journal of Criminal Justice (2014): 549-556.

Ready, Justin T and Young, Jacob TN. "The impact of on-officer video cameras on police--citizen contacts: Findings from a controlled experiment in Mesa, AZ." Journal of experimental criminology (2015): 445-458. Springer.

Stanley, Jay. "Police body-mounted cameras: With right policies in place, a win for all." New York: ACLU (2013): 30.