The implementation of numerous policies
The implementation of numerous policies by criminal justice organizations makes it easier to carry out their responsibilities. The guidelines created and put into practice assist in ensuring public safety and shielding agency staff from legal action. Any such strategy aims to resolve an issue rather than worsen the situation as it is. That isn't always the case, though. An alternative strategy is put into place if the first one doesn't work or brings about new problems.
Police strategy in Adams County, Idaho
Like in any other jurisdiction, the police strategy in Adams County, Idaho, regarding the use of on-body cameras has changed. The topic and issue of the body on cameras have been trending for a long period in the recent years due to the increased shootings that were not accounted for due to lack of video evidence. This was a primary reason why authorities in Adams County decided to modify the existing policy. Jack Yantis was shot and killed on 1st November, 2015 during a car accident that escalated to a hostile situation. The cause of the accident was a vehicle hitting Yantis bull. When Yantis arrived at the scene of the incident the situation escalated quickly to shoot and kill scene. Then two armed police officers fired and killed Yantis. The chain of events as it was accounted for by the four witnesses present during the incident was presented differently. The deputies at the scene had body-worn cameras but were off hence and thus did not record anything to help with the case.
The on-body camera policy in Adam County Sherriff office
The on-body camera policy in Adam County Sherriff office was not fully enforced. During an interview with Ryan Zollman, sheriff of Adams County stated that the sheriff’s department strategy required the officers on duty to only activate their cameras during critical incidents. He further stated that the deputies had freedom of choice on what is measured as critical, but traffic control was not under the category of life-threatening situations (Moeller 2016). The public was greatly disappointed with the policy as was described by the Sherriff during the interview that resulted in lots of outrage. The policy was not in line with the vision and mission of the police force. Despite the fact that the policy in full is untraceable, the interviews conducted with the Sherriff explicitly expressed that the policy was not projected to have any police officer involved in any fatal shooting. Not having any video evidence of the incident, the police in Idaho county quickly became a national headline, raising many questions from the general public. The body-worn camera policy in Idaho County did not meet the guidelines set forth by the United States Department of Justice.
Alternative Solution
The United States Department of Justice issued guiding principles on how to execute the on-body cameras due to the increased attention directed towards the issue. The new guidelines constituted of plain facts regarding the policy, which every agency was required to follow. Concerning the new policy, the Adams County Sheriffs’ Office body-worn camera policy appeared not to follow one of the guideline principles that were issued. To start with, the mentioned policy had some exceptions that required the officers in charge to only activate their cameras under certain circumstances such as when responding calls of service and when conducting law-enforcement related procedures. Such exceptions were addressed in the alternative body-worn camera policy that required officers to have their cameras always active. Sherriff Zollman eventually implemented the alternative policy to foresee improvement of service delivery within the force.
According to the statement given by Adams County Sherrif’s Office
According to the statement given by Adams County Sherrif’s Office regarding the alternative policy required all the deputies in the county to have the cameras working whenever addressing the matters involving the public. The new policy advocated for the officers to always have their cameras on whenever they have contact with the public. Sherrif Zollman was later quoted on Adams County body camera policy changes after Yantis death saying that officers dispatched from the county were required to have their on-body cameras on even when assisting someone in the street cross the road. The Sherriff further instated on the need to have the on-body cameras on by saying that officers were required to have them running when taking part in any law enforcement public contact (Moeller, 2016). The new alternative policy on on-body cameras was distinctly different from the original policy.
Reasons for the Policy’s Development
Every alternative policy in place usually has an event or data related to its enactment. The Adams County Sherriff’s Office body worn camera was considered as somewhat nonexistent and fell under a category that did not involve the use technology. The policy did not differentiate between cassette recorders and body cameras, an issue that triggered the administration to develop an alternative policy. The Adams County body camera policy was described as a policy that came under the heading of mini-cassette recorder case that allowed the officer on duty to decide on when to wear and use the cassette recorder case (Hoffman, 2015). The need to implement an alternative body-worn camera policy was due to a fatal incident.
The main question that drove towards the amendment of the original policy
The main question that drove towards the amendment of the original policy was whether it was able to solve the problem with lack of evidence in cases involving the general public. The main reason behind the need of the policing agencies to include body-worn cameras under the essential police equipment was to guarantee safety and liability. The original policy did not address any of these objectives. Even though the two deputies involved in the Yantis shooting incident were cleared of their charges, there are still pressing liability and civil proceedings regarding the incident. The infectiveness of the policy not requiring the police officers have their body-worn cameras turned on justified their actions due to the lack of adequate evidence. Another factor that could have resulted in the need to develop an alternative policy could be the perpetual outrage witnessed from the citizens of Adams County. The killing incident and the outrage of the citizens was comon reaction scenario in Idaho.
The alternative policy established regarding body-worn cameras by the Adams County Sheriff’s Office
The alternative policy established regarding body-worn cameras by the Adams County Sheriff’s Office was affected due to a series of events such as the shooting and killing of the Council Idaho Rancher with no video evidence. The sheriff’s office has to come up with a new policy that could help provide video evidence. In case an original policy fails to achieve the set objectives, then the other policy is bound to be implemented to cover the failures of the existing one.
References
Hoffman, W. (2015). Officials should update Idaho law enforcement video protocols. Idaho Freedom Foundation. Retrieved from http://idahofreedom.org/officials-should-update-idaho-law-enforcement-video-protocols/
Moeller, K. (2016). Adams County body camera policy changes after Yantis death. Retrieved from http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/article92897297.html
