Policing is an issue that has been faced with a lot of challenges and outright debates on the conduct and safety of officers. There has been a rise in the conflicting ideologies based on what is best for the agencies and the community with so many people looking at the brutality of the police. With the many arguments on the policing feature comes the debate on whether or not the police should wear body cameras. The devices may help with the identification of offenders and surveillance but face myriad of challenges.
This bears the question of whether the use of cameras can be useful in law enforcement and the long run improves the conduct of the police ( Mateescu & Rosenblat, 2015) ). The body worn videos have proved important successful in the pursuit of law enforcement. For instance, when a police officer is out on patrol and notices a person being beaten and robbed and pulls over, the criminal would have taken off. Despite the suspect getting away, the camera attached to whatever position on the officer’s body would have captured the face of the robber which could be used to track him down. But, the first problem with the use of such technologies is the privacy issues that come with it. The surveillance issue is a concern with regards to the police officer, the suspect, and the third party.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
First, the camera can put the police officer in the spotlight with the camera following them everywhere even when talking to each other. Some officers feel like the issue affects their conduct as a video can be used against them for false accusation or can put them in danger when talking to one another and as a result, for instance, one makes an errant comment about their superior (Fan, 2016). The officers feel like their privacy is infringed and that another officer can deviously record a video on a statement to make the other look bad in the eyes of the superiors.
The other issue is on the privacy of the suspect in some cases that require confidentiality. For instance, during a domestic violence call, the officers are not supposed to show the identity of the victim or the perpetrator to the public as it will infringe on their protected rights ( Fan, 2016) . When an officer storms the house of a suspect and records the events inside, it can be in a situation in which it is stressful for anybody to see. When this information is recorded in the camera, the privacy of the house under the Fourth Amendment will be violated. The same case is with demonstrations where the protestors feel they are uncomfortable with the images and videos the police records (Fan, 2016). In the instance where the offender is a minor, there is also a concern as their identity should be protected and not left for the public to view.
The last person to be concerned by the imaging and filming of the body-worn cameras are the third parties, and these include victims of offences. As much as the parties should wish the offender be identified, they may feel that their privacy is infringed when they are also captured in the scene. Such cases include rape or any other horrific incident ( Fan, 2016) . When they think their information is accessed by the masses, they can get traumatized and increase the impact of unintended consequences.
The other concern is where there is a case of excessive use of force from the police officers. It is true that the complaints have been increasing on police targeting some section of the society based on their race and employing force when dealing with them. The increasing charges that have arisen from the public are the primary basis for the use of body-worn cameras by several enforcement agencies. A study in some of the police departments such as Rialto in California has shown that the cases of police brutality have reduced significantly after the employment of the technology. In the study, Ariel, Farrar, and Sutherland (2015) examined the percentage ratio in the complaints filed by the citizens within that locality. The researchers split the patrol shifts into randomized experimental groups with the body-worn cameras and used those without as the control experiment. The results were that on the excessive use of force cases, only nine out of the twenty-five were from the experimental group while the rest from the control. This record accounted for about 50 percent of change from the previous years. As compared to the rates in the earlier years, it was also evident that the overall complaints of citizens also fell by about 88 to 94 percent (Ariel, Farrar, &Sutherland, 2015). This comes with the fact that the thought of being watched changes the perception and behavior of individuals. However, there is an issue with this supposition.
It raises questions about whether the introduction of cameras will lead to the behavior change of the officers. This comes to the event that even after the recording of an incident that excessive force was employed, the police can still say that they acted according to the law. Such is the case with the shooting of Keith Lamont Scott in Charlotte, North Carolina. The event was caught on camera that was attached to the body of the officer as well as that of Scott’s wife. However, the prosecutors said that the cop who killed the person acted lawfully. There are also concerns over the time when the police can switch on and off their cameras as there are no straight guidelines on this. It means that the police can still act with force and get away with it. Thus there is no point of even the body camera if the result can be such.
The other concern that grapples with the use of body-worn cameras is the budgetary implications. The program is expensive as the cameras need a lot of money to purchase and maintain. The number of dollars required to store the footage can be in tune with millions in some larger cities. The costs are often overlooked when the departments want to roll out a budget to fund their body camera programs. Depending on the number of body-worn gadgets in the department, the number of videos generated can be in thousands and thus the department has to sign a contract and licensing agreement for the storage of data with another company. On top of the cost of an individual camera, the law enforcement would also be required to pay an additional amount for the storage and management of the evidence. The devices have to run every single day for at least eight hours. Thus, the amount of gigabytes they generate is a lot. The cost of storage of these data is, therefore, an implication in the budget and costs the taxpayer lots of money.
Lastly, the other issue that the departments have to solve is the legislation that is based on the use of body-worn cameras. As much as the program may help with the availability of evidence, most of the state laws are trying to fix the problems of privacy, eavesdropping and public records for the sake of accommodation of body-worn cameras. However, of importance in the pending legislation are the Fourth and Fifth Amendments ( Fan, 2016) . The former protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and this is a major case with the police entering the homes of private citizens with the cameras on their uniforms. The Fifth Amendment prevents the individual from self-incrimination and double jeopardy. When a police officer records a video of a person and uses it against them, there are confusions of whether this part of the Bill of Rights has been infringed ( Stanley, 2013) .
In conclusion, the body-worn cameras are indeed the future of policing as it has several advantages. However, there are still a lot of concerns surrounding the programs and which should be addressed. They include privacy issues, budgetary implications, accountability, and legislation. It is thus the work of the state legislators to clarify and implement the laws that may govern the use of these gadgets for effective implementation.
References
Ariel, B., Farrar, W. A., & Sutherland, A. (2015). 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 , 31 (3), 509-535.
Fan, M. D. (2016). Privacy, public disclosure, police body cameras: Policy splits. Ala. L. Rev. , 68 , 395.
Mateescu, A., & Rosenblat, A. (2015). Police body-worn cameras.
Stanley, J. (2013). Police body-mounted cameras: With right policies in place, a win for all. New York: ACLU .
