Continual Use of Body Worn Cameras in Law Enforcement

Introduction 

Rapid advancement in technology has affected and transformed almost all sectors of the society, the law enforcement included. Law enforcement agencies have embraced the use of modern technologies to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of policing. One of the technologies that are increasingly becoming popular in the law enforcement sector is body-worn cameras (BWCs). The active use of BWCs started in the mid-2000s, especially in European countries such as the United Kingdom. The USA followed the trend soon to enhance law enforcement while addressing the concerns of the public. However, the use of BWCs was not a common concept or idea in the US as its history can be traced back to the 1970s. The utilization of public video surveillance in the USA started in the 1970s, even though it received a major boost after the 2001 terrorist attack that shocked the world, especially the US police and military agencies and personnel. Apart from enhancing the safety and security of Americans, BWCs are used to improve police accountability and to enhance the police-public relationship ( Hyatt, Mitchell & Ariel, 2017) . Thus, BWCs are benefits to both the police and the public. However, many concerns have been raised against the use of BWCs, especially concerning public privacy. Critics of BWCs argue that it violates the privacy of individuals. It is, therefore, essential to explore the use of BWCs to improve its effectiveness. 

Summary of the Use of BWCs by the Law Enforcement Personnel 

The primary objective of using BWCs is to capture and record as much information as possible about the behaviors and actions of the police, including the interaction between the public and law enforcement officers ( Hyatt, Mitchell & Ariel, 2017) . The technology was introduced after the public and civil organization raised concerns over the use of excessive force by the police against the people, particularly the minority groups like African Americans. One of the cases that have been used to justify the use of BWCs by the police was the killing of Michael Brown who was killed by a while law enforcement officer in Ferguson, even though Brown was not armed ( Kampfe, 2015) . Witnesses gave conflicting accounts of events that occurred that day, making it challenging for the judge to convict the said police officer. Besides Brown murder case, police officers have been accused of several cases of misconducts, primarily the excessive use of force against the unarmed members of the public. Even that took place in 2014 led to the increased demand for the use of police BWCs to boost accountability and transparency in the law enforcement. 

The use of BWCs has received a lot of support from individuals, organizations, and the government because of its many positive impacts on law enforcement. The main benefit of BWCs is that they reduce the use of excessive use of force by the law enforcement officers substantially. For instance, the analysis that was done by Hyatt, Mitchell and Ariel (2017) revealed that BWCs can reduce the use of excessive force by around 75%, which is a significant reduction. The use of force is greatly minimized among police officers who wear BWCs compared to their counterparts who do not wear such devices. At the same time, based on the findings of the research that was done by Arizona researchers, BWCs can reduce citizens' complaints against police officers by about 40% (Hyatt, Mitchell & Ariel, 2017). Consequently, BWCs can improve the relationship between law enforcement officers and the public, resulting in enhanced security and safety. The reduction in the use of force by police is based on the theory of self-awareness, which asserts that people are not likely to engage in undesirable behavior if they are aware that they are being watched. 

The use of BWCs is also associated with increased accountability and transparency in the law enforcement process or system. BWCs provide an opportunity for an objective and transparent view of police behaviors and actions, especially through recorded video footages ( Kampfe, 2015). At the same time, the police are not likely to engage in unconstitutional searches as well as seizures if they wear BWCs. The criminal justice systems, primarily the court now relies on BWCs to determine a case that is involving police officers and members of the public, leading to improved transparency. Transparency and accountability are essential because they lead to fairness and justice, making the public to trust the public to trust law enforcement agencies and personnel ( Kampfe, 2015). Therefore, the use of BWCs benefits the police, civilians, and the society at large. 

However, BWCs are also linked to many concerns, especially privacy rights. A significant number of people and organizations have consistently argued that BWCs violate the privacy rights of citizens. In many cases, police encounter people when they are an awkward situation that exposes their privacy to the public ( Kampfe, 2015). At the same time, viewing the video footage of BWCs can lead to traumatic and psychological problems among victims and their loved ones, primarily when the encounter involves a lot of brutality or death (Thomas, 2016). The use of BWCs is a threat to public policy. According to Stalcup & Hahn (2016), the utilization of BWCs is creating an ethical dilemma among law enforcement officers. The police are in a dilemma on whether to prioritize on public privacy or safety and security of the people (Adams & Mastracci, 2017). Even though BWCs has many benefits to the police and law enforcement, they endanger public privacy, and they create a lot of ethical dilemmas that are not easy to solve, primarily because of the involvement of constitutional rights. 

Proposed Solution to the BWC Privacy Issue 

To resolve the privacy issue that is associated with the use of BWCs, law enforcement agencies should give police officers the discretion to choose what is appropriate or inappropriate to the public during the enforcement of law and order in the community. To protect the privacy of the people, law enforcement officers should be given the powers to choose the events to film. A police officer may encounter an embracing situation that compromises the privacy and confidentiality of a person. Thus, by the discretion will ensure that only necessary video or films are taken to protect the privacy of the people. Alternatively, according to the suggestion by Kampfe (2015), the police should have the discretion only to use audio recording when they encounter situations that comprise the privacy of individuals. However, some criminologists and security experts argue that the discretion can be misused by the law enforcement officers, particularly when they want to cover up for their misconducts while maintaining law and order. The discretion will only address the interests of the police officers and not the public. Nonetheless, allowing some discretion on the use of BWCs is one of the most effective steps that can be taken towards the protection of public privacy. 

Also, the public disclosure laws should be changed to protect public privacy when using BWCs to maintain law and order in the society. Importantly, BWC video footage should not be released to the public unless it is deemed extremely necessary (Newell, 2016). Still, the police should ensure that only limited BWC video footage can be viewed by the public, as this will help in protecting individual privacy. At the same time, the law enforcement agencies should use modern technologies to blur some section of BWC video food that compromise the privacy of an individual before it is released to the public. 

However, to enhance a high level of objectivity in the protection of public privacy, the law enforcement agencies and personnel should not have powers to determine the footage that should be accessed by the public. On the contrary, the disclosure laws should be changed or used as a basis for the formulation of policies to protect public policy. For instance, the court should be given the powers to review the BWC video footage and make a decision on the content to be released to the public. The proposal will protect not only the interests of the public, but also police officers. According to Kampfe (2015), it is possible for police commanders to use BWCs to maliciously use BWCs monitor the actions and behaviors of junior officers. Appropriate BWC disclosure policy should be formulated to protect the privacy of individuals. 

Operations of the Criminal Justice System 

The criminal justice system is vital in any country because it helps in controlling crime while imposing penalties to people who violate the laws. In the USA, the criminal justice system is made up of individuals, group of people and agencies. Specifically, the criminal justice system in the country has five main components that include law enforcement, prosecution, defense attorneys, courts, and correction departments (Vargas, 2008). The three major components of the system that are directly or indirectly involved in the use of BWCs are law enforcement, prosecution, and the court. The law enforcement department is mainly tasked with the responsibility of investigating crimes, collecting and protecting evidence. The prosecution department, on the other hand, represents the government during the court process. Prosecutors review and use the evidence given to them by law enforcement officers to argue the case in the court (Vargas, 2008). Courts have the responsibility of ensuring that laws are followed and make decisions based on the available evidence presented by prosecutors and defense attorneys. Therefore, the operations of the criminal justice system that relate to the use of BWCs are the collection and presentation of the evidence. 

The use of BWC improves the presentation of evidence by the prosecutor while enhancing the effectiveness of courts, especially concerning the analysis of evidence. Specifically, the conviction, as well as plea bargains, is likely to increase due to technologies like BWCs. With the use of BWCs, the prosecutors can present an objective and tangible evidence that can easily lead to prosecution ( Hyatt, Mitchell & Ariel, 2017). Thus, BWCs improve the presentation of evidence by the prosecution department of the criminal justice system. At the same time, BWCs enhances the collection of evidence by the law enforcement officers. The police can use BWCs to capture objective and reliable evidence that can successfully be used in a court of law. Besides, the police can use BWCs to write a clear report of the events that occurred in the crime scene, resulting in the successful prosecution in courts ( Hyatt, Mitchell & Ariel, 2017). Thus, BWCs improves the operations of the criminal justice system. 

However, the use of BWCs in the criminal justice system is likely to raise some privacy concerns. BWCs do capture not only the culprit but also other members of the public because they are always used in public places ( Hyatt, Mitchell & Ariel, 2017). As a result, it may interfere with the privacy of other people. Although BWCs improves some of the critical operations of the criminal justice system, it also compromises the privacy and confidentiality of individuals. The role of the criminal justice system is to control crime while upholding laws. The criminal justice is also expected to be fair to all members of the public. The violation of public privacy, therefore, may end up affecting the effectiveness of the criminal justice system. 

Impact of the Criminal and Social Justice Theories and Landmark Supreme Court Decision on the Issue 

The theory of self-awareness is one of the theoretical models that is used to justice the use of BWCs. The theory is based on the assumption that people are likely to modify their actions and behaviors when they think or know that they are being watched or observed (Ariel et al ., 2018). The theory increases self-awareness among police officers and the public, which results in a high degree of rational, deliberative behaviors and actions. Besides, based on the concepts of the theory of self-awareness, BWCs are likely to increase self-regulation and increased compliance with existing rules and regulations (Ariel et al ., 2018). The suspected criminal or suspect is expected to become less resistant when BWCs are used. At the same time, law enforcement officers will be encouraged to work professionally while observing high levels of dignity, fairness, and respect to the members of the public. 

The theory of self-awareness will impact the criminal justice issue by increasing the use of BWCs in law enforcement. Law enforcement agencies and supporters of BWCs are likely to use the theory justify why such technologies should be used to improve police accountability while encouraging the public to adhere to the existing rules and regulations. The theory of self-awareness also supports the resolution because self-awareness to preserve their own privacy while encouraging the professional use of BWC evidence (Wong & Kim, 2014). The concept of self-awareness can be used to enhance the privacy of the police and the public. 

The second social justice theory that applies to the use of BWCs is existentialism, which is mainly associated with Jean-Paul Sartre. According to this school of thought, the freedom of human being is unlimited, and it should never be destroyed by either laws or moral rules ( Hounkpatin et al ., 2015) . However, even though the freedom of human beings is unlimited, based on the proponents of the theory, people should not be exonerated from responsibility. Individuals are responsible for all their ideals. Existentialism posits that BWCs should not be used to violate the rights and freedom of human beings, even though they are essential in the maintenance of law and order in the society. But the same theory makes it mandatory for people to be responsible for their actions and behaviors. Although BWCs may violate public privacy, people are expected to comply with laws, including rules and regulations. 

The US Supreme Court decision on Katz v. United States case has a significant impact on the use of BWCs by the police. While ruling on the case, the Supreme judges decided that unreasonable searches and seizures as contained in the Fourth Amendment also cover electronic devices. The Supreme Court refused the claim by the government that Katz was using a transparent telephone booth and therefore could not claim privacy. According to the judges, telephone booths are designed to promote privacy, even though they may be transparent. Based on the Supreme Court ruling, the police should respect the privacy of individuals, especially when they are in private places. It insinuates that BWCs should not be used in private places such as homes because they invade individuals’ privacy ( Hounkpatin et al ., 2015) . Also, the ruling supports the resolution of exercising caution when using BWCs in private places. 

Social Equality and Fairness 

The number of people who are coming in direct contact with the criminal social and criminal justice system is increasing in the USA. According to Arditti and Le Roux (2015), more than 65 million people in the country have criminal records while another 1.6 million are in prison. Unfortunately, a significant number of people in jail and those with criminal records come from minority ethnic or racial group, including the disadvantaged in the society. Thus, based on the statistics, there is a high level of social inequality, unfairness, and exclusion in the US society that should be addressed. The social and criminal justice system should ensure that they promote social equality and fairness. 

The social and criminal justice system can use the concept of distributive of justice to promote social equality and fairness in American society. The principle of distributive of justice demands that systems and organization should ensure equitable and fair distribution of resources, including health, education, and employment opportunities (Kelly, 2012). All people should be treated equally and fairly by the systems, especially during the process of maintaining law and order. The criminal justice system should ensure that law enforcement agencies unfairly target no particular group. The social justice system, on the other hand, should make sure that resources and opportunities are fairly and equally distributed. 

Equality and fairness will ensure that the privacy of all people are respected when law enforcement is using BWCs. The US law enforcement officers have repeatedly been accused of unfairly targeting black people in the process of maintaining law and order. The killing of Brown in 2014 by a white police officer made the public to demand fair treatment of all people by the police ( Kampfe, 2015). Distributive justice and fair and equitable distribution of resources and opportunities will reduce injustices while respecting the privacy of all people, regardless of their socio-economic background. 

Also, the centralization of criminal justice agency is likely to have a significant impact on the use of BWCs. Centralized law enforcement is organized within a central command where the top leaders make all decisions in the agencies (Kelly, 2012). The use of BWCs can only be effective when they are based on a centralized command. The centralize command makes it difficult for law enforcement officers to misuse BWCs because of enhanced oversight, monitoring, and control, resulting in a high degree of accountability and transparency. However, the criminal justice agency may not give the police the discretion to respect the privacy of individuals, especially when they are using BWCs (Kelly, 2012). The junior police officers may not have the power to make decisions on whether to use BWCs, particularly in situations when the privacy rights of a person can be violated. 

The US Congress passed the Patriot Act in 2001 after the country experienced the worst terrorist attacks that killed thousands of people and led to massive destruction of property. The Act expanded the search as well as surveillance of law enforcement officers significantly (O'Donnell, 2004). At the same time, the Act made substantial changes on laws that relate to the privacy of individuals, especially concerning the use of electronic or digital devices. The Act gives laws enforcement agencies excessive powers over individual privacy. The Act does not require any information that is obtained by the law enforcement agency to be destroyed even it violates the privacy rights of a person (O'Donnell, 2004). Police may use the provisions of the Act to use BWCs without considering the privacy of individuals. The Patriot makes it challenging for people to complain against the violation of their privacy when the police are using BWCs. 

Like the Patriot Act, the Homeland Security Act was created after the 2001 terror attack in the US, and it is primarily intended to prevent terrorist attacks while reducing any vulnerability to terrorism. The Act gives Homeland Security the power to access any information that is required to investigate and prevent terrorism (O'Donnell, 2004). Therefore, the Act makes it possible for Homeland Security to access all information captured by BWCs, which may end up violating the privacy rights of individuals. However, the privacy office that was created by the Act may help in protecting privacy rights. 

The international and criminal justice mainly focuses on addressing global crimes. However, the main challenge of addressing international law is the sovereignty of countries. Even though international criminal justice is aimed at enhancing global accountability, nations are hesitant to implement international laws (Ballin, 2018). As a result, it is challenging for a person to successfully challenge a case when a foreign country violates his privacy rights. Local law enforcement has no jurisdiction over other countries, which may increase the violation of privacy rights if BWCs are misused. 

Two Careers in Criminal Justice 

The first career that should be created by the law enforcement agencies is Privacy Monitoring Officer (PMO). The central role of PMO should be to ensure that the information and videos that are collected by BWCs do not violate the privacy of individuals. Besides, PMO should make sure that the use of BWCs is in line with privacy laws and regulation in the country. The second career is BWC analyst whose main role is to ensure that information contained in BWCs is relevant and accurate. The Analyst should review and analyze BWC video footages before they are used. 

Conclusion 

The use of BWCs by law enforcement agencies and officers is increasingly becoming popular in the US and other parts of the world. Both the police and the public have embraced the use of BWCs because they enhance accountability and transparency, including reduced use of excessive force by the law enforcement officers. The technology is also beneficial to the criminal justice system. However, many people and organizations are concerned that BWCs can be used to violate the privacy rights of American people. As a result, the police should have the discretion on when to use BWCs, as this may help in protecting the privacy of persons. Also, the existing disclosure laws should be redesigned to enhance the protection of privacy rights. Although BWCs are beneficial, they should not be used to violate privacy rights grossly. 

References 

Adams, I., & Mastracci, S. (2017). Visibility is a Trap: The Ethics of Police Body-Worn Cameras and Control. Administrative Theory & Praxis , 39 (4), 313-328. 

Arditti, J. A., & Le Roux, T. (2015). And Justice for All: Families & the Criminal Justice System. Groves Monographs on Marriage and Family . Retrieved from https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/idx/g/groves/9453087.0004.001/1:1/--and-justice-for-all-families-the-criminal-justice-system?rgn=div1;view=fulltext 

Ariel, B., Sutherland, A., Henstock, D., Young, J., Drover, P., Sykes, J., ... & Henderson, R. (2018). Paradoxical effects of self-awareness of being observed: testing the effect of police body-worn cameras on assaults and aggression against officers. Journal of Experimental Criminology , 14 (1), 19-47. 

Ballin, E. H. (2018). The Value of International Criminal Justice: How Much International Criminal Justice Can the World Afford? International Criminal Law Review , 1 (3), 1-13. 

Hounkpatin, H. O., Wood, A. M., Boyce, C. J., & Dunn, G. (2015). An existential-humanistic view of personality change: Co-occurring changes with psychological well-being in a 10-year cohort study. Social Indicators Research , 121 (2), 455-470. 

Hyatt, J. M., Mitchell, R. J., & Ariel, B. (2017). The Effects of a Mandatory Body-Worn Camera, Policy on Officer Perceptions of Accountability, Oversight, and Departmental Culture. Villanova Law Review, 62(5) , 1005-1035. 

Kampfe, K. (2015). Police-worn body cameras: Balancing privacy and accountability through state and police department action. Ohio State Law Journal , 76(5) , 1153-1200. 

Kelly, E. I. (2012). Desert and fairness in criminal justice. Philosophical Topics , 40 (1), 63-77. 

Newell, B. C. (2016). Collateral Visibility: A Socio-Legal Study of Police Body-Camera Adoption, Privacy, and Public Disclosure in Washington State. Indiana Law J ournal , 92(4) , 1329-1399. 

O'Donnell, M. J. (2004). Reading for terrorism: Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act and the Constitutional right to information privacy. Journal of Legislation, 31(1) , 45-68. 

Stalcup, M., & Hahn, C. (2016). Cops, cameras, and the policing of ethics. Theoretical Criminology , 20 (4), 482-501. 

Thomas, E. (2016). The Privacy Case for Body Cameras: The Need for a Privacy-Centric Approach to Body Camera Policymaking. Columbia Journal of Law & Social Problems , 50(2) , 191-228. 

Vargas, J. D. (2008). From arrest to sentencing: A comparative analysis of the criminal justice system processing for rape crimes. Dados , 4 (2), 12-22. 

Wong, K. S., & Kim, M. H. (2014). Towards self-awareness privacy protection for the Internet of things data collection. Journal of Applied Mathematics , 2014 .