Abstract
There are divided opinion regarding the use of body cameras by law enforcement officers in the U.S. Among the greatest concerns relate to transparency, accountability, and the public’s perception of it. In particular, the use of body cameras in law enforcement has helped create legitimacy and build on public perception based on how their use is encompassed on issues such as public privacy and gathering of evidence. Body cameras are critical in surveillance, evidence gathering and monitoring of activities. Body cameras are imperative in improving safety of officers, addressing civilian complaints on wrongdoing, enhancing evidence quality, and reducing agency liability in cases of abuse of office. The use of body camera enhance transparency in service delivery and enhancing standards that enhance conformity to the law. There are, however, concerns of increased cases of citizen privacy emanating from high levels of surveillance and intrusion into private lives without consent of the members. This paper address critical concerns of body camera use by law enforcement officers.
Use of Body Cameras in Law Enforcement
Law enforcement is a multifaceted discipline that continues to receive a divided opinion on to what extent officers of the law are allowed to interact with civilians while discharging their duties. Different dimensions in law enforcement have seen agencies involved with public security work towards improving transparency and accountability in their practice as a way of remaining legitimate (Lin, 2016). Law enforcement roles and their execution rely significantly on the perception of the public towards the officers of the law and their role among them. Gaining legitimacy remains a key factor in police work as officers are expected to discharge civilian authority within the confines of law without appearing to violate any laws (Hartzog, 2017). Striking such a balance remains a tall order as all actions involved in discharging duties are always easily interpreted as a violation (Gimbel, 2015). Technology has aided efforts towards building trust and legitimacy when officers go out on their roles and enforcing laws. The use of body cameras, microphones, and other recording devices have effectively filled the void that existed in contextualizing real-time context that informed police actions (Lin, 2016). Body cameras and other aiding tools to law enforcement have been used as tools that aid accountability and their inclusion as evidence continues to raise divergent opinions from the public (Stoughton, 2017). The paper assesses how the application of body cameras in law enforcement has helped create legitimacy and build on public perception based on how their use is encompassed on issues such as public privacy and gathering of evidence.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Law enforcement is one of the areas in security that has seen the deployment of significant technology for purposes of surveillance, evidence gathering, and real-time monitoring of service delivery. Officers of the law across different departments charged with the role of enforcing laws of the land are always tasked with the responsibility of representing the force as transparently as ought to and should not be seen as in violation of the same laws they are charged with upholding (Lin, 2016). Consequently, the use of technology in law enforcement has employed the use of body cameras as the most dominant tool for purposes of recording evidence as well as creating legitimacy with the public. According to Hartzog (2017), general-purpose law enforcement officers and agencies have resorted to the use of body cameras as a way of improving officer safety, reduce civilian complaints on wrongdoing, and improve evidence quality as well as reducing agency liability when it comes to cases of abuse of office. The deliberate inclusion of body cameras as a tool has been to ensure that their deployment is on a full-purpose basis (Gimbel, 2015). Officers' use of body-worn cameras has always been guaranteed full access to the footages from their exercise based on the Body Wear Camera (BWC) Policy that calls upon such agencies that deploy cameras into the civilian society to be fully responsible for their footage.
The cameras have become an instant adaptable device within law enforcement agencies based on their portability as they are small and easily disguisable. The cameras are always attached to officers either as buttons, glass cameras, helmet cameras, and clothing. The devices effectively are deployed in a way that the gathered information can easily be accessed before storing them locally in drives that can be externally accessed (Lin, 2016). In more advanced cases, these cameras always upload these footages and recordings onto web-based storage facilities such as clod platforms where they can be remotely accessed for future reference (Stoughton, 2017). General-purpose officers of law enforcement have been identified as the key users of such devices, the majority of the members of the force-fitted with body cameras are always sworn in to diligently employ cameras and other recording devices in their role as full-time law enforcement agencies.
Arguments on the need of the Body-Worn Cameras
Different factions have argued on the need as well as the use of body cameras. However, regardless of the dividing positions, a consensus remains on the importance of having law enforcement agencies adopting technology as a means of improving service delivery. Body cameras have been credited as a key aspect in modern law enforcement as it has the ability to providing critical detail in the events of investigations (Gimbel, 2015). Police work among other law enforcement roles requires significant levels of accountability. In cases that warrant either internal or external investigations, law enforcement agencies have always relied on on-camera evidence to offer first-hand information as to what transpired at the scene of such incidences (Lin, 2016). Cameras have always worked towards ensuring that they provide the appropriate evidence that would serve as a reliable account as to the truth in cases where proof is required (Stoughton, 2017). Body-wear camera use, therefore, continues to receive support from both public and policymakers as it aids transparency in service while helping officers of the law keep their conduct within the allowable standards as to avoid public displeasure (Lin, 2016). Continued use of body cameras ensures that police efforts recorded under surveillance are accredited and receive a positive opinion from the community. Standards are considered a key aspect of law enforcement with the public being concerned with the effective and transparent manner the uniformed forces can deliver service to them. Body cameras play a central role in integrating quality service with public opinion as a way of realizing the set goals by indulging the public into accepting new ways of service delivery.
Citizen Privacy Issues
The need to incorporate efficiency and discipline within the police force has sparked the need for body-worn cameras in law enforcement. Adopting the use of cameras has promised transparency on police service to civilians while ensuring that citizens' expectations of the law enforcement agencies are in no way contravening privacy (Lin, 2016). Accountability in law enforcement has, therefore, come at a cost to the public with the majority decrying the increased level of surveillance and intrusion into private lives without appropriate permission. The victims of the need for transparent law enforcement force are both officers of the law and civilians. According to Gimbel (2015) momentum on issues of privacy has seen the technology proposers consider several legal parameters under which the cameras can be deployed as a way of striking a balance between the responsibilities of the officers and the social approval of police work.
Concern areas have been surrounding violation of rights such as rights to picket, demonstrations, and informant roles. While cameras record valuable material that relates to how officers’ conduct their roles, body-worn cameras have the potential of derailing other roles and public civilian rights (Gimbel, 2015). However, it remains admittedly so that it requires a significant level of competence among the law enforcers to walk the line between privacy and accountability. Deploying cameras among the civilians can be challenged in courts as surveillance without proper authorization as some units of law enforcement have their cameras always running in public gathering images and recordings between the police officers and the public (Hartzog, 2017). Such situations always leave the public vulnerable to changes of what might be considered as acceptable and what is regarded as in contravention.
The increase in agencies engaged in law enforcement that deploy cameras has been increasing. Notable has been the relaxed acceptance trends from the public that appears to have accepted the fact that the cameras are indeed mounted by these officers for their benefit (Hartzog, 2017). The consensus that exists in public discourse about the use and continued importance of body-worn cameras has seen an increased acceptance in the public perception. Several civilians have backed the effort as being in line with the government efforts aimed at making law enforcement transparent (Myers, 2017). The belief that through recorded evidence, it is possible to decipher trustworthy information from police officers and their interaction with civilians has been identified as an initial way to meeting the demands of the public and their expectations (Lin, 2016). Cameras are increasingly becoming commonplace in law enforcement as more officers and units of law enforcement in general-purpose assign themselves to the application guidelines as a way of deploying worn cameras into the public space.
The privacy concerns have therefore described the use of body cameras as a double-edged sword in a metaphoric context referring to the idea that, while it is allowable for cameras to be used for transparency purposes there are fears that it can be abused for surveillance (Myers, 2017). The school of thought that continues to hold contempt against the unrestricted use of body cameras by law enforcement agencies harbors the idea that public recordings can be easily manipulated by officers for selfish gains or surveillance (Gimbel, 2015). The claims have been based on the fact idea that, despite many departments in law enforcement adopting body-worn cameras, there exists limited reported benefits on transparency as had been envisaged. According to Lin (2016), law enforcement cameras have been used to gather inconclusive details on cases since they are always challenged in courts of law for inadmissibility, their application to fighting crime has always been brought to question. The failed attempts to integrate the evidence gathered by these hours of recording with other sources of recorded information have always been a hindrance to its success.
Public Record Issues
Increasing cases of violence on civilians in the hands or custody of officers of law enforcement remains a significant case on how despite accepting and adopting body-worn cameras, limited transparency or responsibility has been instilled in the service. Objections have therefore been raised as to why cameras have been allowed to be deployed as tools of security without having appropriate policies governing their application (Hartzog, 2017). The public recording issues with cameras have been ongoing and as another factor, its utilization has added voice to concerns over privacy. The recorded individuals in such footage may seek legal redress when presented before courts terming the process illegal (Myers, 2017). The public recording of people with no proper documentation authorizing such practices has proved costly on the part of law enforcement agencies such as the police department gaining public trust and legitimacy (Lin, 2016). The recordings of public videos and their use as evidence have proved to be quite demanding. In a single day, officers record hours of footage that may be difficult to compile especially when seeking to extract information for evidence purposes. Accessing quality and verifiable public recordings for evidence can, therefore, prove resourceful in ensuring that law enforcers remain objective in their roles. However, the use of body cameras has always ensured that there exists a common ground for data problems. The data recording issues, especially on the publically collected information. The place of power in the transfer of information and how its authenticity remains guaranteed is a constant factor in understanding the use of body cameras (Gimbel, 2015). Privacy issues have made it impossible to access information from officers implicating themselves in committing some of the acts that are considered a crime. It is the controversies that have surrounded the reliability of police-obtained footage or recording that has continued to see several jurisdictions dismiss police armature recordings from their body-worn cameras.
Destruction and Storage
Law enforcement cameras are always worn on different body gear used by officers that include their clothing, helmets, and glasses. According to Myers (2017) wearable parts have always been exposed to several external elements that include bad weather, mishandling, and loss of critical data. Since these cameras are recording and exposed to such an environment, some issues have been raised concerning the safety and reliability of body cameras as evidence sources as well as a benchmark for security accountability (Gimbel, 2015). In an argument, the unaligned nature of use and storage of such data has always meant that the reliance on body-camera evidence remains a costly and uncertain aspect of managing public perception. On the aspect of safety and reliability, the continued deterioration of the relationship between law enforcement agencies such as the police force and local communities due to police behavior signals a lack of inefficiency of the approach when tackling cases of public security and administrative transparency (Gimbel, 2015). The role of police officers in the storage of the public recordings has always remained contentious with the majority of opinions against the idea that officers can submit incriminating videos for review knowingly since they always lead to disciplinary. Such sentiments have anchored on the fact that officers continue to hold autonomy as to what is captured and submitted for storage by their cameras.
The limitation of Police Use of Camera
Public opinion on body-worn cameras remains biased on the aspect of its roles and application. Popular opinion is that there is a need for having cameras as an aiding tool for law enforcement. Wearable cameras by law enforcement officers hence remain acceptable (Myers, 2017). However, divided perspectives have been on how effective these devices can be turned useful within the confines of the law. The need to foster accountability, privacy, security to data, and public safety has remained as leading objectives of the law enforcement agencies (Hartzog, 2017). The use of the camera by officers has in many jurisdictions acceptable though with many reservations. There exists a need for integrating law enforcement efforts with the reality of service delivery. Body cameras while considered to increase transparency, have a significant limitation based on how and where they can be applied. Public and unregulated use has been considered intrusive and ineffective as officers are employed to rely on their cameras as opposed to crime-fighting intuition (Gimbel, 2015). Further, reducing the widespread use of cameras in public spaces would increase public confidence in law enforcement officers as a move to quell the uproar over breach of privacy and other rights.
Other areas of concern have been on officer privacy especially in general-purpose units where it remains mandatory for officers in such units to have their cameras on while on performing their duties. In such cases, enforcement officers have always seek redress in cases where they would need moments of privacy such as when they visit washrooms. The pleas are, however, unresolved and managed to remain key when ensuring that camera footages received from public recordings are all aligned to fighting crime. Understanding the role that body cameras play as a tool for integrating quality service to the public has been marred by the persistent resentment from negative public opinion that considers all aspects of camera use in law enforcement as failure; there is need to indulge the civilians into accepting new ways of service delivery.
References
Gimbel, V. N. (2015). Body cameras and criminal discovery. Geo. LJ , 104 , 1581.
Hartzog, W. (2017). Body Cameras and the Path to Redeem Privacy Law. NCL Rev. , 96 , 1257.
Lin, R. (2016). Police body worn cameras and privacy: retaining benefits while reducing public concerns. Duke L. & Tech. Rev. , 14 , 346.
Myers, R. E. (2017). Police-Generated Digital Video: Five Key Questions, Multiple Audiences, and a Range of Answers. NCL Rev. , 96 , 1237.
Stoughton, S. W. (2017). Police body-worn cameras. NCL Rev. , 96 , 1363.
