Using video cameras to record what a police officer did is not a new phenomenon. Allegations of racial profiling and other police misconduct as well as corrosion of the public’s confidence in the police had prompted police departments across the country to install in-car cameras to provide objective accounts of traffic stops and police encounters with the public. [1] A study conducted by International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) found that in-car police cameras overall had a positive impact – increasing officer safety, boosting citizens’ confidence in the police by recording inappropriate police behavior, and reducing frivolous complaints against police for lack of professionalism or courtesy. [2] However, these in-car cameras can only capture about 5 percent of what a police officer did, and much of what occurs in the field are lost. [3] With no unbiased evidence, complaints filed against a police officer devolve into a “he-said-she-said” argument.
In response to the costs of civil litigation, worries regarding police accountability, and effectiveness of in-car cameras, some police departments have started equipping their officers with portable body cameras. [4][5] One recent study in Rialto, California shows that in the first year that body cameras were introduced, “the number of complaints filed against officers fell by 88 percent compared with the previous 12 months.” [6] In addition, “[u]se of force by officers fell by almost 60 percent over the same period.” [7] Two months ago, a federal judge had ruled that NYPD’s stop-and-frisk tactics as unconstitutional and had order the NYPD to initiate a one-year pilot program that would require officers to wear body cameras to record their dealings with the public. [8][9]
However, not everyone is happy with the idea of equipping body cameras on police officers. Although public advocates do see body cameras as deterrent to police misconduct, a principal complaint is privacy invasion. [10] Critics are concerned with the handling and storing of the data captured on these cameras. [11] There are a lot of potential for abuse. For example, data captured by an officer should not be broadcasted to the evening news; neither should the data be allowed to be emailed around the police department. [12] Police officers often interact with public citizens when they are in a sensitive, embarrassing or traumatic state, and that information should not be easily accessible or distributed. [13] And opposition to body cameras is not only on the public front. Although they recognize the value of body cameras, some police officers and governmental officials see body cameras as an encumbrance. [14][15]
Despite the opposition, police departments have started pilot programs to test out the effectiveness of these cameras, especially in larger cities such as Los Angeles and New York City. [16][17] Installing body cameras on police officers may be an effective way of utilizing technology to increase police accountability and to provide unbiased accounts of contentious events. There is a potential for this technology to become the new industry standard, like the in-car dashboard cameras; but this technology should not be used if the police department cannot adequately regulate its use so as to prevent invasion of privacy and significant encumbrance on an officer.