dnewton3
Staff member
First and foremost, let's stay out of the political discussion here.
If you cannot do so, please do not comment and post.
I am looking to engage discussion ONLY from a legal perspective.
Disclaimer - I'm pro cop, so just keep that in mind.
And so I begin ...
Many agencies today are implementing body worn cameras (BWCs) for police officers. Whereas the first matter of concern for any agency is to protect itself and assist in prosecution, there does exist a benefit to the individual officer who may well be exonerated in court (not public opinion, but legal or civil proceedings) via the data such recordings provide. Not all officers embrace BWCs, but those who do have little to fear because they are the least likely to do anything wrong and more likely to be proven right. I'm not saying that officers who do not embrace the technology are bad cops; that's not my point at all. I'm saying that those who do wish to use the systems are likely to be vindicated, should an issue arise to scrutiny.
Also, just like with all things in life, we must agree that BWCS are tools, and no tool is perfect. They are great at some things, but they will never solve all issues. However, they are very good in many situations. Just like a hammer is a poor tool to install a light bulb, it's still one heck of a linear driver. So goes the BWCs. They have challenges and advantages; they have benefits and limitations. But they are far more helpful than hurtful in most situations, and can seriously reduce (often eliminate) legal proceedings due to perception bias, and outright fraudulent claims, on both sides of the equation.
I see this as a matter of "rights". (Being careful to tiptoe around politics and stick to statutes and case law) ...
Multiple recent state and federal (even SCOTUS) civil case law decisions have indicated that the 1st Amendment recognizes the individual's right to record their own interactions with police, and also allow 3rd party recordings of interactions with police in public. Further, there's been no successful challenge to any agency that uses recordings in public domain for prosecution efforts, that I'm aware of. IOW - the government can record what happens in public and the public can record the government in public. But until now, there's not be much discussion about how an officer can record himself (and others) in public, specifically for his own legal defense.
Here's the conundrum ...
What happens in these situations?
1) the agency does not offer BWCs, leaving the officer without said tool
2) the agency offers BWCs to some personnel but not all, and prohibits the use of BWCs not issued, thereby leaving some officers without said tool
- In situation 1, the agency simply either has chosen not to utilize the BWC as a tool, or cannot afford such systems. Because they don't have a BWC system, they are also unlikely to have a BWC policy. So if the agency is not providing a BWC system and storage, should the officer be allowed to utilize his own system?
- In situation 2, the agency offers a system for some officers, but does not offer it to all officers. As such, because they do have a system and policy in place, and that policy prohibits officers without systems from using their own.
In either situation, how do you feel about such constraints?
Would you support taxes for your locality to purchase a reasonable BWC system available to all officers?
Or, at a very minimum, not prohibit officers from purchasing and utilizing their own system?
Would you support legislation in your state that specifically allows officers to utilize their own systems if not provided by their agency?
If you cannot do so, please do not comment and post.
I am looking to engage discussion ONLY from a legal perspective.
Disclaimer - I'm pro cop, so just keep that in mind.
And so I begin ...
Many agencies today are implementing body worn cameras (BWCs) for police officers. Whereas the first matter of concern for any agency is to protect itself and assist in prosecution, there does exist a benefit to the individual officer who may well be exonerated in court (not public opinion, but legal or civil proceedings) via the data such recordings provide. Not all officers embrace BWCs, but those who do have little to fear because they are the least likely to do anything wrong and more likely to be proven right. I'm not saying that officers who do not embrace the technology are bad cops; that's not my point at all. I'm saying that those who do wish to use the systems are likely to be vindicated, should an issue arise to scrutiny.
Also, just like with all things in life, we must agree that BWCS are tools, and no tool is perfect. They are great at some things, but they will never solve all issues. However, they are very good in many situations. Just like a hammer is a poor tool to install a light bulb, it's still one heck of a linear driver. So goes the BWCs. They have challenges and advantages; they have benefits and limitations. But they are far more helpful than hurtful in most situations, and can seriously reduce (often eliminate) legal proceedings due to perception bias, and outright fraudulent claims, on both sides of the equation.
I see this as a matter of "rights". (Being careful to tiptoe around politics and stick to statutes and case law) ...
Multiple recent state and federal (even SCOTUS) civil case law decisions have indicated that the 1st Amendment recognizes the individual's right to record their own interactions with police, and also allow 3rd party recordings of interactions with police in public. Further, there's been no successful challenge to any agency that uses recordings in public domain for prosecution efforts, that I'm aware of. IOW - the government can record what happens in public and the public can record the government in public. But until now, there's not be much discussion about how an officer can record himself (and others) in public, specifically for his own legal defense.
Here's the conundrum ...
What happens in these situations?
1) the agency does not offer BWCs, leaving the officer without said tool
2) the agency offers BWCs to some personnel but not all, and prohibits the use of BWCs not issued, thereby leaving some officers without said tool
- In situation 1, the agency simply either has chosen not to utilize the BWC as a tool, or cannot afford such systems. Because they don't have a BWC system, they are also unlikely to have a BWC policy. So if the agency is not providing a BWC system and storage, should the officer be allowed to utilize his own system?
- In situation 2, the agency offers a system for some officers, but does not offer it to all officers. As such, because they do have a system and policy in place, and that policy prohibits officers without systems from using their own.
In either situation, how do you feel about such constraints?
Would you support taxes for your locality to purchase a reasonable BWC system available to all officers?
Or, at a very minimum, not prohibit officers from purchasing and utilizing their own system?
Would you support legislation in your state that specifically allows officers to utilize their own systems if not provided by their agency?