Lapel Cameras on cops reduce complaints by 88%
Ultra conservatives, like grind, will claim that minorities stop resisting when you turn on the camera, but it never seemed to stop the drunk rednecks on Cops.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ear-a-lapel-camera-while-on-duty/?tid=rssfeed
Police officers in Rialto, Calif., carry cameras to record their every action while on duty. The city says the program has reduced complaints against police officers by 88 percent during the first year.
The idea is sparking debate across the country. On Wednesday, the American Civil Liberties Union endorsed the idea. In a short position paper endorsing the idea, it also emphasized the potential for the technology to be misused, and recommended policies to minimize the potential downsides.
"Although we generally take a dim view of the proliferation of surveillance cameras in American life, police on-body cameras are different because of their potential to serve as a check against the abuse of power by police officers," the civil liberties group argues.
...
Of course, many police officers aren't thrilled at the idea of their every move being recorded. And some people who interact with the police might also regard the cameras as invasive.
So recording every minute of an officer's shift probably isn't practical. But if officers get to choose when to turn on the camera, there's a risk that they'll just turn it off before they do something that could later get them in trouble.
To deal with this problem, the ACLU advocates a "department-wide policy that mandates that police turn on recordings during every interaction with the public." And they think this requirement needs teeth. For example, the courts might have a rule excluding evidence collected by an officer who had his camera turned off.
But the advocacy group does favor some exceptions. For example, they would have the police comply with requests to deactivate their cameras before entering a private residence. Because such a request request would typically be caught on camera, they would be easy to verify after the fact.
The ACLU argues that most footage should be deleted quickly — "in weeks not years." Footage that is relevant to an arrest or a citizen complaint would be held for a longer period. Footage would be released to the public if the subject of a video consented to it.
Ultra conservatives, like grind, will claim that minorities stop resisting when you turn on the camera, but it never seemed to stop the drunk rednecks on Cops.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ear-a-lapel-camera-while-on-duty/?tid=rssfeed
Police officers in Rialto, Calif., carry cameras to record their every action while on duty. The city says the program has reduced complaints against police officers by 88 percent during the first year.
The idea is sparking debate across the country. On Wednesday, the American Civil Liberties Union endorsed the idea. In a short position paper endorsing the idea, it also emphasized the potential for the technology to be misused, and recommended policies to minimize the potential downsides.
"Although we generally take a dim view of the proliferation of surveillance cameras in American life, police on-body cameras are different because of their potential to serve as a check against the abuse of power by police officers," the civil liberties group argues.
...
Of course, many police officers aren't thrilled at the idea of their every move being recorded. And some people who interact with the police might also regard the cameras as invasive.
So recording every minute of an officer's shift probably isn't practical. But if officers get to choose when to turn on the camera, there's a risk that they'll just turn it off before they do something that could later get them in trouble.
To deal with this problem, the ACLU advocates a "department-wide policy that mandates that police turn on recordings during every interaction with the public." And they think this requirement needs teeth. For example, the courts might have a rule excluding evidence collected by an officer who had his camera turned off.
But the advocacy group does favor some exceptions. For example, they would have the police comply with requests to deactivate their cameras before entering a private residence. Because such a request request would typically be caught on camera, they would be easy to verify after the fact.
The ACLU argues that most footage should be deleted quickly — "in weeks not years." Footage that is relevant to an arrest or a citizen complaint would be held for a longer period. Footage would be released to the public if the subject of a video consented to it.
Last edited:
