PAX Centurion - Spring 2019

www.bppa.org PAX CENTURION • Spring 2019 • Page 11 Body Cameras: Issues of privacy, safety and civil rights collide Cops required to make the split second decisions that take our courts years to decide B ODYCAMERAFOOTAGE: Everybody likes police body camera videos, don’t they? They make for great entertainment on the evening news and the “Live” police dramas. Exciting, right? Makes you feel like you’re right there, even though you’re an armchair quarterback second-guessing and critiquing cops from the comfort and safety of home. Now, let’s turn the body camera on… YOU , John Q. Public. Let’s release video footage from your most recent, embarrassing family-trouble call, motor vehicle stop, or trip to the No-Tell Motel or massage parlor. “ Oh, No, No, No, ” you say. I want the officers to “turn off” the body camera when they’re inside my home or business. “That’s an invasion of my privacy.” Yeah, maybe body cameras aren’t such a good idea, John Q. Public, when the camera is being at pointed at YOU, that is… This is just one of many conundrums the police officer faces nowadays, in this day and age of advanced technology and supposed “transparency” which is literally eating away at any semblance of what used to be considered privacy. And today’s police officer is expected to make these decisions about privacy and civil rights in mere seconds, decisions that often take our court system years to decide. According to the current BPD policy about body camera usage (SO- 16-023, dated 7-12-16, issued during the 2016-2017 pilot project), Officers should record contacts with civilians in virtually ALL encounters, including motor vehicle stops, investigative stops, radio call responses, and any contact that becomes or could become “adversarial” (NOTE: doesn’t that describe almost ALL police-civilian encounters?). But during one of the most contentious – and dangerous – of police-civilian encounters- the call for a family trouble/domestic disturbance- we need to seek the occupant’s “consent to record” (“…before entering a private residence… the BWC Officer shall seek the occupant’s consent to continue to record… if the civilian declines to give consent, the BWC officer shall not record in the residence…”). Common sense would dictate that during this most dangerous and contentious of radio calls is probably the most critical time for an Officer to have the body-cam “ON.” As we know from experience, tempers and passions can flare instantaneously during a family trouble call, and the police who were called there can quickly become the focus of anger and rage. But the current rule tells us that the “occupant” can order us to turn the BWC “OFF” to protect their privacy? The current rule also puts officers in legal jeopardy when “recording in areas where there may be a reasonable expectation of privacy. Such locations may include locker rooms, places of worship, religious ceremonies, hospitals or clinics, law offices, day care facilities, etc.” “Areas where there may be a reasonable expectation of privacy…” is indeed a broad term open to subjective interpretation, and certainly leaves the officer hanging in the wind for future lawsuits and disciplinary actions. Lots of different people and many legal experts have differing opinions as to what might constitute a place where they have a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” The courts often take years to determine issues of “reasonable expectations of privacy.” But street- level police officers are supposed to do it in split-seconds, or face possible lawsuits and suspensions. Despite the glowing reports about the BWC pilot-program issued from the BPD and the City, ( confirming their own preconceived conclusions ), there were several reported instances where the presence of a body camera may have inflamed the situation at hand. In one instance reported to the Pax by our plain-clothes officers, a traffic stop was conducted of a suspect who exited his car, observed the officer wearing a body camera and immediately attacked the officer, ripping the camera off the officer’s body. The suspect began to run away, but was apprehended, and a gun was recovered. The officers expressed their feeling that the assault occurred because of the suspect’s anger at being filmed. This experience by our own officers may very well be in line with a study published by the European Journal of Criminology ( euc.sagepub.com , May 25, 2016) which found that wearing body cameras actually increased assaults against officers. “… One direct explanation might be that BWV’s escalate an already inflamed police-public encounter, which results By James W. Carnell, Pax Editor See Body Cameras on page 14