PAX Centurion - Spring 2019

www.bppa.org PAX CENTURION • Spring 2019 • Page 15 A s we have all heard by now, Mayor MartyWalsh’s administration is pressing forward with a desire to have a permanent Body Worn Program for patrol officers. This is despite the review and report of the City’s own consultants that clearly does not show a real need for the program. It also gives too much credence to a very limited number of special interest groups and not nearly enough weight to what the “silent majority” of Boston residents may want. I would like to share some of my concerns regarding BWCs with some information I found in various studies along with some concerns I have with our members wearing BWCs and situations I could see arising if the language in the policy is not on our side. Some people respond negatively – even violently – to being filmed by police, especially people who may be drunk, on drugs, or have mental health issues. A study published by the European Journal of Criminology found that officers were assaulted at a 14% higher rate when BWC’s were in use. University of Oklahoma Professor of Law Stephen Henderson says BWC’s can be psychologically damaging to officers as “Nobody does well under constant surveillance.” A study done by UK Home Office cites potential health and safety issues with BWC’s including head and neck injuries, electric shock from damaged equipment and radio failures if cameras and radios were used in close proximity to each other. Chief Ken Miller of Greensboro, NC says “If citizens think that they’re going to be recorded every time they talk to an officer, regardless of the content, it is going to damage openness and create barriers to important relationships.” (I thought community policing was a priority for the City of Boston?) A study done in Edmonton says potential witnesses were reluctant to speak in the presence of BWC’s even when switched off fearing retaliation from suspects. A study done in Washington, D.C., says BWC’s did not have a significant impact on use of force by officers, or citizen complaints. The behavior of officers who wore BWC’s was indistinguishable from behavior of officers not wearing them. It also said that cameras affected community trust in ways that do not show up in data. DC concluded that BWC’s had no statistically significant impact on officers’ use of force. It might prevent the occasional swear word or unpleasant comment but when it was time to use force, officers used force. Cameras did not have an effect. Another study stated it’s also possible that BWC’s could increase use of force: Perhaps most officers show restraint in heated situations to avoid being accused of bad behavior. Officers who show restraint in fear of being accused and disciplined may become more likely to use force when they know camera footage will demonstrate the facts were on their side. Conventional wisdom predicted that cops using BWCs would My concerns with body worn cameras By Mike Paradis, Gang Unit make fewer arrests, use force less often, enjoy higher prosecution or conviction rates and sustain less citizen complaints. That mostly did not happen. The cost of this BWC program is also already incredibly high with no signs that it will not balloon to a crippling level. Equipping officers with BWCs is extremely expensive due to the following factors: the actual camera, storage, storage equipment, training, storage facilities, extra staff to manage data and maintenance costs. For example, to equip Bakersfield PD (200 officers) with BWCs, it will cost $440,000 a year. Philadelphia (4,000 officers) just signed for BWCs with an estimated price of $12.5 million. Departments in Connecticut, Indiana, Nebraska and Utah have suspended the BWC program citing rising costs. The cost, by far, outweighs the benefit. I believe the City of Boston could use this kind of money on more important issues such as repairing roads, repairing crumbling police stations or maybe MORE POLICE OFFICERS. They know that our members are being ordered for several double shifts a week and even the occasional triple shift due to the lack of officers in the “patrol force”. They do not care. I feel, for the most part, that cops in Boston have always utilized the “watchmen” style or even the “service” style of policing. This is where cops tend to use the right of arrest as a last resort; often ignoring minor “crimes” such as VAL’s or drinking in public unless the community asks officers to enforce quality of life issues. This is done, both using discretion and “dropping the hammer”, to improve relationships and establish trust and goodwill between the officers and the people in our City. The other style of policing is the “legalistic” style. This is like what they use in Los Angeles. This is where officers act more like soldiers or robots and follow rules strictly and enforce ALL of the laws. These officers have no discretion to treat anyone differently; regardless of the circumstance. Now picture this and honestly answer if this could happen. Let’s say you make a traffic stop and the driver has a suspended license. You take him out of the car and a firearm is under the seat. He is arrested and charged accordingly. Now when he gets a lawyer, he/she will get access to the BWC footage from that incident. From what I understand, BWC footage will be open to the public in some way. It is the defense attorney’s job to make you look bad. Any lawyer who wouldn’t go to HQ and request the last 6 months of your footage to study and dissect would be negligent. When that lawyer finds that you gave “breaks” to several other people for a VAL’s and not his client, you will be painted as a racist, homophobe, xenophobe or any other phobe they can think of. Could I see one of our local liberal judges agreeing with this lawyer? YES. And now you are a racist or guilty of some other negative transgression because a judge said so? Where does your career go from there? Think about it. This is just See Cameras on page 47