A 2013 report on a year-long field experiment using body-worn cameras on Rialto, Calif., police officers found that “with the level of certainty of apprehension for professional misconduct set at 100%,” use of force incidents dropped by more than 50 percent. And compared to the previous year, use-of-force complaints dropped 10 fold, from 28 to 3, with only one made against a camera-wearing officer.
The cameras used in the study were manufactured by TASER Inc., just like the 50 units Pittsburgh Bureau of Police purchased two years ago.
Those units were actually deployed with bicycle and motorcycle officers, until the bureau was notified it was in violation of state wiretap laws, which only permitted police cruisers-mounted video capability. Governor Tom Corbett signed legislation two weeks ago amending the law to include an exemption for law enforcement recording.
The bureau completed its final policy draft for using the cameras at the end of July. It is now being reviewed by the city legal department.
Still there is no guarantee officer-worn cameras will either help vindicate officers involved in violent encounters with the public or disclose their misconduct because officers can simply not turn them on.
And while a body-camera video might have added more clarity to the April 21 officer-involved shooting of Adrian Williams—which ended beyond the range of patrol car cameras—there are reasons for officers to have the option to not activate them. Most involve privacy issues.
For instance, a stalking or harassment call might involve minor children who could be put at risk were they or their address visually recorded. Another possibility is that people could incriminate themselves on camera without ever having been sought for a crime or being informed of their rights.
The draft policy states that in the event a citation is issued during a call, the video “will be kept for 90 days or until the conclusion of all proceedings related to the citation.”
Though they may not be turned on in anyplace where someone “has a reasonable expectation of privacy,” there is nothing related to storing, editing or erasing any recordings from interactions that do not result in a citation. Naturally, that may change once the city’s legal department completes its review.
In the wake of last month’s officer involved shooting in Ferguson, Mo., that city has rushed to have its officers wear body cameras without any detailed policy in place.
The American Civil Liberties Union, though strongly opposed to the proliferation of surveillance cameras and their possible abuse, has given its tentative approval for police body-worn cameras due to their potential to curb police misconduct.
Public Safety Department spokesperson Sonya Toler said she could not comment on the body camera policy while it is under legal department review. She did say that when ready, the bureau would again issue the units to motorcycle and bicycle officers first because patrol-car officers already have video capability.
Expanding the deployment to patrol officers may be considered, but at $3,000 per unit, it would not be an inexpensive proposal. As of May 6, the Bureau had a total of 886 sworn officers and recruits. Of those, 564 are assigned to the six zone stations and the Special Deployment Division. Assuming the units are deployed and downloaded at the beginning and end of shifts, the bureau would only need units for a third of that number, which would cost $564,000.
A cost estimate for the associated data storage was not available, although in Rialto the bill runs to $20,000 a year.
(Send comments to cmorrow@newpittsburghcourier.com.)
