Study Says Body Cameras Can Reduce Force Usage... But Only If Officers Turn Them On
from the so,-you-can-see-where-the-problem-lies... dept
A couple of months ago, a study was released claiming to show a link between body camera use and a rise in shootings by officers. The small increase in shootings in 2015 -- an increase that wasn't shown in 2013 and 2014 -- could be nothing more than a normal deviation, but it was portrayed by the authors as something a bit more sinister.
First, we found that in police departments that conduct statistical analyses of digitized crime data, there are 2.15% fewer fatal shootings, substantiating our theoretical prediction that criminal intelligence can prevent police officers from using lethal force. Similarly, the use of smartphones by officers for intelligence access is related to 2.72% fewer deadly shootings. We obtained similar results from the alternative data from killedbypolice.net and the FBI. Surprisingly, we found that the use of wearable video cameras is associated with a 3.64% increase in shooting-deaths of civilians by the police. We explain that video recordings collected during a violent encounter with a civilian can be used in favor of a police officer as evidence that justifies the shooting.
Of all the conclusions to reach, claiming that officers felt more confident in their use of force because captured footage would be viewed as exculpatory is one of the more dubious. While officers are doubtlessly becoming more comfortable with their body cam ride-alongs, the lack of data leaves a lot of unanswered questions. For instance, how many shootings occurred when one or more officers "failied" to activate their cameras? Anecdotal evidence suggests body cameras are considered optional when excessive force is deployed.
Another study has been published suggesting two things: body cameras can reduce excessive force complaints… and that this is only achievable if camera use policies are stringently upheld.
The researchers found that when all stages of every police-public interaction was recorded, the cops' use of force fell by 37 per cent in comparison with camera-free shifts.
But:
However, during shifts in which officers used their discretion about when to start recording, their use of force actually rose 71 per cent.
Accountability tools are only as good as the departments deploying them. Very few officers are punished for treating their cameras as optional -- something that only needs to be activated when capturing interactions that are innocuous or show the officers in their best light.
It's a persistent problem that predates body cameras. Dash cams and body mics are still routinely disabled by officers even though these two recording methods have been in use for dozens of years. Officers who haven't been punished for thwarting these accountability tools aren't going to change their ways just because the camera is now on their body. And more recent additions to the workforce aren't going to need much time on the job to figure out that failing to capture footage of use of force incidents will have almost zero effect on their careers.
Obviously, it would be impossible to remove all control from officers wearing cameras. But there are steps that can be taken to reduce the number of times use of force incidents occur without anyone "seeing" them. In edge cases, the lack of footage -- especially if everything else that day was captured without difficulty -- should weigh heavily against officers when investigating use of force incidents. If an officer has the capability to capture footage of a disputed incident but doesn't, the burden of proof should shift to the officer, rather than the person making the complaint.
If police departments don't want to see themselves targeted with more possibly frivolous complaints and lawsuits, they need to ensure officers whose cameras routinely "malfunction" or aren't activated are held accountable for their refusal to maintain a record of their interactions with citizens. Law enforcement's history with older forms of recording technology is exactly spotless. Granting officers the benefit of a doubt with body cams is nothing more than the extension of unearned trust -- a gift law enforcement agencies seem to give themselves repeatedly.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: accountability, body cameras, police
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Such near-sighted support for criminals is disappointing, but not surprising.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How quaint.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In theory. In reality, the police have absolute authority to do whatever the hell they want and people have very little recourse against it.
Say a cop walks up and starts beating you, what can you do? If you defend yourself in any way, you're instantly guilty of committing a felony assault of a cop. If the criminal charges aren't worrying enough, there's also the fact that you could very likely be beaten to death by an additional 10+ cops who will come to the aid of your poor victim. The best you can hope for is that after you curl up into a ball to protect yourself, the cop decides to stop beating you before you end up in the hospital and that someone managed to capture the whole thing on video. If they only record the beating itself, the cop will swear on a stack of bibles that you threatened him, that you spat at him, that you attacked him first and this will be backed up by other cops who will swear they saw you do it.
Tell me that isn't absolute authority.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Such near-sighted support for criminals is disappointing, but not surprising."
So you're against cops being required to follow the laws at all times but you're also against supporting criminals.
The cognitive dissonance is mind blowing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They're not law-abiding.
Hell, they don't even need to know the laws they enforce, since we can't outfit them with a lawyer to explain their job to them.
That's why the public has so little respect for them. They've got the only job where incompetence is a valid excuse.
self-centered Americans can think of nothing better to do than shove mobile phones in the face of authority
Given that they work for ME, yeah, I'm fine with shoving a camera in their face. They can consult with a lawyer if they have a problem with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If the cop doesn't like it then they can get another job instead. See if any other employers will be interested in hiring someone to work for their own interests when on the job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
btw, good parody
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Inversion of meaning
That seems a surprising thing to write. Did you perhaps mean to write that it *isn't* exactly spotless?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Inversion of meaning
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait wait wait ... what? I thought body cameras were just there as a good luck charm! I didn't think they actually had to be on to be effective at anything!!!
*Mind Blown*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lets bring this to its logical conclusion.
Is this necessarily a bad thing? Exculpatory evidence when the cop did nothing wrong is not a bad thing. and if video footage does encourage a cop to use a weapon properly it could end up being exactly what saved the cop's life vs taking a bullet in fear of being the cop to be accused of shooting someone unnecessarily.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The argument that cameras are bad because some cops may have bad judgement is nonsense. With that argument lets just remove their guns too because some cops with guns may have bad judgement. Some cops may have bad judgement with cameras and some without. Some cops may have bad judgement with guns and some without. It is the underlying bad judgement that needs to be addressed. If a cop is going to have bad judgement because cameras are present they should have never been a cop. Cops should always have good judgement under all circumstances, trying to craft the circumstances around their judgement's aptitude is nonsense. Their judgment needs to be flexible and good under all circumstances period.
This argument basically amounts to cameras are bad because cops have bad judgement. Well, then it's their bad judgement that needs to be addressed and not the cameras.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Or they need to be fired. You kind of left that one out, huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guidelines: When to turn the camera on or off.
Tossing a grenade in a baby crib? Turn the cam off first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The carrot isn't working, time to break out the stick
For normal, day-to-day situations:
The camera is to be turned on at the start of the shift, and turned off at the end, excusing personal activities like going to the bathroom. Failure to follow this results in a cumulative 1% drop in pay per day found in violation, to be applied to the following month's pay. Forget or 'forget' 10 days, take a 10% hit to pay the following month. 15 days = 15%, and so on. The cumulative penalty resets if an officer goes one month without a violation, otherwise it just keeps on increasing. If a particular cop is so incompetent and/or corrupt that the amount reaches 100% they are fired as being unfit for the job.
For situations where it's the word of a cop versus the word of someone accused of a crime:
If the camera is off during the event then the cop is assumed to be lying by default, such that they are prohibited from making any statements in court(why have a liar make statements before a judge after all), and any assertions or claims they make reporting on the incident are tossed out as unreliable and worthless.
Similar to the first category this one would also have a cut off point, though much lower. Three cases of a body-cam 'malfunction' in the course of a year would be grounds for immediate termination. No 'working suspension' or 'paid leave', go straight to 'You're fired, pack your stuff and get out'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The carrot isn't working, time to break out the stick
Remember, we're dealing with cops here: sociopathic, violent, lying bullies and thugs who routinely beat, kill, abuse, rape, steal because they can. Yes, there are a few decent cops here and there -- although not many and I can't even name one in my town -- but for the most part they need to be treated like the threats they are, kept on a tight leash and punished harshly for any transgressions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The carrot isn't working, time to break out the stick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The carrot isn't working, time to break out the stick
Normally, I'd agree; "we're the good guys, and we're better than they are". In this case, I'd seriously consider making an exception.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The carrot isn't working, time to break out the stick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The carrot isn't working, time to break out the stick
While I disagree with the no trial portion of it I think the rest of it is exactly what should happen to any cop caught lying for another cop (or lying in general).
If you lie that should be the end of your career. I'm sick and tired of the lies and coverups.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The carrot isn't working, time to break out the stick
I lay the problem at the feet of the cop-suck-up courts that allow, even welcome, testimony from proven liars as long as they are cops.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The carrot isn't working, time to break out the stick
For situations "where it's the word of a cop versus the word of someone accused of a crime", I'd add in an immediate, do-not-pass-go, do-not-argue, do-not-gripe, no-appeals-allowed, 25% pay cut to the immediate supervisor, 10% to the next higher rung on the totem poll, both retroactive to the date of the incident, and a $500.00 fine to the chief of police (not the department, the chief personally).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Strange
But then of course the major difference is we have the sense not to allow the population to arm themselves to the teeth and we therefore don't need to arm the police either.
You are of a different (and to us very strange) planet in the US.
And by the way, when the usual idiots come out with the response that more guns=less crime - and put up links that purport to prove that point - I shan't bother to read them for the same reason that I don't read articles that also come from your country that purport to show that the earth was created 6000 years ago in 7 days, the moon landings were faked etc etc etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's that phrase?
If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear
Well, their actions certainly show that they can't practice what they preach. That right there instantly lowers the respect they garner and the trust they desire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TL;DR Pics or it didn't happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]