Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Reformers blast new FOIA bill
Next Post: *** LIVE *** Session coverage
Posted in:
* The issue of police body cameras was one of the biggest impediments to revamping Illinois’ unconstitutional eavesdropping law earlier this year. Some cops weren’t thrilled with the idea. But after the Michael Brown shooting, attitudes are changing…
Chicago police Superintendent Garry McCarthy said Monday the department would begin testing body cameras on officers in about 60 days. […]
The cameras — about the size of a pager and typically clipped to the front of a shirt — are intended to capture an officer’s interaction with the public on video and audio, providing potentially critical evidence in any dispute.
The new technology has won early backing from disparate groups that often clash over law enforcement issues — from the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois and the state NAACP to the union that represents rank-and-file Chicago police officers and the Independent Police Review Authority, which investigates allegations of misconduct by officers.
Proponents hope the cameras will reduce the number of citizen complaints and costly lawsuits about police misconduct while at the same time discouraging citizens from making baseless accusations against officers. The U.S. Justice Department has warned of the scarcity of research on the cameras’ effectiveness, but a widely cited study of body cameras in 2012 by police in Rialto, Calif., a small town about 55 miles east of Los Angeles, found that complaints against its officers plummeted by 88 percent that year while officers’ use of force dropped by 60 percent.
* Rep. Elaine Nekritz may move a bill through the Statehouse next year…
Elaine Nekritz is the chair of the Illinois House Judiciary Committee. She says police and citizen behavior gets better when an interaction is recorded by a camera.
“The real negative side if you want to call it that is the cost and then I think there are some real policy questions as to what kind of interactions can be recorded and who has access to that data.”
* The debate is now down to the details, like when an officer can shut off the camera…
Ed Yohnka, of the American Civil Liberties Union, agreed that determining officer discretion was critical to the fairness of a law on officer body cameras.
“When you get down to it, the question becomes how much discretion are you going to give a police officer for what interactions they record and which ones they don’t,” he said.
Yohnka said officers should have few exceptions on when they should stop recording. They would include risk to public or police safety, at the request of a crime victim or when police talk with confidential sources. Yohkna said police also should be required to set a 90-day time limit on keeping videos.
From the local police perspective, Hartshorn and Lemming said they thought local departments should be trusted with disciplining their officers, and Smoot agreed, saying, “If there is a situation where the officer is not using the tool properly, then departments will have a way to deal with that.”
* And there are other concerns…
“Where is that data stored?” [Nekritz] asks. “How much of it is kept (and) for how long? And then who has access to it? Does the media have access to every interaction?”
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Dec 1, 14 @ 1:43 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Reformers blast new FOIA bill
Next Post: *** LIVE *** Session coverage
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
More sunshine the better, for everyone involved.
Comment by Wordslinger Monday, Dec 1, 14 @ 1:52 pm
Aren’t there already ten or more ‘Rahmcameras’ on every citizen of Chicago at any given time?
Comment by William j Kelly Monday, Dec 1, 14 @ 2:00 pm
For all the abuse by police by occurs, there are numerous other cases where police are falsely accused.
For a while, drug dealers were routinely making claims against police who were known for making drug arrests. The idea was that the if officer was defending himself, he wasn’t on the streets. They would also do it hoping that some of the allegations stuck and that police would, as a result, refrain from making arrests.
Overall, this should be great for rank and file Chicago police. These false allegations should drop tremendously.
Comment by Gooner Monday, Dec 1, 14 @ 2:02 pm
Wait a second! Does Ari Emanuel have a police body camera company now?!
Comment by William j Kelly Monday, Dec 1, 14 @ 2:10 pm
and their authority to record audio comes from?
Comment by in the know Monday, Dec 1, 14 @ 2:16 pm
A study of the Los Angeles PD a number of years ago showed that the vast majority of police misconduct was committed by a small number of police. This showed two things: The vast majority of police followed procedures; and, that existing policies and procedures in the department failed to catch many habitual offenders.
These cameras are a great idea for the public and the police.
Comment by Nonplussed Monday, Dec 1, 14 @ 2:22 pm
@ “admin” William j Kelly:
I liked it better when you were running fantasy campaigns for office. You had less time to post decidedly unfunny comments than you do now.
Comment by Knome Sane (now known as "The Real Sock Puppet") Monday, Dec 1, 14 @ 2:45 pm
If you’re not doing anything wrong, then you’ve got nothing to hide, riiiiiiiight?
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Monday, Dec 1, 14 @ 2:52 pm
Dash cams were controversial at one time, too. I remember when the CPD was adamantly opposed to taping interrogations in murder cases. Now CPD brags about doing so.
Comment by anon Monday, Dec 1, 14 @ 3:00 pm
Yes to widespread use of cameras. Yes to Nekritz sorting out the details needed in the bill.
Comment by walker Monday, Dec 1, 14 @ 3:01 pm
One issue I expect to arise will be confidentiality with regard to parts of the tapes.
One issue that we saw involved surveillance points.
After these cameras start being in use, expect a surge of new complaints alleging brutality following drug arrests, along with requests for tapes an hour or more before the arrest.
Even without the tapes, that was a battle:
“Officer, where were you when you first observed the arrestee?”
Officer: “I refuse to answer. We still use that surveillance point.”
And then a Sgt. would be called in to determine if the officer would be compelled to provide the information.
From the police perspective, that may be the one real downside.
Comment by Gooner Monday, Dec 1, 14 @ 3:06 pm
I have seen a number of use of force cases where they police had video. The video exonerated the police in most cases, and proved the wrong doing where they officer behaved poorly.
I was surprised how many “witnesses” unfavorable description of events against the police did not remotely match what was captured on video. My favorite was a case where a camera still was used to argue police misconduct. The video showed the still photo was inaccurate and incomplete.
You can’t have too much audio and video.
Comment by Ghost Monday, Dec 1, 14 @ 3:16 pm
Like the idea.
Here are the challenges: logging and cataloging hours and hours of video is harder than it sounds. It is time consuming. Contrary to T.V. Shows, cops aren’t at the station every day. Then, locating certain portions of video for attorneys who subpoena EVERYTHING will be time consuming as well as the numerous FOIA requests.
You will have to plan in extra cameras and parts to fix them when they go down, and they will go down. I would add 1/3 to the number of cameras ordered to have extras available for when they quit. Downtime due to fixing equipment, especially things like in-car video recorders adds up to lost patrol time and unplanned expenses.
Once you start using them, there is no going back. Anything that isn’t on video “didn’t happen” when it is time to prosecute criminal cases once this starts.
When in-car video started to become available, it was going to solve all problems with traffic stops. What it really did was cause every word and action by the officer to be analyzed in every felony case for hours by the defense attorneys, the trial judge and then often the appellate court panels. You would think that having video of a traffic stop would reduce appeals, but lo, the law and the interpretation of the law became much more complex.
I know it doesn’t sound like I am in favor of this, I am. Just know it will have costs beyond the initial purpose.
Comment by Freeze up Monday, Dec 1, 14 @ 3:23 pm
the cameras are not simply to ensure that the police do their jobs. they should also remind citizens that their actions will be captured as well. imagine if the cameras were in operation in the case in Missouri, we could have seen what happened after the case started in a situation caught on camera in the convenience store. ( somehow that initial part is forgotten.) but if the entire matter were caught on camera, perhaps the interaction of the officer in his car and the Michael Brown would have been seen exactly as it was.
Comment by Amalia Monday, Dec 1, 14 @ 3:47 pm
The use of camera’s would definitely help with what really happened, as long as the officer was facing the incident. There will be limits.
Also, a concern I hope will be addressed is the privacy of some people. Children who may tell an officer about abuse would need to remain out of the public domain. There are other instances where I think people would prefer to remain private. These issues must be worked out in this process.
Comment by FormerParatrooper Monday, Dec 1, 14 @ 5:05 pm
Good idea for all parties involved.
It is my understanding that it is often difficult to obtain videos used by state police when they pull you over.
Is that true? If so, how difficult will this be.
Comment by Federalist Monday, Dec 1, 14 @ 5:35 pm