49 Comments - Ray del Camino - Thursday, Sep 11, 14 @ 2:30 pm: It discourages bad behavior on both sides of the camera and protects the police from (at least some) bogus accusations. - Precinct Captain - Thursday, Sep 11, 14 @ 2:31 pm: Yes, yes, yes! - Liberty - Thursday, Sep 11, 14 @ 2:33 pm: No brainer. If I were a cop, I would buy my own. - downstate demo - Thursday, Sep 11, 14 @ 2:34 pm: Everyone seems to forget a lot of fines don’t get paid. Individuals don’t have money. Otherwise , they are off to jail or prison with no way to paid the fines. - Casual observer - Thursday, Sep 11, 14 @ 2:38 pm: I fully support this but I also think a private citizen should be able to video police in action. - A guy... - Thursday, Sep 11, 14 @ 2:39 pm: In the next collective bargaining agreement we’re going to have to provide an hour for cops to get dressed. We’ve turned them into Christmas trees with all the stuff hanging off them. A foot chase is almost out of the question any more. I guess we just tape them getting away. - bottom rung. - Thursday, Sep 11, 14 @ 2:40 pm: Yes! I own shares of GoPro and Amabrella! But yeah accountability too. - MrJM - Thursday, Sep 11, 14 @ 2:43 pm: Support. “Well, if you didn’t do nothing wrong, you got nothing to hide…” — Every cop ever. - Lil Squeezy - Thursday, Sep 11, 14 @ 2:44 pm: Yes. Quite frankly the tasers worry me the most. Seems common practice now. I have only seen a taser used once, but I did not believe the situation warranted its use in any way. Cameras would allow you to scrutinize this practice. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Sep 11, 14 @ 2:46 pm: ===I also think a private citizen should be able to video police in action. === That is currently legal in Illinois. - railrat - Thursday, Sep 11, 14 @ 2:49 pm: tort attorneys should wear them whilst chasing ambulances also - Lil Squeezy - Thursday, Sep 11, 14 @ 2:49 pm: I can’t think of a reason to vote no. Technology affords the police more and more access to information about what we are doing, shouldn’t technology allow citizens access to information about what police are doing? - phocion - Thursday, Sep 11, 14 @ 2:49 pm: I voted yes, but… I presume these cameras would have “on” and “off” switches. Police wouldn’t want the cameras on when they’re going to the bathroom. Or interviewing a confidential informant. Or the victim of a sexual assault who seeks anonymity. Would they be disciplined if their sergeant saw a video where the officer said something disparaging about him to a fellow officer? If you can turn them off, can we be certain they wouldn’t be on at all other relevant times? I’m sure departments are hard at work coming up with policies. In total, it’s a great thing. Personally, I believe cops are much more the victim of false accusations than of actually committing excessive force. Check out this stat: The police department in Rialto, Calif., concluded a yearlong University of Cambridge study last year that found an 89 percent drop in complaints against officers during the camera trial. The chief has since mandated its deployment to its roughly 90 sworn officers. An 89 percent drop is huge. And think of the massive savings to the public if the trash talking criminal can’t get a shyster lawyer to take on his case because the evidence is so clear cut in the cops favor. So, YES! With appropriate guidelines. - Ghost - Thursday, Sep 11, 14 @ 2:53 pm: yes, the dash cams have been great, but there are blind spots when the cops walk off camera. much better solution. BUT they need to make sure somone is checking and making sure they are actually being used. This will kick a lot of bogus lawsutis. - dupage dan - Thursday, Sep 11, 14 @ 3:01 pm: dash cams, taped interrogations, taped confessions = transparency. It’s good for both sides of the law. Good cops are protected from bogus claims of abuse. Citizens are protected from bad cops. Taped evidence is strong stuff at trial. Body cams are a no-brainer. - haverford - Thursday, Sep 11, 14 @ 3:03 pm: Woof, hit support before I saw the $6 for every criminal or traffic conviction. We’ve already got too many folks doing jail time because they can’t afford to pay their fines. As formulated here, this would just increase that problem. Support the cameras as a tool to protect both police and those they protect and serve, but there’s no question that we’re looking into these because of recent incidents where it appears that police have been brutalizing poor and/or brown folks. So maybe we could raise the money to protect them from, say, white collar crime, rather than encouraging more arrests of the same groups of folks to support the cameras. - FormerParatrooper - Thursday, Sep 11, 14 @ 3:05 pm: Voted yes. The dash cameras cannot see everything. It would be good evidence to have in a situation. - wordslinger - Thursday, Sep 11, 14 @ 3:07 pm: –We’ve turned them into Christmas trees with all the stuff hanging off them– “We” have? How’s that? To the issue, yes. Protects everyone involved. Very telling that the coppers want it. - Lobo Y Olla - Thursday, Sep 11, 14 @ 3:07 pm: Cameras would allow you to scrutinize this practice. Tazers already have cameras in Chicago. - Belle - Thursday, Sep 11, 14 @ 3:08 pm: No. It was a conflicted no since I realize it removes the conflict in police issues. Our world is losing a sense of privacy. - Demoralized - Thursday, Sep 11, 14 @ 3:10 pm: Seems like a good idea. As others have said, it would provide an unbiased witness to police actions. - Bogey Golfer - Thursday, Sep 11, 14 @ 3:18 pm: Went with ‘no’ - I understand the concept and it would be better than just a dash cam. But what is the true cost to equip and maintain these? Can all law enforcement agencies afford this? Would this apply to campus security, forest preserve police, et al? Need more info to change to a yes. - RonOglesby - Now in TX - Thursday, Sep 11, 14 @ 3:22 pm: I voted yes. Public officials and those entrusted with great power need to be able to show they dont abuse it. As for this — Can all law enforcement agencies afford this? — If any department can afford to maintain an MRAP, they can drop that and put it on cameras. There is a TON of police equipment (such as full-auto M4S) that are rarely used. Here is a piece of equipment that would be used all of the time (just like dash cams). it can be made a priority. - Judgment Day - Thursday, Sep 11, 14 @ 3:24 pm: “–We’ve turned them into Christmas trees with all the stuff hanging off them– “We” have? How’s that?” First off, is it a good idea? Probably. Honestly, what’s the difference between this concept and equipping all the LE with Google Glass. Except for the idea that Senator Ira wants to put limits on Google Glass. Just got to make sure you have enough SSD storage in your system to hold sufficient video, which can then be downloaded. It’s not a perfect solution, but it would be a workable solution. It would be like “Glass Record” to activate recording functionality. Could work, but I’m sure there will be some early adapters out there who will stumble across some interesting problems. - Arthur Andersen - Thursday, Sep 11, 14 @ 3:27 pm: I voted yes but I disagree with the proposed funding source. That much is a rounding error in GRF. - Thinker - Thursday, Sep 11, 14 @ 3:30 pm: With the militarization of today’s police I think it’s high time that things like this be done. Don’t always assume the police are your friends. This ain’t Norman Rockwell’s America anymore - Anon. - Thursday, Sep 11, 14 @ 3:31 pm: Yes. Dupage Dan said it best. - Judgment Day - Thursday, Sep 11, 14 @ 3:34 pm: “Went with ‘no’ - I understand the concept and it would be better than just a dash cam. But what is the true cost to equip and maintain these? Can all law enforcement agencies afford this? Would this apply to campus security, forest preserve police, et al? Need more info to change to a yes.” —————— Well, generic Google Glass (when it finally gets out there) is likely going to be in the $1500 - $2000 per range (bet on the $2000+ range). The good news is that it can also be designed to function as protective eyewear. Link: https://www.google.com/glass/start/ Connectivity costs are another issue, because, remember, you are also going to have to have regular download processes to avoid the streaming video issues. And a lot of LE are going to have to start maintaining secured video storage capacity, because downloading/storing digital images can eat up storage extremely quickly. There’s a lot of technical aspects to think about here. - Robert the Bruce - Thursday, Sep 11, 14 @ 3:41 pm: Yes. I can’t get enough COPS. 24-hour live stream please. - Anonymous - Thursday, Sep 11, 14 @ 3:53 pm: Just as the dash cameras, when they break, the are useless not to mention the obsolete factor after a few months. Illinois can’t find the money to install radios or hire techs to outfit new cars…they’ll all be in a “junk box” before the year is out. Been there…seen it. - I B Strapped - Thursday, Sep 11, 14 @ 4:08 pm: Yes, helps protect everyone/preserves valuable evidence…..if used and functioning. - Sunshine - Thursday, Sep 11, 14 @ 4:17 pm: Yep….we all win on this one. I too agree that they need an off switch in some instances for common sense privacy or victim protection. - Jim'e' - Thursday, Sep 11, 14 @ 4:17 pm: by all means have the coppers wear cameras, but ast some point the fines for offenses get to be so high that only the 1% can pay them. They need to think of another revenue source other than fining money strapped offenders. - kimaye - Thursday, Sep 11, 14 @ 4:26 pm: yes. don’t agree with how they want to pay for it. - Streator Curmudgeon - Thursday, Sep 11, 14 @ 4:28 pm: Rich, it used to be illegal to film/video police on duty in Illinois. Has that law recently changed? - FormerParatrooper - Thursday, Sep 11, 14 @ 4:57 pm: MRAP cost to police departments…. $700,000 Go Pro camera with bells and whistles. ….. $1,000 Auction off a few MRAPS maybe a few of the non class 3 firearms, some night vision, and other assorted equipment and you could have enough to provide law enforcement with body cameras. - A guy... - Thursday, Sep 11, 14 @ 5:35 pm: === wordslinger - Thursday, Sep 11, 14 @ 3:07 pm: –We’ve turned them into Christmas trees with all the stuff hanging off them– “We” have? How’s that? To the issue, yes. Protects everyone involved. Very telling that the coppers want it.==== Go frisk a cop and you’ll see. Better ask him first or he’ll take one of those ornaments and shizzle you on camera, if he can get past everything else he’s carrying, probably in a more than a little tight vest (which could save his life, so keep that) - Anon - Thursday, Sep 11, 14 @ 5:36 pm: Police once vigorously opposed cameras — when it came a to interrogations in murder cases. Now they brag about the cameras. Rank and file cops weren’t thrilled when dash cams came in either, but they learned the cameras offer proof when citizens behave badly and then beef on the police. - wordslinger63@gmail.com - Thursday, Sep 11, 14 @ 5:45 pm: A Guy, you miss the point. I’m aware cops gear up, but I’m not aware that “we” are requiring it. - Belle - Thursday, Sep 11, 14 @ 6:09 pm: I voted no but I felt very conflicted about my vote. The use of photography is terrific in establishing the truth. But, on the other hand, this is one more indication that the world is losing a sense of privacy. - Guzzlepot - Thursday, Sep 11, 14 @ 7:26 pm: I voted Yes because, well, this is going to happen anyway. It isn’t the cost of the camera that is going to be problematic. It is going to be the cost of the tech support for the camera. For example. Let’s say you have 1000 officers out on the street per day, and each officer, on average, generates one hour of video per day. So you have 1000 hours of video that you have to store on a server every day, 7000 hours per week, and 28000 hours per month. That is alot of money for storage. That department is probably going to have to hire a dedicated person to manage it which is another cost. And I imagine the average officer is going to go through more than one camera per year. Remember, these things are going to be worn on the street in rain, sleet, snow, &c. They will be outside in everything from a hot July day through a cold January evening. Even the most robust piece of equipment is going to break down. Again, I voted yes. But thinking that the cost is limited to the camera itself is simplistic. I’d love to see the General Assembly designate a town and allocate money for a pilot project. - Freeze up - Thursday, Sep 11, 14 @ 9:36 pm: And when it breaks down the judges will assume it was sabotaged by the officer who obviously is hiding something. Case dismissed. I voted yes, it is going to happen. I predicted this years ago and was laughed at. No one trusts the police anymore despite the fact that police and clergy have the lowest rate of deviant behavior of any profession or societal group. Now however cops have to video themselves because we live in a society that complains about everything that happens to them. The claims they make against police are ridiculous but the public is way too willing to believe that the good guys are really the bad guys. The comments here bear that out. You could always legally videotape the police. Until recently, the Illinois eavesdropping law prevented the audio portion of the recording. That law is now gone and anyone with a passing knowledge of current events in Illinois should know that. For whatever it’s worth, one lousy cop makes a lot of enemies with the public. Cops hate those kind of officers as much as the public does. If video helps us stifle those types, so be it. - Modest Proposal - Friday, Sep 12, 14 @ 12:13 am: Voted no - why am i always in the minority on this site? I said no cause I like the “good ole days” when the cops would take kids back to their parents house and their parents would beat them… - Rich Miller - Friday, Sep 12, 14 @ 12:17 am: === why am i always in the minority on this site?=== You and me both. lol - Anonymous - Friday, Sep 12, 14 @ 8:28 am: More Liberal central decision making. So many smart people seem to know whats best for those silly uneducated lesser then you police officers. Lets let the people who ACTUALLY put themselves in harms way have some input. These record the entire 8 hr day. How about I film and record your every word all day at work. Every poll of officers shows they overwhelmingly do not want these. Why don’t you mandate the bad guys wear them and LEAVE THE GOOD GUYS ALONE! - Skeptic - Friday, Sep 12, 14 @ 8:43 am: “bad guys wear them and LEAVE THE GOOD GUYS ALONE!” Um, because sometimes the good guys aren’t so good? - Anonymous - Friday, Sep 12, 14 @ 8:48 am: Great idea, but with one caveat. This would be funded by yet another fee tacked onto court fines–essentially, it is funding via the same sort of method that helped get Ferguson all worked up. The technology isn’t so expensive that most departments couldn’t do this on their own. Look at dashboard cameras. Practically everyone in Russia, apparently, has one to avoid he-said-she-said’s after accidents, yet American cops plead poverty. One other thing: There needs to be some mechanism to ensure that cops actually turn them on. Even with what exists now, there are way too many instances where cops will claim that the camera broke and so failed to capture the critical part of the DUI arrest or whatever it is. That’ll get solved eventually, and when it does, we’ll all, including cops, be better off. Technology is on the precipice of breaking the thin blue line, and that’s a good thing. - Ahoy! - Friday, Sep 12, 14 @ 8:57 am: Yes, when the police are in the right, there is hard evidence that can show this. Hopefully it will help with a lot of the lawsuits out there and public perception when a youtube video only shows part of the story. When they are in the wrong, there is hard evidence that shows this. It’s good for truth and justice. - Skeptic - Friday, Sep 12, 14 @ 9:21 am: “Practically everyone in Russia, apparently, has one” They are quite common, but the question is whether a consumer-grade dashcam (or bodycam) would be durable enough for 24/7 use *and* be robust enough to be admissable in court. Also, we’re used to TV where the cameras can pick up a speck of dust flying off a 100mph fastball. Consumer grade cameras don’t have all the fancy image stabilzation and auto this and auto that so it could be that most of the time the video is useless. My point is that the cam you can buy for $50 at Newegg may wind up to be useless. But then maybe they thought of that. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.