Editorial: Cameras for officers need plenty of thought
January 28, 2012
Before the Spokane Police Department or Spokane County Sheriff’s Office equips officers and deputies with body cameras, much more thought should be given to what a lens might capture, who will wear them, who will see the footage and when – even the simple question as to how the recordings will be secured.
There’s no question the convenience store tape of the confrontation between Otto Zehm and Officer Karl Thompson Jr. was a powerful indictment of Thompson’s actions, and his subsequent recollection of how it all went down. Without the video, Thompson would almost certainly be on the beat today, with only a few eyewitnesses the wiser.
What a camera on Thompson might have shown, we can only speculate.
If, in the heat of the moment, he or someone at dispatch had started the camera. If its integrity within the chain of custody was not compromised. If it was treated as public information, or withheld as evidence during an investigation. If, indeed, a camera might have seen what Thompson saw, or heard.
And what, as the owners of whatever images these cameras might capture, are we prepared to have disseminated on the Internet?
Recall, for example, the dashboard cam footage of a 1997 shootout between the Kehoe brothers of Colville and state troopers in Ohio. Despite the close range, nobody involved was hit. If someone had been killed – if a trooper had been killed – how would the community react if that was out on the Web for all to see? Or manipulated to whatever end someone with their own twisted agenda might have?
Technology is no substitute for good training and solid judgment.
That said, police forces in cities such as Oakland, Calif., are adapting well to the cameras, and so is the community.
The city started equipping some patrol officers with cameras last February, spokeswoman Johnna Watson says, and completed the rollout during the fall. Already, one shooting by an officer has been recorded. Several investigations of the incident are ongoing.
The footage is considered evidentiary and therefore unavailable to the public until the opportunity for any civil or criminal action is foreclosed.
There are detailed procedures for downloading camera contents, and penalties for violations.
Still, she says, the cameras have been well-received by the police force, and there has not been a single complaint from the community regarding their use.
Any tool that can show citizens why officers do what they do is helpful in restoring the bond between police and community, Watson says. If they truly have that capability, $600,000 to pin cameras on Spokane’s officers would be a bargain.
As the city goes about hiring a new police chief, his or her experience with cameras, or attitudes toward their use, should be high among the interview questions.
We could use someone who is camera-ready.
To respond to this editorial online, go to www.spokesman.com and click on Opinion under the Topics menu.
MOBILE
Both car cameras and body cameras are needed! and it is essential that a new contract with an unconstitutional third ruling party that insulates its members from ever receiving punishment for conducting heinous murderess acts against our community members at all cost the G.U.I.L.D contract must not be renewed the cost of their interventions is just too high
It seems unlikely the police union would support the idea of cameras on their members. To much accountability. Can’t have that.
It might have been FDR who stated that unions for public employees should never be allowed. It puts the public “servants” in charge of the public, like it seems to have worked out in Spokane
just simply do not renew their contract and your done with the problem if they do not like it then they can leave our community and seek employment some where else its high time they learned to do as they are told they are servants of the people and will do as told by the people or be fired
Think Reagan and PATCO. Body cams would be great if the had live streaming video to a body of non- union overseers. Imagine if they had to perform professionally with someone watching at all times.
It’s not a question of if, it’s a question of when.
Do you think you have been under fewer cameras since 2005 than you are now? You are probably being filmed at least twice as much as then (this is strictly a personal reflection and I have NO evidence for this statement).
Our movements are captured all day long now. What this discussion is really about is the level of detail of the filming—store came to aisle cam to body cam. And highway cam to dash cam.
The Guild will have to surrender to this eventually, as will every police dept in the country, as we as a species become more comfortable with 24/7 surveillance of not just bad guys, but of us.
If WE can be filmed all day long, why can’t they?
@Scoutster
I think you are right it is more a question of when. The law regarding body cameras in Washington State isn’t settled yet, and because Washington State law is more restrictive of law enforcement who knows how it might end up. I suspect we won’t see department wide cameras, but it sure sounds great for the politicians to be pushing it, doesn’t it.
As for me I’d prefer to see the Guild, among other things, fold on mandatory toxicology testing for Officer Involved Deaths, how about you?
Let’s not over react and spend a bunch of money. Granted, what happened was tragic but it is the exception. Spending $600k plus is stupid and wasteful.