Police body cams not 'worthwhile' if officers can turn them off, lawyer says

[Machjo]

Police body cams not 'worthwhile' if officers can turn them off, lawyer says - CBC.ca | Metro Morning

I'm in two minds about it myself.

I lean towards allowing the cop to turn it off at his discretion, but I'm open to other ideas on this.

Your thoughts?

 

[Johnnny]

No one wants to see a cop pee....

 

[Corduroy]

or murder someone.

 

[Johnnny]

Or take a bribe....

 

[Remington1]

I've been allowed to go my way ticket free a few times, when I was at fault. It's called humanity and cops are very much human. Treated with respect, they will often let us go with a warning. With big brother watching, would they be allowed to do this?

 

[Corduroy]

I guess there are some pros and cons. On the one hand, they might not let you get off with a warning for speeding. But on the other hand, they're less likely to beat and murder innocent people in the street. Society is all about balance.

 

[Machjo]

No one wants to see a cop pee....

Now that's a good point. I never thought of that.

or murder someone.

But you don't have to be a cop to murder someone. Should we all carry body cams? Make it part of our official national fasion?

Or take a bribe....

Ditto for bribes.

So what about passport officers?

Border agents?
Immigration officers?

I've been allowed to go my way ticket free a few times, when I was at fault. It's called humanity and cops are very much human. Treated with respect, they will often let us go with a warning. With big brother watching, would they be allowed to do this?

Well, there is a reason for speeding laws. Of what use are they if they're not being enforced?

 

[Corduroy]

But you don't have to be a cop to murder someone. Should we all carry body cams? Make it part of our official national fasion?

Definitely not, but the police are given a license to kill in certain circumstances, and since in so many cases we have little evidence of those circumstances and just have to take the police officers word for it, we should take extra measure to make sure those given this extraordinary power can be held accountable for it.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

One way would be to treat them in much the same way Flight Data Recorders and Cockpit Voice Recorders are, in the course of an investigation of an incident or accident. They were originally opposed by unions but allowed under these circumstances, (and having an erase function on the CVR), and not for use as an investigative tool for the purposes of discipline or anything else. FDR's are now being used to track trends in operational habits but the tapes are guarded by a "gatekeeper" so as to de-identify the crew unless deemed absolutely necessary.


It shouldn't be that hard to come up with guidelines of when they can shut the things off, i.e. personal reasons, interviewing certain witnesses, and the time and circumstance can be logged in the officer's report.


If police body cameras are to be viewed by higher ups for spurious purposes such as discipline or intimidation or any other Orwellian purpose then the idea should be shelved. Rank and file LEOs' fear of that sort of thing is not unfounded.

 

[Machjo]

Definitely not, but the police are given a license to kill in certain circumstances, and since in so many cases we have little evidence of those circumstances and just have to take the police officers word for it, we should take extra measure to make sure those given this extraordinary power can be held accountable for it.

True. That might be reasonable.

I suppose we could establish guidelines. For example, a police officer can turn off his body cam only after he has filmed himself entering a washroom entrance and must turn it back on before leaving its exit so as to catch both the entrance and the exit from the same washroom for example?

Maybe have similar rules for other such circumstances too. If it includes audio, maybe even some cases in which he must say out loud the reason for turning it off and must then turn it back on in the same location? Just ideas of course.

There can be cases where he turns it off and sincerely forgets to turn it back on I suppose. Would that warrant him getting fired? Not necessarily, but maybe a warning and third strike in one year and your fired. By the second strike, second written warning, if he values his job, he'll likely have developed a habit of it by then.

Again, just ideas.

 

[Corduroy]

I can see a cop now, "entering the washroom. Turning off my body cam" and then later, "well I just started to pee and this guy stood next to me and reached for his waistband and pulled out something that looked like a gun."

 

[Machjo]

I can see a cop now, "entering the washroom. Turning off my body cam" and then later, "well I just started to pee and this guy stood next to me and reached for his waistband and pulled out something that looked like a gun."

It could happen, but then at least the cop would have proof that he had entered the washroom. I myself have run into gross police and CBSA negligence in the past, way beyond what should have been acceptable. However, I also recognize that they are still human and that we can't let one bad apple (or even a few bad apples) ruin the bunch. Sorry, but I still think that a cop has a right to pee in private.

 

[Danbones]

When they killed bin laden, and all the cameras malfunctioned, then they blew up all the navy seals because dead men tell no tales. Maybe cameras will protect the cops from misconduct charges or even death

 

[Machjo]

I would even say that a cop ought to have the right to eat in private too. In other words, if it's around lunch time and he enters a restaurant to eat, as long as he films his entry into the restaurant, then why not allow him to shut it off once he films the first dish reach the table and turn it back on before he leaves the same table, with an expectation that it not be turned off for more than so many minutes, whether that is 30 minutes or whatever.

But yes, for things like eating and washroom breaks, he should be allowed a break from the camera during those times. If a crime happens to occur at that time, well then I guess the cop fails through no fault of his own to get it on camera. Tough. At that stage, he makes a decision to arrest or not based on the seriousness of the offence and the available evidence.

No system will ever be perfect, but at the end of the day, a cop should still have a right to certain breaks even if it could risk missing evidence.

Another way to look at it. Right now, most cops don't wear body cams.

Let's say a rule was adopted that a cop must have his body cam on for at least 7 hours of an eight hour shift, even if he misses filming a crime on occasion, that would still be a significant improvement compared to the present situation.

 

[Johnnny]

I can see a cop now, "entering the washroom. Turning off my body cam" and then later, "well I just started to pee and this guy stood next to me and reached for his waistband and pulled out something that looked like a gun."

Homophobic?

"My name is cornholio I need peepee for my bumb hole"

"Bang Bang"

 

[tay]

Police body cams not 'worthwhile' if officers can turn them off, lawyer says - CBC.ca | Metro Morning

I'm in two minds about it myself.

I lean towards allowing the cop to turn it off at his discretion, but I'm open to other ideas on this.

Your thoughts?

Yes of course as the arrested suspect accidentally trips down the stairs or bangs their head off the cop car or a wall, the cop forgot to turn it back on.....

That aside I do have some experience with this type of issue. The video should be collected by a 3rd party and only the relevant portion of the video be released to the Management or in this case the SIU.

I mediated a dispute with a trucking company and a union which has set a pattern as a few others followed the same procedure. The difference of course is that dealt with dash cams as opposed to body cams.

With the dash cams, which are recording all the time both visual and sound, all that info is fed to an American company which offers these machines and they keep the recordings for 6 months before they are deleted. These are dual cameras, one facing forward, one inward.

The companies main claim was the cameras would be used to protect them from claims in case of a collision to verify who was at fault.

After reviewing an hour of video of different scenarios these cameras would review I offered an option.

The objection from the Union was an invasion of privacy which was fair enough. I asked the camera company if the in cab camera could be turned off? They said no, but said the inward camera could be covered with a plastic shield by the manufacture allowing the drivers some privacy.

Now these cameras are pretty good. If the truck goes out of it's lane without signaling it beeps and it beeps if they are following too closely (100 feet). The beep serves two purposes. It alerts the driver and it sends a message to the 3rd Party collecting the data. If there is a collision, and assuming the impact is at 30 kmh or over that is automatically 'red flagged' to the 3rd party and forwarded to the Companies Safety Compliance person. It will include 15 minutes before and after the collision.

Anything under 40 may not trigger the alert so it is incumbent upon the driver to hit an alert button on the camera which will mark the spot on the recording for the company to review as to who was at fault. This can also be used by the driver if they see an accident that they are not part of to help police in their investigation.

The union and the company thought these solutions were acceptable and to date there have been no issues.

The same scenario could play out for the Body Cams. The info goes to a 3rd Party who can only release a certain time segment that is relative to a situation.


PS; After I saw how well these cameras worked I bought my own dash cam. Mine was a lot cheaper and doesn't record to a 3rd party but instead records on a data card.....

 

[Machjo]

"At his discretion" in the OP was bad wording on my part. I should have said "under predefined conditions."

I guess we can make a distinction between "on-duty" and "off-duty." Is he really "on-duty" while his trousers are down and he's standing in front of a urinal? Is he really "on duty" while sitting at a restaurant chomping on a sandwich? He is in a sense, but not quite in the same sense as when he's patrolling.

Again, I think an hour-per-shift rule might be reasonable. So if he has an eight hour shift, he's expected to have the camera on for at least 7 of those hours, including lunch time and bathroom breaks for example. Or something like that. Maybe even that he cannot turn the camera off for more than 1 hour in a day whereby once the hour is up, it will automatically turn back on for the rest of his shift, though that tech might be somewhat more expensive by a bit.

It would be up to the officer to use that hour wisely during lunch and washroom breaks. To avoid problems with that, he might even choose to leave it on during lunch or most of lunch just to make sure he always has some time left at the end of the day if he suddenly has to go to the washroom for an extended stay and doesn't want to be filmed doing that for example.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

Well, the police have dash cams in their cruisers and as of now don't have body cams, so if they are going to issue them they need to get it right the first time. I don't have an issue with them being able to turn off something they aren't issued at present. If and when they are issued it would probably, or hopefully, be used as an evidence gathering tool rather than to actively monitor police conduct. Unlike in tay's case with a 3rd party maintaining the videos, FDR data is as I mentioned, controlled by "gatekeeper" agreed to by both the company and union, and is an employee and union member.


A 3rd party is a disinterested party, and as such may either divulge or withhold information at the behest of one group or the other, but the divulging or withholding would likely be at the behest of the hand that feeds them, the company. I'm not saying that would happen but keeping it all in house with all parties in agreement with how and when this information is released would hopefully keep everyone honest(ish).


I am all for investigating police misconduct, but only when it becomes an issue because of an incident, not as an ongoing campaign to monitor each and every LEO on the streets. Police departments are rife with petty political skirmishes and these folks also have to be protected from spurious investigations by jealous, or zealous higher ups, and without proper safeguards it will happen.


As for an LEO who has their police issued camera turned off and then makes a questionable arrest or some other alleged shenanigans take place I think of the British caution, not the same as in Canada, ( neither we or the UK Mirandize), but it's similar, something like this, "You are not required to speak but it may harm your defense if you do not answer when questioned something you later rely on in court". In other words, if an LEO's camera was deliberately turned off, essentially maintaining their silence, he or she might have some 'splainin' to do when it gets to court. We know that prejudice normally favours law enforcement, this could reverse that prejudice, and rightfully so.

 

[Machjo]

As for an LEO who has their police issued camera turned off and then makes a questionable arrest or some other alleged shenanigans take place I think of the British caution, not the same as in Canada, ( neither we or the UK Mirandize), but it's similar, something like this, "You are not required to speak but it may harm your defense if you do not answer when questioned something you later rely on in court". In other words, if an LEO's camera was deliberately turned off, essentially maintaining their silence, he or she might have some 'splainin' to do when it gets to court. We know that prejudice normally favours law enforcement, this could reverse that prejudice, and rightfully so.

That I think is a good thing. Right now, he has no camera, so a judge takes for granted that there is no video. Once cameras become the norm, then a judge will take for granted that there ought to be either video or an explanation as to why there isn't video.

With that, even if we did allow a cop to turn his camera off under specific conditions, the onus would still be on him to use that ability responsibly. For example, if he goes to the washroom, he's free to turn his camera off, but yes, he might have some explaining to do if an incident occurs in the washroom right after her turned his camera off and he forgot to turn it back on. On the one hand, we'd understand that coincidences do happen and that his explanation would be reasonable. On the other hand, it's still one less video for proof. He probably won't get punished for it in most cases since he did have a valid reason to turn it off, even if it meant losing a peace of evidence.

On the other hand, he gets a radio call for backup assistance for a gunfight in a neighbouring neighbourhood. He'd be wise to ensure the camera is turned on at least before he arrives on the scene. If the battery power is low, he might even turn it off in the cop car until he arrives on the scene to ensure he has the camera as a witness.

In short, we leave it to the cop's discretion to a degree within certain reasonable constraints, but he accepts the responsibility to use that discretion wisely.

 

[taxslave]

As I see it anything a cop says in court that is not backed with video is a lie.