Written by 5:20 pm News

Debate over Ferguson police body cameras: breach of privacy questioned

Weeks after the shooting of teenager Michael Brown by police officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri, the city still remains a hotbed of controversy, racial tension and unrest.

While multiple witnesses and crime scene analysts claim Brown was shot after raising his hands in surrender, and although he was unarmed, police insist he was resisting arrest. A media circus has ensued following Brown’s death, spurring discussions of racism and police brutality.

And then there is the major impediment to continued investigation: there isn’t any real usable evidence of the crime.

Eyewitness reports are almost always inadmissible in court or easily discredited. So the fact that civilians witnessed the shooting may not be of major consequence. Forensic analysts have examined the scene and determined the position Brown died in is fairly inconsistent with that of someone drawing a weapon, but that, too, is circumstantial and can be debated.

In the hopes of limiting any controversy surrounding possible future incidents, Police Chief Thomas Jackson has begun to equip his officers with small cameras, which record all of the confrontations and actions they experience throughout their day. Several surveillance companies have provided the Ferguson Police Force with 50 of the devices and have also started to train them in their uses and limitations.

In an interview Jackson claimed that he hopes each member of the police force will eventually use one. This, unsurprisingly, has incited major controversy.

In an interview with Don Gonyea of NPR, criminologist Michael White shared his opinions about the new practice: “Body-worn cameras provide a permanent video record of what happens during a police-citizen encounter… it has what I like to call a ‘civilizing effect…’ officers are less likely to engage in rude or inappropriate behavior, and citizens are less likely to be aggressive and resistant.”

White, however, warns this initiative could also have a dark side.

“Clearly, there are times when citizens have an expectation of privacy that could potentially be violated by a police officer’s use of a body-worn camera,” says White. “The interview of a child, the interview of a sexual assault victim, for example…Perhaps a police officer is talking to a confidential informant or someone else trying to get intelligence on criminal activity. When that encounter is recorded, it becomes, in many places, a public document that can be requested by citizens, by press and certainly by prosecutors.”

Therein lies the biggest qualm about the cameras: every action undertaken by on-duty officers will be a matter of permanent record. This includes private or embarrassing conversations between them and their partners, irrelevant details during cases and interviews with suspects. Before anyone is brought to trial, both the prosecution and the defense will need to view copious amounts of footage. Every action or comment an officer makes could be dragged into the limelight and scrutinized.

By signing up to join the force, an officer is essentially surrendering all right to privacy during working hours. If he or she makes a joke about a co-worker, a remark about a case, an unfounded theory or a hateful comment, they could quickly be fired, suspended or sued– which encroaches, in the minds of some, on the First Amendment’s right to free speech.

This axiom effectively means that cops would constantly, if unintentionally, survey everyone that crosses their paths. Interactions with random citizens would be available to any attorney, jury or policeman who thought they could be useful. Many argue that this is a direct breach of yet another amendment–the Fourth, which prevents illegal searches and seizures. Having a government employee constantly monitor the words and behaviors of the populace creates a perpetual, unwarranted search for evidence.

Indeed, many states, including Connecticut, already have laws against filming people without their consent. Consequently, the legality of any footage acquired on these devices would be challenged. When the practice was implemented in Los Angeles, the results were mixed at best. The expensive cameras kept breaking, usually under mysterious circumstances, and officers were vehemently averse to their use. While the LAPD still endorses the use of body cameras, their capacity has been mitigated severely.

Whatever the ultimate effect is of these cameras, it comes too little, too late. The circumstances surrounding Michael Brown’s death remain unanswered. Darren Wilson has been suspended with pay, and there are no signs of any formal charges being filed. As the city continues to experience turmoil, across the country discussions are taking place, as more and more people are realizing the need to address the issues brought to light as a result of the tragedy in Ferguson. •

(Visited 18 times, 1 visits today)
[mc4wp_form id="5878"]
Close