Literature Review: When looking at the issues concerning perceived law enforcement misconduct, body-worn cameras continue to dominate the discussion. Society is eager to find a palatable solution to what some perceive as a brutal police force with little accountability. In numerous recent use of force encounters, law enforcement officials have been portrayed as individuals with a complete lack of respect for a person’s individual rights, especially those of minorities.
While the idea of body-worn camera seems simple, there are several factors that have been thrust into the discussion of this topic. The ability to monitor an officer’s actions at the time of an inaction with a community member has both positive and negative outcomes. …show more content…
The first factor, which is important in implementing a successful program, is community support. The second factor, to implementing a successful program, is to gain compliance of police officers through leadership support. (Dover, Arial 2015) If the command staff of an agency projects a positive impression of the new technology, studies have shown that officers are more likely to support it. Another important factor is training. If officers understand the technology, and how the technology works, it will relieve some of the anxiety inherent in the body-worn camera cameras. (White 2014)
Another concern with body-worn camera cameras is that they can record anywhere. Citizens have Fourth Amendment protections of privacy. This protection is generally understood to apply where people have an expectation of privacy. (Radcliffe 2011) Understandably, while people are in public, they do not have an expectation of privacy, and therefore, the Fourth Amendment does not apply. Though the government is not prohibited from recording in public, it does raise privacy concerns. (James …show more content…
The main issue with this aspect of the policy question does not concern privacy, but accountability. The concern of many experts in the criminal justice field is that officers will manipulate their equipment by simply turning-off their body-worn cameras when they are preparing to commit a policy, or legal violation. (Stanley 2013) Without video evidence, an officer’s account of a situation may me the only evidence that investigators have to determine what transpired. In lethal force encounters, when a citizen is killed, the camera can act as a witness for the deceased. (Resnick 2015) With trust in law enforcement suffering from recent use of force encounters, the tendency for the public to believing an uncollaborated officer’s account seems unlikely.
Body-worn camera do have the perception of transparency. (White 2014) This leads to a legitimization of an agencies Internal Affairs process. In addition, video evidence can create a strong, visceral response in the people reviewing the recordings. The video is a firsthand account that allows investigators, prosecutors and juries see what the officer was faced with at the moment that an incident occurred. While this seems like a benefit for both the officer and the citizen, concerns are still
While the idea of body-worn camera seems simple, there are several factors that have been thrust into the discussion of this topic. The ability to monitor an officer’s actions at the time of an inaction with a community member has both positive and negative outcomes. …show more content…
The first factor, which is important in implementing a successful program, is community support. The second factor, to implementing a successful program, is to gain compliance of police officers through leadership support. (Dover, Arial 2015) If the command staff of an agency projects a positive impression of the new technology, studies have shown that officers are more likely to support it. Another important factor is training. If officers understand the technology, and how the technology works, it will relieve some of the anxiety inherent in the body-worn camera cameras. (White 2014)
Another concern with body-worn camera cameras is that they can record anywhere. Citizens have Fourth Amendment protections of privacy. This protection is generally understood to apply where people have an expectation of privacy. (Radcliffe 2011) Understandably, while people are in public, they do not have an expectation of privacy, and therefore, the Fourth Amendment does not apply. Though the government is not prohibited from recording in public, it does raise privacy concerns. (James …show more content…
The main issue with this aspect of the policy question does not concern privacy, but accountability. The concern of many experts in the criminal justice field is that officers will manipulate their equipment by simply turning-off their body-worn cameras when they are preparing to commit a policy, or legal violation. (Stanley 2013) Without video evidence, an officer’s account of a situation may me the only evidence that investigators have to determine what transpired. In lethal force encounters, when a citizen is killed, the camera can act as a witness for the deceased. (Resnick 2015) With trust in law enforcement suffering from recent use of force encounters, the tendency for the public to believing an uncollaborated officer’s account seems unlikely.
Body-worn camera do have the perception of transparency. (White 2014) This leads to a legitimization of an agencies Internal Affairs process. In addition, video evidence can create a strong, visceral response in the people reviewing the recordings. The video is a firsthand account that allows investigators, prosecutors and juries see what the officer was faced with at the moment that an incident occurred. While this seems like a benefit for both the officer and the citizen, concerns are still