Law enforcementWearable body-cameras adopted by more police departments

Law enforcement agencies around the country are testing body-cameras on officers as a way to keep records of police interaction with the public. The cameras may be attached to hats, eyeglasses, or hung around the neck, giving the public and the courts a more intimate look at how police do their jobs.

Police in the Delaware County village of Sunbury, Ohio adopted body-cameras in October 2013. “We just use them for everything,” said Sunbury Police Chief Patrick Bennett, from capturing traffic violations to recording confrontations with residents. “Everyone wants to see the video today.”

The Columbus Dispatch reports that a few manufacturers are developing the cameras, which may cost from hundreds to thousands of dollars depending on design and data-storage system. The Dispatch notes that Taser offers a $299 body-mounted camera the size of a smartphone, as well as a smaller $499 lipstick-size camera that can be attached to a helmet or a pair of glasses. Taser allows officers to upload the video to the police department’s storage system or to Taser’s digital cloud.

Since police are sometimes the target of video footages captured by smartphones revealing police misconduct, the body-cameras give police a chance to share interactions with the public from the officer’s point of view. The oversight will also help keep officers in line and reduce the amount of force and resident complaints. “It protects the officers tremendously,” Westerville, Ohio, Police Chief Joe Morbitzer said, “especially from false complaints.”

While some officers are hesitant to adopt a device that might capture police missteps, supporters of the body-camera agree that acceptance will come. “I think officers quickly see the value of it,” said David Roberts, senior program manager for the International Association of Chiefs of Police Technology Center. In Toledo, Ohio, all ten motorcycle officers currently use cameras placed on their helmets. Lieutenant Mark King noted that there were some resistance when the cameras were announced, but now, those same officers rely on the cameras before going out in the field.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), an advocate of public privacy, has favors body-cameras for police. “It very much works for the benefit of the people and the police,” said Gary Daniels of the ACLU of Ohio. “There’s no confusion about what happened, who said what, who provoked an incident, whether an arrest was warranted. … It helps take care of any lingering questions.”

Body cameras do pose a privacy and security concern for the public when police officers enter private residencies. Police organizations and individual law enforcement agencies are developing policies that govern when police should activate and deactivate their cameras, along with rules to decide how long videos may be stored. King believes the judicial system will decide on matters concerning privacy. “We are in uncharted waters for some things,” he said.