{"id":1974,"date":"2015-05-13T16:56:44","date_gmt":"2015-05-13T16:56:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/live-journal-of-law-and-public-policy.pantheonsite.io\/?p=1974"},"modified":"2015-05-13T16:56:44","modified_gmt":"2015-05-13T16:56:44","slug":"eyes-everywhere-police-body-cameras","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/jlpp\/2015\/05\/13\/eyes-everywhere-police-body-cameras\/","title":{"rendered":"Eyes Everywhere: Police Body Cameras"},"content":{"rendered":"Since this article was drafted, the nation’s attention turned to yet another terrible tragedy in Baltimore. Many folks on the left and the right believe that these are just symptoms of a wider problem with police in America. One thing all these recent incidents have in common is that they were captured on cell phone cameras allowing them to come to wider attention. Here, Amanda Duckworth will examine the ways police body cameras, one policy response to this situation, may help more incidents come to attention and accountability. – Editors<\/em>\n\nWhat began as a routine traffic stop in North Charleston, S.C. quickly turned into a tragedy. On Saturday, April 4, police officer Michael Slager stopped a vehicle<\/a> with a broken taillight, driven by Walter Scott. Mr. Scott fled the vehicle, likely fearing arrest over outstanding child-support payments, and ran towards a grassy lot with Officer Slager in pursuit. This sequence of events was later confirmed by video footage<\/a> captured by the dashboard camera in Officer Slager\u2019s patrol car. After this point, however, the narrative splits into two versions: the one reported by Officer Slager and the truth.\n\nAccording to the North Charleston Police Department\u2019s initial statement<\/a> given on the day of the incident, Officer Slager deployed a department-issued Taser in an attempt to stop Mr. Scott, which did not work. The Department claimed that the men then struggled over the Taser and that Mr. Scott gained control of it and attempted to use it against Officer Slager. At this point, the Department said, Officer Slager resorted to his service weapon and shot Mr. Scott. Finally, the Police claimed that officers had tried to revive Mr. Scott prior to the arrival of paramedics, but he was pronounced dead at the scene. On Monday, April 6, Officer Slager released his own statement<\/a>, through his attorney, stating his belief that he had properly followed all procedures and policies before resorting to deadly force and explaining that he had felt threatened.\n\nThis version of the story began circulating the media and likely would have gone unchallenged had it not been for a cell phone video<\/a> of the shooting, which surfaced that Tuesday. The video, taken by a bystander, shows the men in the vacant lot right after Officer Slager fired his Taser. Wires from the Taser appear to be attached to Scott as he struggles with Slager and then turns to run. Something falls to the ground between the men and Officer Slager draws his gun and fires eight shots at the fleeing Scott, who is now 15\u201320 feet away. Scott falls to the ground and Slager approaches and handcuffs him. Slager then goes back to the location of the initial struggle, picks something off the ground, walks back to Scott\u2019s body, and drops an object on the ground.\n\nIt is unclear when Officer Slager and the North Charleston Police Department first became aware of this video\u2019s existence, but Slager was charged<\/a> with murder on the day that it was posted and was fired<\/a>. Since then, additional audio footage<\/a> from the patrol car\u2019s dashboard camera has been released, which captures conversations that happened after the shooting. In the recording, Slager is heard laughing about his pumping adrenaline immediately after the incident.\n\nVideo evidence obviously played an integral role in uncovering the truth in this incident, which follows other high-profile cases where police officers\u2019 use of lethal force, particularly against black men, was called into question (such as the cases involving the deaths of Eric Garner<\/a> and Michael Brown<\/a>). The question becomes: should police officers be required to wear body cameras?\n\nSupport for this proposal has grown dramatically<\/a>, especially in light of recent claims of police brutality and misconduct. In fact, a White House policing panel recommended<\/a> that police departments put more video cameras on officers following the events in Ferguson, Missouri<\/a>. Research on the effect of police wearing body cameras shows there is a dramatic drop<\/a> in the use of force and citizen complaints when cameras are used. Further, research strongly supports the evidentiary value<\/a> of body camera technology, which creates a permanent record of police-citizen encounters that is uniquely objective. This evidence can be used during investigations and at trial, thus mitigating the problems associated with a one-sided account of events (bias, self-interest, error, etc.).\n\nWhile initial implementation costs may be high<\/a>, body camera programs have the potential to facilitate greater judicial efficiency by thwarting police and citizen misconduct and offering faster resolution to conflicts that do occur. This means increased security for officers and the public alike, less frivolous complaints, and greater accountability for law enforcement.\n\nThe events surrounding Walter Scott\u2019s death depict blatant failures in law enforcement, which almost went unnoticed. Fortunately, body camera technology can and should be used as a procedural safeguard against such behavior, rather than the occasional cell phone footage of a vigilant bystander.","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In the aftermath of the Walter Scott incident, will cameras on police officers help keep police accountable for their actions?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1975,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[18,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1974","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-feature","category-feature-img"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1974","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1974"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1974\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1975"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1974"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1974"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1974"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}