D.C. Takes Bold Steps to Implement Body Cameras, Leading the Nation in Transparency

Overview: 

Since a grand jury declined to indict Darren Wilson for shooting and killing Michael Brown a year ago in Ferguson, Missouri, the public has called for reforms that would require law enforcement officers to wear body cameras while on duty.  In that case, a series of witnesses had claimed Brown was shot while fleeing from Wilson and raising his hands as if to surrender.  However, according to the prosecuting attorney, several of those witnesses later recanted or admitted to not seeing the shooting.  Proponents of placing body cameras on law enforcement officers claim that the cameras would benefit both police and civilians by better holding the police accountable for their treatment of suspects as well as helping to exonerate officers falsely accused of misconduct.  A poll conducted by CBS revealed that 91 percent of respondents supported on-duty police officers wearing body cameras.  Additionally, a study conducted by the University of Cambridge’s Institute of Criminology found that body-worn cameras reduced complaints against police by 90 percent and the use of force by police by 50 percent.

Under a new plan from District of Columbia Mayor Muriel E. Bowser, the city would release more footage from body cameras worn by law enforcement officers than any other major U.S. city.  Not only would the footage recorded by the body cameras be available for use in courtroom proceedings, but, also under Mayor Bowser’s proposal, private individuals will be able to request body camera footage recorded in public outdoor spaces.  However, under Mayor Bowser’s plan, the public would not have access to recordings taken indoors.  Recordings taken in private indoor spaces would be exempt from disclosure under public record laws, attempting to balance the right to privacy with the need for transparency.  Yet, the exact line between a public space and a private one remains blurred for the time being.  For example, Mayor Bowser has not made clear whether footage recorded in a department store, bar, or college dormitory will be considered private or public for the purposes of disclosure under public record laws.

Other major U.S. cities are also attempting to implement body cameras.  Los Angeles recently approved the use of 7,000 body cameras to equip nearly all of its officers; however, debates ensued over who should be able to view the recordings.  The approved plan in Los Angeles places a blanket ban on releasing the footage outside of formal legal proceedings and allow officers to have the first look at the footage. New York began implementing body cameras in September of 2014; however, debates continue on whether the recordings should be available to the public or whether disclosure would be prevented by a New York law that prevents the disclosure of records that could be used to evaluate an officer’s performance.  San Diego’s police chief, while stating that San Diego police officers who wore cameras used less force and received fewer complains from citizens, stood firmly behind the department’s policy of not releasing video footage obtained from body cameras to the media.  

It is clear that Mayor Bowser’s plan for implementing body cameras in the District of Columbia is a bold and decisive move towards transparency in law enforcement, surpassing other movements throughout the Nation. The implementation of Mayor Bowser’s plan will certainly affect both practitioners representing both civilian and police defendants as well as prosecutors dealing with self-defense claims and cases of alleged police misconduct.  Footage taken from body cameras would present undisputed facts, and a trial would, therefore, focus mostly on legal issues.  The clear evidence provided by body cameras would thus facilitate plea deals, quicker settlements, and judgments as a matter of law.  Also, it may be difficult to suppress evidence obtained from body cameras as it would be highly probative to the fact finder.  A practitioner moving to suppress such evidence would have to demonstrate that the footage is somehow prejudicial.  Additionally, where the footage is not released to the public and is only available for courtroom use, the prosecutors may be required to produce the footage, and defense attorneys may have an ethical duty to acquire the footage and review it with their clients.  Also, venue problems may arise where body camera footage is available to the media, as jurors may be unfairly prejudiced by the media’s portrayal of the footage. The introduction of evidence from body cameras is likely to be a huge game-changer in criminal cases that will keep practitioners on their toes.

By Alyssa Mance

Senior Staffer 

Combating Drugged Driving: Drug Recognition Experts

View image | gettyimages.com

In February 2015, the Hagerstown Police Department in Hagerstown, Maryland, received its first Drug Recognition Expert (DRE), adding to the ranks of over 7,000 DREs already credentialed.  There are certified drug recognition experts in all fifty states and the District of Columbia, with more being trained annually.  While the number sitting alone may seem large, the figure barely registers in comparison to the 765,000 sworn law enforcement officers reported to work for approximately 18,000 state and local police agencies in 2008 (statistics for 2012 have yet to be released—another census will not be performed until 2016).  Yet, these specialized officers, having undergone intensive training, serve an important role within their departments by assisting to identify and arrest drug-impaired drivers.

Your Pets and the Police

Dogs. They are man’s best friends. They give unconditional love and loyalty, asking for nothing in return. These animals become a part of the family. It is no wonder that there are approximately between 70-80 million dog owners in the United States, which amounts to between 37 to 47 percent of all households. With dog ownership being so prevalent in the United States, it is not hard to imagine that these animals may also become involved in situations concerning people—namely interactions with police.

Police Use of Force: Deferential Legal Standards

View image | gettyimages.com

Editor’s Note: This is part one of a two part blog post examining police use of force. Part one examines the deferential legal standards applied to police use of force. Part two will be published next week and will examine the relationship between officer training and police use of force.

In December 2009, Albuquerque police responded to a domestic violence call where they discovered a man had doused himself in gasoline.  Several police officers managed to place the man in handcuffs and removed him from the apartment.  The man resisted the officers by banging his head against the wall.  In response, several officers used their Tasers in drive-stun mode^[1], setting the man on fire.  This account is one of many examples listed in the 2014 Department of Justice’s civil investigation into the practices by the Albuquerque Police Department (APD).  The findings concluded the department engaged in a pattern or practice of excessive force--in many cases deadly force--violating the Fourth Amendment’s right to be free from unreasonable seizures.

           

The Soldier Department

In November 2012, the local police department for the small town of Keene, New Hampshire announced the acquisition of a ballistic-engineered armored response counter attack truck, more affectionately called a “BearCat,” from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).  Meanwhile, local police in the small town of Cary, North Carolina taught a training course entitled “Warrior Mindset” to its incoming class of officers. In February 2013, a New Haven Police Department Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team used a battering ram through a single family’s front door, shooting a flash-bang grenade to temporarily blind the family while it executed a search warrant for drugs.  No drugs were found.

Police Worn Cameras: Technology Gift or Privacy Curse?

In an era where virtually everyone has the capacity to record video, it comes as no surprise that some police forces have decided to equip officers with body-worn cameras to wear during traffic stops and investigations.  The use of technology raises many questions concerning privacy rights of both citizens and officers and the public perception of police officers while using cameras.  The effect still remains to be seen, but some interesting statistics have been offered in support of use by a new report studying the success of programs which implement police-worn camera devices.

Guest Post: Illegal Traffic Stop -- What Can a Police Officer Do When He Pulls You Over?

It is the Cops' jobs to protect the public; one way to do that is through legitimate traffic stops.  But what about when a police officer abuses his power?  How far can a cop go during the traffic stop?  And, what can you do to stop him?

THE LAW
Once the purpose of a traffic stop has been satisfied, the continued detention of a vehicle and its occupants constitutes a second stop, and must be independently justified by reasonable suspicion.