Trending Topics

New Bystander Camera App Benefits Officers – Despite ACLU’s Intentions

BuyTough-camera-app-benefits.jpg

By Michael Cayes
Mooring Tech, Inc.

This article is provided by Mooring Tech, Inc. and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of Police1.

Amid mounting tensions between civilians and police forces around the country, many cities have opted to begin phasing in body cameras for on-duty officers. Recent riots in Ferguson Missouri and Baltimore Maryland have only accelerated the process. These cameras, in addition to straining budgets that are already tight for many departments, raise serious questions of privacy for those filmed. As Michael Wagers—COO of the Seattle PD—says, “Our dilemma was how do we be transparent while at the [same] time protect privacy rights of citizens… if we can increase transparency, we can increase public trust.”

So how do departments maintain the delicate balance of transparency with and privacy for members of their community? In Seattle, all body camera footage is released on YouTube, albeit with everything in the video blurred, and without any accompanying audio. In Minnesota, only the subjects of videos are allowed access, and only on request; a new bill also provides for release of footage if “the video captures the use of force causing bodily harm or if the video is taken in a public place.” Across the country, states are legislating the way that officers are required to document their interactions, and the circumstances in which those interactions can be viewed. The intention is to protect police and citizens from unfounded claims and from the abuse of power, respectively.

Overall, preliminary findings are positive; unfounded cases of excessive use of force are dismissed faster with video evidence. Legitimate cases of excessive force are dealt with in a timelier manner. After all, most people will try to be on their best behavior if they know it can be played back for them on film later.

But in many communities budget constraints and uncertain public opinion have stymied the introduction of body cameras. It is for these communities the ACLU has developed the Mobile Justice CA app. Designed specifically for citizens of California-but with several corresponding apps for other states already in the works-Mobile Justice CA allows citizens to record video and have it instantaneously uploaded to a remote ACLU server. The app is being praised as a way to protect people from police abuse, but the ACLU’s official tagline is “Justice is within your reach.”

Given the early data gleaned from police body cameras, video evidence tends to bolster police testimonies, rather than damage them. To officers who find themselves on extended leave, without income, and judged by their communities during investigations, the app presents a chance for justice as well. For departments who need to focus funding on updating their equipment and protective gear, the app provides a way to obtain video proof that can expedite investigations without further burdening local law enforcement budgets.

It remains to be seen how, when, and to whom the ACLU will be allowed to release this footage. But in spite of their efforts, it seems the ACLU has effectively found a way to put justice within reach for citizens, and for those sworn to protect them.