By Ben Aguirre Jr.
Oakland Tribune
UNION CITY, Calif. — The next time you interact with one of this city’s police officers, know that your conversation may be recorded.
For the last three months, Union City police officers have been video-recording some of their interactions with the public in an effort to document evidence for criminal cases, and to protect themselves and the city against complaints and litigation.
Each of Union City’s 73 sworn police officers and about a dozen non-sworn personnel have been issued pager-size video cameras, each costing about $900, that can store up to three hours of audio and video footage.
The department is the first agency in Alameda County to use the cameras; but others, including the Oakland Police Department and the East Bay Regional Park District, have expressed interest, officials said.
The cameras, which are worn on the chest, are another tool in the ever-changing world of police work, said Lt. Kelly Musgrove, a police spokesman who also oversees the department’s support services division.
For years officers have been carrying tape recorders to document some of their interactions, but now technology has taken it to another level, he said.
The cameras easily can be turned on and off by the police officer.
There is no policy as to when the officer is to use the camera, but they are encouraged to use them if they believe they will be in a situation that could be confrontational, Musgrove said.
“People act differently when they know they are on camera,” the lieutenant. “The situations tend to be a little more calm.”
For the most part, officers working traffic enforcement have been the ones racking up megabytes of space on the department’s internal server dedicated for the video, some of which is stored permanently and others that are discarded after 72 hours.
Officers have used them to record the initial contact with drivers, as well as field sobriety tests on people suspected of driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
Others have used them to record crime scenes and document interviews with witnesses or criminal suspects.
“It’s one thing to read about someone’s statement in a police report, but it’s entirely different to see them (say it),” Musgrove said.
Police who were conducting an internal investigation into a fatal officer-involved shooting in May used them to record what witnesses said they saw officers do that day, the lieutenant said.
The cameras were being worn by officers on the day of the fatal shooting, but they were not recording while police were trying to defuse the incident involving an armed man who briefly had taken his ex-wife hostage in her home, Musgrove said.
While video could prove to be valuable while investigating such cases, he said turning on the cameras is not a priority when officers’ safety could be at risk.
“This (camera) does not come before officer safety,” he said, speaking generally about the use of the gadgets.
Union City police purchased the cameras in late 2009 after spending several months toying with the idea of buying new digital cameras for their patrol vehicles.
During his research, Musgrove found that in-car cameras were not cost-effective, costing $3,000-$7,000 per unit. But the mobile cameras were far less expensive and exceeded in-car cameras in terms of functionality.
“With a car-mounted camera, you’re only getting over-the-hood (images),” he said. “With these, they go with you into people’s homes and into dark alleys. "... You get to see the entire situation.”
Copyright 2010 Contra Costa Newspapers