Posted on 08/22/2014 1:13:15 AM PDT by EinNYC
n the wake of the controversial caught-on-camera chokehold death of Eric Garner, the city’s public advocate is pushing to equip city cops with body cams to record all interactions with the public.
“We’ve got a tool at our disposal, which is used in other jurisdictions, that in fact can improve police-community relations,” Public Advocate Letitia James said Thursday.
“The question is why it isn’t implemented in New York City.”
The waterproof three-ounce cameras James demonstrated, worn on a lapel or belt, would record audio and visual for up to eight hours on a single battery charge.
On July 17, a bystander filmed Staten Island cops putting Garner in a chokehold, which are banned by the NYPD. The city medical examiner declared Garner’s death a homicide and Staten Island District Attorney Dan Donovan said last week he will present the case to a grand jury to see if criminal charges are merited.
In an appearance on MSNBC last week, NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton said body cameras are in the pipeline for the force.
"That’s where we’re going in the NYPD,” Bratton said. “We're working very closely with the LAPD, who’s about a year ahead of us in putting cameras in place.”
The federal judge who handled the stop-and-frisk class action lawsuit has ordered the NYPD to mount a pilot body cam program in one precinct in each borough.
James is pushing for a bigger pilot program in precincts with the highest rates of crime and complaints.
Last month, Mayor De Blasio said he approved of the cameras but said the technology isn’t there yet.
“It’s not something that has been perfected,” De Blasio said at a July 28 press conference.
“It’s something that has to be worked on quite a bit to be used on the kind of scale we’re talking about here.”
The cameras would cost about $5 million if given to 15% of the police force, according to a study the public advocate issued Thursday. The price would go up to $32 million to expand the program citywide.
James claims the expense would be more than made up for by a drop in costly lawsuits against the NYPD. Payouts in settlements and judgments from such cases totalled $152 million last year.
“In cases where police officers are falsely accused of police misconduct, it would exonerate them,” James said of the cams.
“There will be no room for discussion and misinterpretation of the facts.”
But police union head Patrick Lynch is not convinced.
“We are reserving our decision on body cameras until we see some real evidence of their effectiveness and impact on the officers,” Lynch said in a statement earlier this month.
James said police misconduct complaints have already decreased in other police departments using the body cams. In Rialto, Calif, complaints of excessive force dropped from 24 in 2012 to just three in 2013, after all 75 beat cops started wearing cameras.
Cams are already carried by cops in Albuquerque and Salt Lake City and pilot programs are underway in Seattle, Houston, Oakland and other cities.
>>I want to see why the cop thought it was necessary to withdraw his weapon from his holster. That is what needs to be shown, not the shooting.<<
I am familiar with the Ferguson shooting. I am referring to every shooting involving a paid officer.
Good point. No public employee who is on duty should have ANY expectation of privacy. They should not be permitted to hide behind the fourth Amendment protection against search and seizure of papers relating to any documents, recordings, etc., relating to the position as a public servant because they are NOT acting as a private citizen at those times. As soon as they put off the mantle, clock-out, enter back into private citizenship after work, they again have those protections.
Ergo, with our current level of technology, every police cruiser should be equipped with a "blue box" device recording 360° view and ambient sounds. Routine, non-eventful recordings would be overwritten, but all public contact would be kept for a specified time—traffic stops until adjudicated and/or statutorily finished in some manner, misdemeanor and felony until the statute of limitation has expired or the case has been adjudicated/sealed/appealed/or other action required. . . but in any case such recordings are kept UNDER SEAL, unless subpoenaed by appropriate warrant or administrative complaint to protect the privacy of private citizens OTHER than the officer.
Tied into that system would be any officer mounted mikes and/or cameras.
After the officer's probationary period, all reviews of such recordings by superiors would be limited only to reviews initiated by public complaints or positive evidence of corruption. Officers should not feel they are untrustworthy and have big brother watching over their shoulder. However, if this system is operated real-time recording to a central location, then the officer should be able to request real-time monitoring by a superior when going into a risky situation.
The chest mount you show would show a black screen in that choke hold from behind that supposedly killed the guy in NY. That's the problem I was referring to. . . but I don't see a method around that unless every officer has a swarm of housefly sized flying robotic camera drones following him around at a suitable distances to get multiple views of the action.
Perhaps when an officer sees that his every move is being tracked they will lose some of their Never mess with a Cop attitude.
I would much rather see a cop realize beforehand the potential for a situation to escalate and have him retreat than have him shoot someone who is angry for whatever reason and that result in a $30 million trial judgement for the relatives.
I would much rather see a cop realize beforehand the potential for a situation to escalate and have him retreat than have him shoot someone who is angry for whatever reason and that result in a $30 million trial judgement for the relatives.
True but if you delay it for 30 minutes that gives the rowdy ‘suspect’ a chance to calm down and you to gather some backup where hopefully the suspect would then realize he was outnumbered and surrender peacefully. That keeps the costs in damages to human bodies and bank accounts way down.
Just the mere knowledge that anything he does that COULD wind up in such a civil case, would absolutely be reviewed video and audibly, should be enough to curb such behavior. Police aren't stupid.
Police aren’t stupid.
That would be better if you had said, “Most Police aren’t stupid.” Most police will walk away from a serious scuffle and come back with some big guys who like to tussle with idiot suspects. There’s always the young and dumb ones who haven’t yet learned the smart way of doing things. They are the ones who I hope cameras will push out of law enforcement.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.