On August 9, 2014, unarmed teenager Michael Brown was fatally shot by Officer Darren Wilson of the Ferguson Police Department in Ferguson, Missouri. This sparked nationwide conversation because the exact details of the event were not clear. Whether the shot was justified or not, there were cases argued for both sides. Comments from eyewitnesses were gathered, but they differed from comments given by the department. Unfortunately, there were no cameras present to capture this mysterious interaction. Though this encounter brought about many social movements, including Black Lives Matter, it also provided police departments with a new topic of discussion focusing on additional video evidence. If Officer Wilson had been wearing some sort of camera on his uniform, then there would not have been much confusion about what happened because it would have been recorded as hard evidence that could be reviewed. Since then, many departments across the country have been investigating these small devices, and many have even started piloting the program. Though sometimes opposed because of issues such as privacy, it is essential to equip all law enforcement officers with a body-mounted camera, since it aids in officer safety, increases accountability, and provides additional evidence in court.  In order to prove these points, this paper will be broken down into four sections. The first will discuss increased police safety as a result of the cameras, the second will tackle police accountability and its affect the community, the third will focus on the use of video footage as evidentiary support in court, and the fourth will refute the common counterargument toward body cameras, privacy. 

Police Safety 

The role of a police officer is to serve and protect the community, but that becomes much more difficult when they are in constant fear for their own safety. Body-mounted cameras offer a sense of security for the officer, ensuring they will be able to do their best, unrestricted work. Throughout history there have been countless instances of the word of an officer being put against the word of a civilian. With that, the issue arises of who to believe. Some would argue in favor of the officer, because they enforce the law, therefore they would not break it. Others would argue in favor of the civilian, arguing that they are the victim and should not be questioned. The initiation of body cameras would eliminate the split jury. In an article published by The Valdosta Daily Times, it is stated that, "body cameras absolutely protect officers from groundless accusations" (All). The addition of video evidence would debunk any attempt of false accusations toward the officer, providing a sense of security. No longer would an officer be in jeopardy of having to defend themselves against a fictional claim. The simple review of the body cameras footage would reinforce the officer's word in a matter of minutes, doing away with the need for further research or a lengthy trial. In day to day life, the need to be walking on eggshells, fearing the possibility of a misleading claim being filed, would disappear. By knowing that no one could spin their words into something they are not, they would gain the ability to work more confidently. On a larger scale, the footage obtained from a body-mounted cameras could save an innocent officer from going to prison. If a civilian put together a convincing enough case, and there was no evidence to prove it false, then the officer could be locked up, leaving behind confused friends and family, a disappointed department, and a distrusting public. 

The concern for officer safety can be broken down into a few different parts. On the one hand, the devices would be quite beneficial in that they can protect the officer against false accusations. On the other hand, there is concern for officers' physical safety while dealing with the camera. Dr. Michael D. White published a pamphlet with the United States Department of Justice addressing the concerns he had with the body cameras regarding officer safety. He states that there are many hazards including, "assailants strangling officers with the camera strap or wire ... assailants hitting officers with the camera and causing head injury" (White). Even in less combative situations, White still believes these cameras will become a health and safety issue in that they put additional weight on the officer's already strained body. Though these concerns are valid, and should not be ignored, the positive contributions to officer safety long outweigh these drawbacks. The situations in which the suspect would use the camera as a weapon, though possible, are not likely, especially when considering that they will be less likely to attack if they know they are being recorded. Additionally, the cameras are not likely to put a great deal more strain on an officer's body. The cameras are very small, and are, in most cases, placed somewhere on the officer's chest. Adding the additional weight to a sturdy place, such as the chest, will not affect the officer's body much, if at all. Though it is important to consider officers' health and safety when debating this new device, it is essential to truly compare the costs and benefits. In this case, the ability to resolve false accusations against officers overshadows the possibility of the camera being used as a weapon against them and the minimal strain that will be put on the officer. Not only will these small devices aid in the protection against false accusations, but they will also hold officers accountable for their actions. 

Police Accountability 

The event that sparked the discussion of body-mounted cameras was the conflict between Michael Brown and Officer Darren Wilson back in 2014, bringing to light the issue of officer accountability. Though the incident in Ferguson, Missouri is the most well-known because of its wide media spread, there are, unfortunately, other instances of discrepancies between officers and the community members all over the nation. The El Paso Times has documented instances of, "the use of shootings, the use of lethal force on border residents ... in El Paso" (Borunda). ) As these situations are becoming more frequent, it is essential that something is done to keep officers in check. It is not the case that all police officers in the United States are bad, and therefore need constant supervision. However, since the media typically only showcases the rarity that is unjustified police brutality, the law enforcement system needs to take these steps in order to secure the community's trust. In a survey of police officers done by The Journal of Criminal Justice, it was found that just over 40% of surveyed officers believe that the implementation of body-worn cameras in the agency would increase the likelihood of officers "behaving by the book" (Jennings). By putting the officer's work on display for the department, they are more likely to do as they were told to do in training rather than creating their own solution to the problem. When the community understands that officers have a new sense of "playing by the books" and that there is concrete evidence of every move they make, they will be more inclined to trust them. Additionally, almost 40% of surveyed officers believe that agency-wide use of body cameras would reduce the amount of complaints from citizens of the community (Jennings). Though understanding and predicting each individual officer's behavior is not a goal that can currently be achieved, the implementation of the body camera will be a useful tool in gaining the community's support and trust. The officers will be aware that every move they make will be documented, so it may change certain aspects of their behavior, meaning they may respond to any given situation differently than they had before the camera. This would be a good thing because it may make the officer stop and think about what they are doing before they do it, possibly saving a civilian from unjustified injury, or even death. Additionally, the civilians will be less inclined to file a complaint against an officer if they know all the actions have been caught on camera. Previously, a complaint would have needed to be filed in order for the department to have even known that a mishap occurred. Now, a simple review of the body cameras footage would inform them that the officer had acted wrongly, and they can take appropriate action. Body-mounted cameras are the next step in buckling down on police accountability. An effective way to do so is by reviewing the video evidence that body cameras provide. 

Evidentiary Support

In the grand scheme of things, body-mounted cameras are needed to capture things, such as officer interactions with civilians, so that they can be used as video evidence in court. On September 1, 2015, Lieutenant Charles Gliniewicz was found dead after a fatal shot to the chest. The scene was suspicious, leaving officers puzzled over the order of events leading up to the shooting, including who the shooter could have been. In an article written for the Chicago Daily Herald by Mike Riopell and Lee Filas, the commander of the Lake County Major Crimes Task Force, George Filenko, states that, "any video would have helped in the investigation" (Riopell). He claims that if Lieutenant Gliniewicz was equipped with a body camera then the camera "could have possibly given investigators a video or a sequence of videos of everything that happened" (Riopell). It wasn't until two months later, in November, when the case was finally ruled an elaborate suicide. Though this case was not the typical situation that the body cameras would be used in, it still offers an example of where the camera could have been effective. Because Glinienwicz was not wearing a body camera, this case was stretched out for two months. The video footage from the camera he could have been wearing would have solved it in a matter of hours, saving department time and resources. 

Countless cases taken to court would benefit from video evidence provided by body cameras. Assault, for example, is a crime that could be easily documented on video, and then easily sorted out in court later. The issue in assault cases is often deciding who "threw the first punch" and who responded in self-defense. With both side likely arguing the latter, an objective third party would clean up the dispute effectively. Keith L. Alexander of The Washington Post, in an article about the benefits that body cameras provide in a courtroom, states that video acquired from the body cameras can, "help bolster  -- or contradict  -- testimony from officers, victims or witnesses" (Alexander). Video has a way of telling a story that no one else can because it cannot be altered. What the video says, goes. In the assault example, the dispute over the initiator would end rather quickly once the video clearly shows who was at fault. Not only would this quicken the trial process, but it would also ensure that the correct person was brought to justice. In a way, the cameras serve better than an eyewitness could. Oftentimes, a person's brain plays tricks on them, providing them with exaggerated, unreliable details. The benefit of the footage from body cameras is that it is totally unbiased. Once an event is recorded, it cannot be tampered with in order to show details that never happened. By acquiring evidence through body camera footage, the court is presented with an objective look at the events that transpired, aiding in the trial process.

Though there is no denying that body-mounted cameras would bring additional evidence to a court room, there is debate over whether or not this footage is reliable. Janet Vertesi of TIME argues that, because of the possibility of multiple interpretations, videos cannot be left to speak for themselves. She claims that "like words, images are open for interpretation" (Vertesi). Depending on how a person looks at it, a video can portray different meanings. This could lead to confusion in the courtroom, especially if the prosecution is arguing for one perspective, while the defense is arguing for another, leaving the jury at a loss. Because of the multiple perspectives each clip could bring, Vertesi believes that body camera footage should not be considered the end all, be all of evidence in trial. Janet Vertesi makes a good point. Video footage is often open for interpretation by the viewer. However, there can be multiple interpretations on just about every piece of evidence, video, or not. A tone of voice in a recording, facial expression of a witness, scene in a photo, all of these things have the potential of being misinterpreted by any number of people, yet they are all still viable in a court, therefore a video should be too. Whether or not the footage can be viewed in a few different ways does not change the content of the video itself. It can be looked at in as many different ways as are imaginable, but the events that transpired will remain the same. The footage from body cameras will still present evidence in a way that a witness could not. Nothing will be exaggerated or doctored to fit a certain side. The video is what it is, and having a different viewpoint will not change that. Therefore, body cameras are a reliable source of data in a courtroom. Because the videos being shown in court are shown to large quantities of people, the concern for privacy for those in the video is brought to light. 

Privacy

One of the main concerns with the body camera initiative is the issue of privacy for the community. It is the fear of many that the footage obtained from body-mounted cameras on police uniforms will be leaked to public, resulting in embarrassing, private, footage to be spread freely. This concern is especially prevalent because these cameras would be able to gain access to many places in which standard government surveillance has not been exposed to in the past. The public argues that when officers are wearing the body camera, they do not have an opportunity to stay off the record. Because the camera is always recording, anyone that the officer comes into contact with is automatically put on the video, whether they were willing to be, or not. The issue of public privacy is a topic not taken lightly, and rightfully so. It is important for not only civilians, but also officers to have a right to privacy while going about their daily lives. Though the body cameras have been accused of eliminating that right, the process of putting policies into place has been started. The body camera initiative should not be halted in the meantime. They offer too many benefits to the community, and that should not stop while the hiccups are sorted out. The problem is being resolved, organizations, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, have been drawing up policies that would benefit the civilians while still reaping the benefits of the devices. The ACLU is working to create a system in which, "officers cannot manipulate the video record, while also ensuring that officers are not ... without any opportunity for shelter from constant monitoring" (Freund).  The hope is to create some way to switch the camera on when needed, but have it otherwise be dormant, much like the current cameras on the squad car's dashboard is only turned on while the lights and sirens are on. A feature such as this would create the element of privacy for the officers, as well as the surrounding community, while still allowing the device to do as it was intended. As with all new pieces of technology, there are a few tweaks that need to be made, but that does not mean that the movement should be put to rest. 

The debate over body-mounted cameras has been buidling all across the nation, especially after recent acts of police brutality. Some would argue that these cameras would not benefit the community, claiming they violate a right to privacy and do not contribute reliable evidence to a courtroom. However, these issues do not supply enough reason to abandon the body camera movement. The nation's police officers need to be equipped with a body-mounted camera. They are significant in providing an element of safety and accountability to both officers and civilians, as well as providing concrete evidence that can be used in trial. Though the concern for officer safety and community privacy is justified, they do not outweigh the benefits that the cameras would provide to the department and the citizens. The situations that would threaten an officer's safety, though possible, are not probable, and therefore cannot be used as a reason to stop the movement. Additionally, the concern for privacy is being looked into by multiple organizations, looking for a way to maintain the right to privacy for the officers and civilians, while still allowing the device to do as it was intended. The initiation of body cameras is a vital step for law enforcement. Police brutality has been a major issue over the past few years, and something needs to be done. Providing every officer with a camera on their vest will aid in holding officers accountable for their actions, while also adding the benefits of safety and evidence. This is the right move for the nation.

