The U.S. Justice system has reached a point where policing the police has become a necessary investment. In the volatile political climate in which we live, the public has never cried out more for a solution. People continue to riot in the streets and call for justice every day in opposition of police brutality and misconduct. When observing recent incidents involving police brutality and police misconduct, it is easy to see that police body cameras offer a unique way to police the police. While body cameras seem like an instant fix, it is necessary to have a policy that addresses concerns such as privacy for both the officers and citizens. Events such as the killing of Michael Brown and the beating of Rodney King show that police conduct has been questionable for many years. Police officers are designated to uphold the U.S. Constitution and protect the God given rights of all citizens, this basic statement is exactly why there is no room in society for police officers who act above the law. I am a firm believer that under the right policy, police body cameras can serve to reduce misconduct, unneeded violence, and serve to protect both the rights of both citizens and officers. We fear that by allowing this recording we take one step closer to an Orwellian future as a society, but regulation is the key to making this policy successful for everyone involved.

The implementation of police body cameras has faced opposition, despite a large amount of support from both the public and major politicians. With the rise of fatal police encounters, the public’s support for body cameras only seems to grow and major pushes towards complete implementation have been made. A major player in the push for police body cameras has been Barrack Obama. During his presidency Obama authorized over 70 million dollars in grants for police organizations to buy thousands of body cameras over the course of a few years (Kelsh). For example, “In May 2015, the U.S. Department of Justice announced it was providing $20 million in grants to help local and tribal agencies purchase and learn to use body cameras,” (Kelsh). Despite government support some agencies out right refuse to use these body cameras (Kelsh). It is shocking to see that surveys have shown that only about 25 percent of American Police agencies are using body cameras, while 80 percent are evaluating the program (Stanley 1).  Agencies that aren’t fortunate enough to be given grants by the government are burden by the cost to purchase, train with, and maintain these body cameras. These police agencies are actively opposing this policy because they see it as a forced expense, especially when it becomes law for officers to have these cameras. Because of issues like cost, privacy, and record keeping body cameras have faced trouble reaching full implementation. It may come as a surprise to some to hear that recently these cameras have not only become popular amongst politicians and civilians, but also among police and the court system (Coudert, Butin, and Métayer 751). Some states like California choose to adopt police body cameras, while other states had the choice made for them by a court decision. The best example of this can be seen in New York, where a court decision called for implementation in an attempt to reduce racial profiling and other examples of police misconduct. This judge expressed praise for this program and believed it to promote more lawful interactions between officers and the public (Coudert, Butin, and Métayer 751). It is amazing to see that efforts to implement body cameras are being made and supported by all levels of government. Despite implementation being forced or by choice it is very obvious the good these cameras do. 

Police body cameras when used and regulated properly can be extremely powerful. Despite the problems with current police body camera policy, it is evident that the pros outweigh the cons. The ability to have that unbiased record in situations that would otherwise be a he-said she-said type situation can be vital to a court case. These cameras to serve a whole host of benefits, such as improving police conduct, evidence collecting, officer accountability, improve the reputations of law agencies, and review of events and interactions. One should be able to find comfort that an officer will be held accountable for their actions and will show proper discretion when interacting with the public. When looking at Chaz Kelsh’s article, “Do body cameras change how police interact with the public?”, the stats are shocking. Kelsh explains that officers who did not wear cameras made 6.9 percent more arrests, frisked almost 10 percent more citizens than the officers who were issued cameras. One explanation for these numbers is that the officers may have thought more closely about the rules and procedure they must follow before searching or arresting someone. Police body cameras force officers to follow the most basic rule we learn as children: treat citizens the way they would want to be treated if they were in said position. Increased officer accountability is a major benefit of this program. When conducting my own personal interview with Officer McKnight I gained an idea for both the support officers have for this program and the various benefits of these cameras. I was lucky enough to interview Officer McKnight October fifth 2017. Officer McKnight is a police officer for the Columbia South Carolina Police Department and has been issued not only a body camera but also a dashboard camera. Officer McKnight explained how these cameras are “helping to remove the few bad apples off the force each day.” McKnight takes comfort in the fact his interactions are being recorded because that footage serves to protect him. His actions may be called into question but the video doesn’t lie. These body cameras not only help weed out corrupt police officers but help defend officers from faulty complaints. Officer McKnight expressed how vital this is when dealing with an incident that truly needs an unbiased perspective. Officer McKnight expressed how he believes that these body cameras promote more wholesome interactions between police and citizens. This view point mirrors that of the New York Judge who made the decision for body camera implementation. This judge believes that the recordings demonstrate how the citizens and police officers are judged on the same platform, the officer is no longer more credible than the citizen when oral testimony is the only evidence. The judge also stated that overt recording encourages more respectful and lawful interactions between the public and officers (Coudert, Butin, and Métayer 751). This interview really displays some of the benefits of these recordings and seeing how officers are becoming more supportive everyday only demonstrates how full implementation is needed. Like many things police cameras will be resisted at first, but eventually they will be embraced by both law enforcement and the public.

It is widely accepted that everyone behaves their best when being recorded. This undeniable truth is the reason why places like art galleries and banks have cameras. It only makes sense that when trusting someone with the level of power and authority that comes with serving the law, that they be accountable for their actions. “Body-worn cameras have the potential to act as powerful deterrent mechanism by exposing behavior that was previously not scrutinized (Coudert, Butin, and Métayer 756).” In Coudert, Butin, and Métayer’s writing, Body-worn cameras for police accountability: opportunities and risks, they review a study from Rialto California. Rialto is an area that openly accepted and integrated police body cameras and experienced an extreme amount of success when reviewing the findings. In Rialto it was found that citizens’ complaints dropped a drastic 88 percent and the use of force by police officers dropped a total 60 percent (756). Police brutality has become an epidemic in recent history and it is so clear that police body cameras can make a huge difference. We live in a time where racially motivated discrimination is tearing this country apart. We live in a country where minorities are afraid to go to the police for help. We live in a time where officers get away with murder constantly. It is time to break this cycle. Body cameras require an officer to act with justification, they force an officer to use higher levels of discretion, and they allow for serious review of events without the worry of bias. 

Police body cameras are only as successive as the rules and regulations in which they operate under. A major concern for this is the matter of privacy for both citizens and police officers. Having officers continually record in public brings to life fears of an Orwellian state and for good cause. When thinking about a place like New York City, an officer on patrol will encounter thousands of people throughout his shift. This is a massive amount of surveillance on the general population and also the officers. One must also think about the typical interaction between police and the populous. Recording in citizen’s homes brings up another conflict to the policy. The footage acquired from these body cameras are subject to public access and must be released, so that brings up a lot of problems. One must think about situations involving DUIs and rape victims. In these certain situations people would obviously not want their identities to be released. This is another prime reason that a reliable policy must be created to properly regulate these cameras.  

If the body cameras work on a system of constantly recording that means that all conversations and actions of on duty officers will be recorded despite if they are interacting with the public or not. This is not an option that many officers support so typically the body cameras work by recording at the discretion of the officers who are on patrol. Giving an officer the ability to turn his camera on and off at will is a massive hole in the policy surrounding these cameras and undermines their core purpose and functionality. The manipulation of these cameras by some officers is real and is far too common (Stanley 3). Police officers certainly do deserve some sympathy on this matter as do the citizens. Forced continuous recording of a police officer clearly infringes on their constitutional rights, so sadly the cameras must be subject to their discretion. Officer McKnight pointed out this discrepancy when I was interviewing him. Officer McKnight quickly pointed out the switch located on the side of his camera that he is required to flip on when he is interacting with the public. To put it in his terms he must be recording once approaching the scene. This questionable policy is much more alarming when looking at the case of Justine Damond. The Editorial Board of the Washington Post recounts this tragedy in their article “Officers, turn on your body cameras” and it really serves to show how officers can seriously drop the ball when it comes to turning on their body cameras. The story goes as thus, Justine Damond called the police to report a possible rape in her local vicinity. Shortly after the first call she made a second call to the police to report more screaming. Later once police arrived Justine Damond was shot dead. What led to her death was not captured on camera despite both responding officers being equipped with functional cameras. This only gets scarier when looking at the other statistics the Editorial Board of the Washington Post state in their article “Officers, turn on your body cameras”. They state that in certain counties officers are submitting as little as 20 minutes worth of footage from a standard eight hour shift. That is completely unacceptable. This completely undermines the whole purpose of this program and is honestly terrifying. To make matters even worse out of the 554 police shootings that have claimed the lives of someone in 2017 only 57 of these encounters had footage related to the incident. This is an absolutely disgusting fact considering that these are events where officers felt that they were justified in taking a life but did not find it important to turn on their damn cameras. When entering a high tension and dangerous situation the camera should be what an officer reaches for first. It should be standard protocol for an officer to reach for his camera before his gun, that’s just a plain and simple fact. Obviously police work is a dangerous job, and not all situations afford either the time or plausibility to flip that switch, human error is of course a factor. It is important though that a policy is put into place to give proper consequences that would encourage proper recording practices. Officers need to be held to a proper standard otherwise these cameras only serve to be a huge waste of tax payer funds. 

Police body cameras can be a viable option to deter police misconduct and “remove a few bad apples off the force (Officer McKnight).” It is extremely important that in the land of the free and the home of the brave, no one is afraid of those who are tasked to serve and protect the population. The U.S. Constitution is the very fabric of the American dream and police officers have the critical job of protecting those certain inalienable rights. This very reason is exactly why policing the police is a job that can no longer be ignored in this country. It is clear that the violence is only growing and that we cannot trust the police to fix their own broken, corrupt system. Body cameras are not a final solution but with the proper regulation massive steps can be made towards fixing our police forces, and towards mending this country. I believe that it’s time to fix the horrible image and reputation of the police. Recently the media has portrayed police forces as gestapo like, militarized racists. It’s about time to mend the divide that has separated the police from the communities in which they aim to protect. This disconnect is only causing more racial violence, more riots, more damage, and is a huge expense for the tax payer. We live in a world where it seems that our personal rights are being stripped more and more each day. By allowing this recording we as a nation are not agreeing to mass surveillance but to a new layer of protection to prevent abuse by those who are untouchable by the law. As Americans we have the right to fix the broken systems that plague our society and I cannot help but feel that body cameras are a damn good start. With a little work a policy can be made that will make these police issued body cameras much more effective. A proper policy should make these cameras more commonly used than a officers fire arm when on patrol. The police need to be held at the same standard as the average citizen, having a badge makes no man better than the next. The days of the racist, pig cop need to come to an end so more progress can be made in unifying the masses. 
