body cams – Techdirt (original) (raw)

Police Chief Who Fled A Shooting And Crashed Into Another Car Deliberately Didn’t Activate His Body Camera

from the an-hero dept

Well, here’s some more flavor to add to this horrendous mix of irresponsibility and privilege put in motion by Albuquerque Police Chief Harold Medina’s multiple moving violations earlier this year.

Here’s a pretty solid recap of the incident, composed by a pretty solid writer, if I may be so bold and self-serving:

Let’s run this all down: Chief Medina was driving a police vehicle, albeit one that was unmarked. He had his wife in his work vehicle. Despite being off-duty, he decided to take his wife on a brief tour of an area he felt needed more law enforcement: a “homeless encampment.” His wife was (apparently) the first to notice a gun. Rather than act like a cop in a cop vehicle (off-duty or not), Chief Medina chose to compound the danger of the situation by driving through a red light… because it was far more important he (and maybe his wife) escape injury than anyone else residing in the city.

Whether or not Chief Medina was technically “on the clock” isn’t open for discussion. He was headed to a press conference, which strongly suggests he was engaging in police business, even if he wasn’t actually engaged in actual law enforcement.

Medina blew through a red light, cutting off oncoming traffic and t-boning the car driven by Todd Perchert, who was doing nothing more than following traffic laws by proceeding through a green light. Chief Medina managed to escape injury, but the innocent victim of his bold cowardice in the face of danger didn’t fare nearly as well. Not only was his classic 1966 Ford Mustang totaled, but Perchert was hospitalized for [deep breath] a broken collarbone, broken shoulder blade, eight broken ribs, and a collapsed lung.

Despite the chief running from the sound of gunfire, he was hailed as a hero by the city’s mayor, Tim Keller:

The chief of police is arguably the most important person right now in these times, in our city, in our state. And so, what he did today, I think, also was something he does every day and our officers do every day, which is he is out on the front line. He is doing what he can to make our city safe. And this is actually him on a Saturday morning—disrupting an altercation, a shooting. Trying to do what’s right. Trying to make sure that folks are OK after on scene. This is above and beyond what you expect from a chief. And I’m grateful for Harold Medina.

Well, we all vomited a little that day. It’s impossible to “disrupt” a shooting by speeding away from it with reckless disregard for the safety of other drivers, much less anyone else who might have been in the vicinity of the shooter. And it doesn’t actually appear the chief did much to make sure “folks are OK” after he totaled Perchert’s vehicle and severely fucked up Perchert’s body.

Maybe there’s evidence of this so-called heroism somewhere, but you’re not going to find it at the Albuquerque Police Department. Chief Medina had the opportunity to provide a narrative that might have contradicted the recordings captured by nearby CCTV cameras. But he didn’t. Instead, he took the opportunity to ensure no narrative from his perspective survived his fleeing of one crime scene only to create another.

A new report from Internal Affairs says Albuquerque police Chief Harold Medina intentionally did not have his body camera recording after a February car crash he was involved in.

“It blew my mind because it’s so preposterous,” former APD Officer Tom Grover said.

He’s also an attorney who says this report caught his attention immediately.

“The thing that jumped out at me like frankly a nuclear bomb was the fact that Medina admitted that he purposefully did not activate his lapel camera video,” Grover said.

Somehow I think the police chief will survive this nuclear bomb of his own making, despite having blatantly violated state body cam laws. That law requires activation of body cameras during the “initiation of any law enforcement or investigative encounter” between a police officer and the public. It also forbids deactivation until the conclusion of the encounter.

The chief may try to claim he was off-duty and not required to activate his body cam, but it’s highly unlikely that argument will be given credence since he was literally on his way to an APD press conference.

But it’s far more likely he’ll simply choose to avoid claiming anything at all. For some strange reason, despite not actually facing criminal charges at this moment, the chief has invoked his Fifth Amendment rights. And he’s invoked these from an equally strange place: behind his police chief desk, since he’s still the department’s chief.

In any event, it appears the end result of this will be a wrist slap light enough the chief will accept it voluntarily.

A spokesperson for the department said Chief Medina did agree to disciplinary actions but disagrees with some of the conclusions made in this investigation by Internal Affairs.

Of course he disagrees. It probably just states the facts, none of which make the chief look like someone who should be in the position he’s in. He fled an alleged shooting to save his own life, purposefully endangered other drivers, and severely injured Todd Perchert. Then he made sure the only footage of the incident was provided by privately-owned cameras, none of which were able to catch much of the aftermath of the collision. By keeping his own camera off, he ensured it was his word against low-res CCTV footage. And while he might claim he was just trying to save his wife from being shot, if he’s going to go trolling for crime with his wife in the passenger seat of his unmarked cop car, he’s far too reckless to be given this much power.

Filed Under: albuquerque pd, body cams, harold medina, new mexico, police misconduct, tim keller, todd perchert

This Will Certainly End Well: Retailers Are Equipping Employees With Body Cameras To Limit Theft

from the hope-they're-getting-paid-double-time dept

Retailers have increased their reliance on cameras over the years to cut down on retail theft. In more recent years, they’ve been adding more tech to their surveillance arsenal, including automatic plate readers in their parking lots and facial recognition capabilities to their existing CCTV networks.

And yet, the nation is inundated with (mostly anomalous and anecdotal) new reports about unprecedented increases in retail theft. Of course, this isn’t indicative of the retail sector as a whole — something that was pointed out by none other than a group that specializes in retail analysis. Its take on the retail theft “spike” was that while there were some isolated areas where this was a problem, in most cases, it was retailers seeking to hide other business failures under the eye-grabbing area rug of “retail crime spree” headlines.

Whether or not the crime wave is real, retailers have always been trying to limit “shrink,” the in-house term used to cover everything from smash-and-grab robberies to employees skimming cash from the tills.

But this cannot possibly be considered a reasonable solution to the retail theft problem:

Retail giant TJX, the parent of TJ Maxx, Marshalls and HomeGoods, said it’s equipping some store employees with body cameras to thwart shoplifting and keep customers and employees safe.

TJX finance chief John Klinger disclosed the body-camera initiative on an earnings call last month. “It’s almost like a de-escalation, where people are less likely to do something when they’re being videotaped,” he said.

Jesus. It’s not even the extra surveillance or the possibility the cameras might be abused by employees to capture footage they definitely should be capturing (like wandering around restrooms or changing rooms). That part of it is only a minor concern.

The biggest concern is the one brushed off so easily by TJX’s “finance chief.” His belief that equipping low-paid hourly workers with body cams will “de-escalate” anything is indicative of his ignorance. These are the words of someone who’s never worked on the floor of a retail outlet at any point in his life.

Do you know what happens when an hourly employee in full uniform starts following a suspected thief? In far too many cases, it escalates things. Sure, there are a few would-be thieves who will abandon their shoplifting plans when it’s apparent they’re being scrutinized. But if people have wandered into a store to commit crimes, the most common response is to go after the person who appears to be trailing them around the store. At best, it will just be verbal attacks. At worst, it will be physical violence.

And it’s not like any of the executives quoted or referred to in this story are suggesting they’ll be paying employees more for providing customer service while also acting as surveillance cameras. Most large retailers have in-house “loss prevention” teams that operate in plain clothes, making it much easier to catch thieves while remaining undetected.

Pinning a camera to the shirt of a uniformed employee just puts them in additional danger and subjects them to additional verbal abuse, because even non-shoplifters are going to get mouthy when they notice their actions are being recording by someone who’s just hourly.

Here’s what the rollout looks like so far:

The job of these security workers “was to just stand there with the tactical vest labeled ‘security,’ and the camera mounted on the vest,” said the employee, who spoke under the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to reporters.

“It feels like the implementation of this program with the cameras isn’t meant to achieve anything, but rather just something the company can point to” to say it is improving security.

These employees are instructed — as almost all retail employees are — to stay out of actual theft situations. They’re instructed not to stop or pursue suspected thieves.

So, why even bother placing someone at the front of the store with a uniform and a camera if you’re not actually trailing suspected thieves? Well, one has to assume these employees will become much more mobile if the retailer desires it. A Marshalls store in Miami Beach, Florida states that the cameras are designed to record “specific events involving critical incidents for legal, safety, and training purposes.” To accomplish that, the employee — the one wearing the camera — will be expected to be on the scene in incidents like these, which is generally not what hourly employees are expected to do in retail environments.

It’s truly a half-assed rollout and it’s setting everyone up for failure. Either it will make non-loss prevention hourly jobs more dangerous, or it will have zero effect because would-be criminals haven’t been deterred by dozens or hundreds of cameras already present in retail outlets.

Whether it has any effect at all won’t stop companies from buying cameras, so the leader in law enforcement body camera outfitting has already started positioning itself to grab a majority of this new market.

Axon Enterprise, which owns Taser and primarily develops technology and products for police, launched a “Body Workforce” camera this year for retail and health care workers.

These cameras are lighter than ones Axon develops for police offers because they don’t record for as long and require as much a battery life, Axon President Joshua Isner said at an analyst conference last month. They are also a more “inviting product, instead of more of like a militaristic” camera worn by police, he said.

And so it goes. Cops are looking more and more like military personnel. Mall cops are looking more like real cops. And mall personnel are well on their way to looking like mall cops. If nothing else, the body cam industry can expect healthy year-over-year increases, even if their retail customers continue to struggle.

Filed Under: body cams, retail theft, surveillance
Companies: axon, homegoods, marshalls, tj maxx

Three Cities Sue Axon; Claim It Has A Monopoly On Body Cams, Electronic Weapons

from the bit-thuggish,-but-probably-not-a-monopoly dept

As much as I dislike and distrust Axon (formerly Taser and the leading proponent of the “excited delirium” theory of cop exoneration), I just don’t think there’s much going on here. Sometimes there are actual monopolies. And sometimes, one business is just better at business than its competitors.

But that’s what a few cities are claiming in a new lawsuit, first reported by Cyrus Farivar for Forbes:

Baltimore, Maryland; Augusta, Maine; and Howell, New Jersey have sued Axon, alleging that the company has committed antitrust violations, abused its market power, and forced cities to pay exorbitant fees for a basic, but crucial piece of law enforcement tech.

Filed in federal court in New Jersey, the suit claims that the Arizona-based company formerly known as Taser International bought VieVu, one of its key competitors, to secure four major contracts that had eluded it: New York City, Oakland, Miami-Dade and Phoenix. Then, under its new Axon brand, it aggressively raised prices for clients that had few other options. Within a year, Axon’s body cam prices had risen 50 percent. By 2022, those prices had nearly tripled, reaching $490 per camera.

The lawsuit [PDF] stresses a lot of these points and says a lot of things about profit margins being inordinately high. But if that’s what the market bears, that’s what Axon can charge (is there a pun intended here? maybe?). And while it’s somewhat concerning that Axon managed to acquire VieVu (which it referred to internally as its “#2 competitor”), that alone is not enough to create a monopoly.

Also highlighted in the lawsuit are a bunch of things lots of businesses do, like tie up customers with lengthy contracts, force customers to only use refills made by the same company (Taser refills are pretty much proprietary ink cartridges), and vertically integrate as much as possible to make moving away from tied-in products extremely difficult. This is something Axon does with its body cameras and its front end for recording access, Evidence.com. Cameras without storage and access aren’t all that useful. And only Axon cameras work with Axon’s software.

Again, this is the sort of thing seen literally everywhere. While it does make customers unhappy, it works out pretty well for the companies using these tactics. That’s why so many companies do it. And that’s why some unhappy customers sue, much like these cities have.

It’s not all that remarkable that Axon increased its camera prices once it acquired VieVu. Then again, Axon has also given away cameras for free to increase market share and tie law enforcement agencies into far more lucrative data retention/access contracts.

But what’s probably most fatal to this lawsuit is the argument it makes in support of its monopoly theory:

Motorola, Panasonic, and Utility largely make up the rest of the BWC Systems market. As demonstrated by the dramatic price increases that Axon implemented after acquiring VieVu, none of these other competitors pose the same competitive constraint on Axon as did VieVu, and none were able to constrain the exercise of Axon’s monopoly power. These other competitors’ BWC Systems rarely provided significant competition to Axon in RFP processes conducted by police departments. A chart included in a December 2019 Axon investor presentation shows the meager market share these competitors had compared to Axon, with the closest competitor, Motorola, controlling only 7 of 69 U.S. Major City Chief Agencies compared to Axon’s 47.

It’s that first sentence. If you’re able to list a handful of other competitors in the market, you can’t credibly make a claim the market has been monopolized. Sure, Axon may have the largest share of the market, but it’s no more a monopoly than Google’s outsized share of the search engine market. Some companies manage to dominate markets because they’re making better products, have better marketing, or do both well enough that their name becomes synonymous for _competitors_‘ products — like Taser for any stun gun-esque weapon and Google becoming the go-to shorthand for performing a web search on any service.

The lawsuit also claims Axon “aggressively” defends its patents, to the point it has sued “potential competitors” in the “less lethal weapon” market out of existence. Again, while nobody likes a bully, this is sort of thing lots of patent holders do, even when they control far less market share than Axon does. Again, just because Axon is dominant doesn’t mean it’s a monopoly or that any of these claims — ones that could apply to plenty of other companies in plenty of other fields — add up to the conclusion this lawsuit wants a judge to reach.

I, for one, welcome this lawsuit, if for no other reason than it might expose some previously unknown facts about Axon, its management, its sales tactics, and its communications with law enforcement agencies. In other words, I’m here for the discovery. Axon may be a “gorilla” (as one of its execs encouraged its marketers to be) but it’s hardly a monopoly.

Filed Under: antitrust, baltimore, body cameras, body cams, competition, howell, new jersey, tasers
Companies: axon

Body Cam Report Shows Fewer Agencies Are Allowing Cops To View Footage Before Making Statements

from the good-news-from-an-unexpected-source dept

The Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) published a report on body cam use by law enforcement agencies in 2014. It not only presented stats on body cam use around the nation, but also attempted to create a set of best practices for the agencies utilizing them.

Since then, body cams have become as commonplace as dash cams. While often touted as a tool to increase transparency and accountability, the truth is a bit more complicated. Many law enforcement agencies refuse to release body cam recordings to public records requesters, negating some of the hoped for transparency. Police unions helped erase some of the accountability, striking deals that allowed officers to view footage before writing reports or making statements to investigators.

What cops may have feared would become an unblinking witness of their bad behavior, capable of costing them their positions, if not their actual jobs, the reality is that body cams became cops’ best friends. Footage cleared officers wrongly accused of misconduct. Better yet, body cam recordings captured plenty of evidence to use against defendants. And when it looked like something bad might be caught on camera, officers were free to pretend they had forgotten to activate them or that the devices had simply malfunctioned.

That’s the bad news. Fortunately, PERF isn’t interested in ensuring body cam footage remains something more useful to the police and less useful to the communities they serve. It appears the forum is actually trying to increase accountability and repair relationships damaged by years of uncontrolled misconduct.

Its latest report [PDF] on body cameras contains a lot of discussion about officers’ access to recordings, especially when misconduct is suspected. But it opens up by noting how much has changed since its last report in terms of body cam uptake.

Much has changed in the ten years since that first convening. For one thing, the police use of body cameras has skyrocketed. In 2020, almost 4 in 5 (79 percent) local police officers worked in departments that used BWCs, and all departments serving 1 million or more residents reported using them. Sheriffs’ offices had similar increases in their use of BWCs, with more than two-thirds (68 percent) of sheriffs’ offices having BWCs in 2020. Even federal law enforcement agencies, such as the FBI and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, have adopted this technology. And with high-profile police use-of-force incidents and in-custody deaths leading to demands for greater police accountability, the public has come to want—and expect—police officers to wear cameras.

PERF frames the controlled access to body cam recordings as something essential to an employer-employee relationship. Every entity with employees engages in performance reviews and disciplinary actions when an employee has screwed up. PERF argues cops shouldn’t be exempted from this normal part of employment. And it says agencies using body cams are best prepared to do this sort of thing properly… provided they’re actually willing to do the job properly. PERF suggests “Monday morning quarterbacking,” using questions like these to get to the root of observed problems:

• Is any of this consistent with how officers are trained?
• Should supervisors have been on scene, and should they have known how this specialized unit operated?
• These officers had body-worn cameras. Why might they have behaved this way when they knew they were being recorded?
• Why didn’t initial reports accurately reflect what was seen on video? Could officers’ statements have been aimed at fixing a narrative?
• What role do you think the culture of specialized units might have played in this incident?
• The agency has a “duty to intervene” policy. Why didn’t anyone intervene when they saw Mr. Nichols being beaten?
• The agency also has a policy requiring officers to render first aid. Did officers promptly render first aid in accordance with their training?

While police officials love to claim the public isn’t qualified to second-guess actions taken by officers, they — and the officers working for them — should be more than willing to engage in second-guesswork with the people they do believe are qualified to do so.

The report notes the suggestion it made in 2004 — that officers not be allowed to view footage before making reports or statements — received a lot of pushback. But, surprisingly, it appears many agencies are beginning to realize this is something that must be done to deter misconduct and improve the performance of the officers they employ.

Although nearly 90 percent of the policies PERF reviewed have been updated since BJA’s 2019 policy review, the only significant policy change over the four years has been a decline in the percentage of agencies that allow officers to view video of a critical incident before making a statement, from 92 percent in the BJA review to 56 percent in PERF’s review of 127 policies.

This is definitely a move in the right direction. It’s pretty tough to manage a workforce that’s allowed to alter its narrative before meeting with supervisors or investigators. Now, more than half of agencies utilizing body cams gather statements first before allowing officers access to their recordings.

It appears the most prominent obstacle to getting to 100% are law enforcement unions. But even those powerful entities are being recognized for what they are by the agencies whose workforce they represent: an impediment to improvement, accountability, and rebuilt community trust. Here’s what the Los Angeles Police Department experienced following its (early) adoption of the tech:

According to Commander Steven Lurie, union representatives were concerned about the impact of random audits on their membership, and the union’s support was pivotal in adopting the BWC program. As a result, LAPD does not currently permit random reviews, and it has permitted audits only to ensure compliance with activation and deactivation requirements and to monitor employees identified as high-risk by LAPD’s early-warning system.

However, pursuant to a 2023 audit that found officers were “routinely turning off their body worn cameras in violation of department policy,” Chief Michel Moore says he is “considering changing department policy to increase random review of body camera recordings that don’t involve arrests or the use of force.”

The report makes several policy recommendations for body cam use, ranging from activation to storage to access. But almost none of this is new. These were the same recommendations made a decade ago, when only a handful of agencies were beginning to implement the tech. A decade later, PERF has only altered one recommendation — a change prompted by changes made internally by nearly 40% of the agencies surveyed:

Officers involved in a critical incident should be interviewed before watching relevant BWC footage. During the “perceptual interview,” they should describe their perceptions (what they saw, heard, felt, believed, experienced before arriving, etc.) before, during, and after an incident. After the perceptual interview, officers should be given the opportunity to provide a video-informed statement by reviewing BWC footage and offering clarifications that they feel are appropriate.

This is the right way to go. And I’m glad to see several law enforcement agencies have gotten out ahead of this, rather than waiting for this to be forced on them by legislators or police accountability boards.

Filed Under: body cams, evidence, perf

DC Police Union Sues To Block The Release Of Names Of Officers Involved In Shootings

from the can't-be-making-info-about-public-servants-public dept

Washington DC responded to widespread protests following the killing of George Floyd with a set of police reforms that tried to address some systemic problems in the district’s police department, starting with its lack of transparency and accountability.

The reform bill — passed two weeks after George Floyd’s killing — placed new limits on deadly force deployment, banned the Metropolitan PD from acquiring military equipment through the Defense Department’s 1033 program, and mandated release of body-camera footage within 72 hours of any shooting by police officers. The names of the officers involved are covered by the same mandate, ensuring it won’t take a lawsuit to get the PD to disclose info about officers deploying deadly force.

But there’s a lawsuit already in the mix — one that hopes to keep the public separated from camera footage and officers’ names. Unsurprisingly, it’s been filed by a longtime opponent of police accountability.

The Washington, D.C., police union said on Monday it asked a court to block the mandatory release of body camera footage and names of police officers involved in shootings.

According to the union, releasing the names of officers will do bad things to the good names of cops who kill people.

“The release of the body-camera footage and names of officers will unjustly malign and permanently tarnish the reputation and good name of any officer that is later cleared of misconduct concerning the use of force,” the union said in a statement.

First off, it’s almost impossible to “permanently tarnish” a cop’s reputation. Even the worst cops often have little trouble resuming their law enforcement careers after engaging in egregious misconduct. They may have to shop their resumes around a little bit, but lots of PDs and Sheriffs’ offices are more than willing to hire bad cops no longer welcome at their original agency.

Second, nothing about this should hinge on whether or not the force deployment was justified. If an officer is later cleared of wrongdoing, they’ll be able to go back to work. If not, they’ll probably still be able to go back to work — either with the DCPD or with any other agency more interested in staffing their forces than performing due diligence.

And it’s a little rich for the union to ask that officers’ names be withheld on the off chance they might be found innocent. The names of people arrested or cited are public records, even if they’re ultimately never convicted of a crime. Suing to get cops held to a lower standard is a terrible use of taxpayer funds. Public sector unions collect dues from paychecks and build their litigation war chests using donations from officers — all of which can ultimately be traced back to the same public the union is trying to keep in the dark.

The lawsuit [PDF] (which inexplicably isn’t included in multiple articles about the lawsuit) raises the specter of vengeful vigilantes hunting down cops who killed or maimed friends or family members.

When officers justifiably use force against a criminal suspect, the immediate public release of the officer’s name and the body-worn camera footage will allow the suspect and their associates to identify the officer and potentially seek retribution against the officer and his or her family.

This is a ridiculous reason to withhold officers’ names. This is Hollywood rationale — an uninspired trope that’s best left in an undeveloped screenplay. It’s not that it never happens. It’s that it happens so rarely it can’t be raised as a plausible argument for blanket secrecy.

The lawsuit also argues — equally implausibly — that there’s an inherent right to privacy contained in actions performed by public servants in public.

The release of the officer’s name and other identifying information contained in the body-worn camera footage will further impermissibly invade the officer’s fundamental right to privacy.

Doesn’t seem there would be that much privacy in performing public service, especially when someone gets serviced to death by an officer’s force deployment. But that’s the argument the union will make to shield its fan base from public criticism. Hopefully, the DC court will route this lawsuit to its OUT box as quickly as possible so DC residents can start benefiting from the transparency the district has finally forced on its police force.

Filed Under: accountability, body cams, police, police unions, protests, transparency, washington dc

More NYPD Reforms: Super-Violent Plainclothes Units Disbanded, Body Cam Footage Given A 30-Day Release Mandate

from the keep-on-fixing.-it's-still-very-broken. dept

A bunch of police reform efforts are underway in New York City. NYPD officers may not have been responsible for the killing that has sparked protests around the country, but they’ve provided plenty of ammo for police critics and reformers over the years.

With Mike Bloomberg no longer running front office interference for the PD, the department has found itself absorbing more un-deflected criticism. This criticism is finally turning to action, now that it’s incredibly inconvenient for ANY city to pretend its law enforcement agencies aren’t in need of an overhaul.

Early last week, NYPD Commissioner Dermot Shea decided to dismantle the NYPD’s plainclothes units. These officers didn’t look like police officers. And since they didn’t look like police officers, they didn’t behave like police officers. Removing the uniform seemed to remove all pretense of accountability as well, resulting in the so-called (and strangely-named) “anti-crime” units being the NYPD’s leader in crimes committed against citizens.

The plainclothes “anti-crime” units operated out of unmarked vehicles, and did not respond to 911 calls. Instead, they were charged with what Shea called “proactive” policing. The anti-crime teams across all 77 precincts will be disbanded.

“When you look at the number of anti-crime officers that operate within New York City, and when you look at a disproportionate, quite frankly, number of complaints, shootings—and they are doing exactly what was asked of them,” Shea said. “I think we can do better. I think that policing in 2020 is not what it was in five, ten, twenty years ago.”

While it seems strange Commissioner Shea would state that generating complaints and corpses is “exactly what was asked” of the anti-crime units, the good news is they won’t be roaming around menacing the public as a cohesive unit. The 600 officers were responsible for 31% of fatal NYPD shootings, despite only being 6% of the total police force. In recent years, “anti-crime” officers were responsible for a number of high-profile killings of citizens, including Eric Garner, whose death similarly prompted protests all over the nation. The disbanding scatters the plainclothes officers across several other units, giving more divisions a chance to be corrupted by these bad apples.

On a more positive note, the NYPD can no longer act like body camera footage is a proprietary good the public shouldn’t be allowed to have access to. The NYPD’s body camera policy — released months after the cameras were deployed (as the result of court-ordered reforms) — gave the department every excuse it wanted to never release footage.

This followed a lawsuit against the NYPD by one of the city’s police unions, which sought to block almost any release of footage ever under the state’s infamous “50-a” law, which forbids the release of police officers’ personnel files and disciplinary records. (Or at least it did… until it was taken off the books in another recent reform move.) How footage of interactions with residents fit these descriptions was left up to the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association’s imagination.

The policy has been rewritten in light of national events. The previous version gave the NYPD up to 30 days to come up with a reason why it wouldn’t be releasing recordings. The new policy mandates the release of certain recordings within 30 days, flipping the old policy on its head.

The new policy obligates the NYPD to release and eventually publish online all audio and video of officers’ interactions that involve gunshots fired in public spaces, the deployment of tasers and the use of force that results in death or substantial bodily injury.

“Effective immediately, the NYPD’s 24,000 body cameras now have a mandatory 30 day release policy,” he tweeted Tuesday morning.

Certainly the NYPD will do everything it can to prevent release of these recordings, despite the mandate. It has two powerful unions willing to sue the city and their members’ employer over anything that might result in additional transparency or accountability. But the city’s tolerance for these unions may finally be running out. Mayor Bill de Blasio, who talked a tough police reform game while campaigning only to dial back his rhetoric once in office, is back on the warpath and calling out the unions for their contribution to the destruction of the relationship between city residents and the NYPD.

“The SBA leadership has engaged in racist activities so many times I can’t even count it,” he said of the NYPD sergeants’ union.

“I’m just sick of it, I’ve been sick of it for years,” he added. “What I’ve seen of the SBA, and too often the PBA, is efforts to divide us, to hold us back, to create all sorts of negativity, to push back progress, to undermine efforts at unity. It’s literally anti-social what these union leaders do.”

Whether these reform efforts result in lasting change remains to be seen. But it’s far more than anyone’s demanded of the NYPD in years.

Filed Under: anti-crime, body cams, dermot shea, nypd, plainclothes unit, police

Memphis Police Department Body Cam Program Being Undercut By Its Body Cam Policies

from the time-to-fix-it-now-before-it-gets-worse dept

The Memphis PD is facing quite a bit of scrutiny right now. In addition to just having lost a lawsuit over unconstitutional surveillance of protesters and activists, and being told to stop creating fake Facebook accounts (by Facebook itself), it’s dealing with the heat of a recent shooting of a Memphis resident by police officers — one that left the victim in critical condition. Body cameras were available but not in use by all officers on the scene. In addition, it appears at least two officers deliberately deactivated their cameras during the pursuit of the suspect, Martavious Banks.

In that same Tuesday news conference, [Memphis Police Department Director Mike] Rallings had also said that two other officers who encountered Banks during a traffic stop prior to the shooting weren’t using their cameras properly:

“After further review, it was discovered that two additional officers who were involved in the original stop at Gill and Pillow deactivated either their body-worn cameras or in-car video systems during the pursuit from Gill and Pillow,” Rallings had said on Tuesday.

This has led to a discussion about the Memphis PD’s body cam practices and policies. At this point, the MPD releases footage at its own discretion. In theory, this would allow the MPD to get out ahead of criticism by releasing footage of controversial incidents. In practice, however, this means the MPD usually refuses to release footage until forced to.

Director Rallings is now out defending his department from accusations that it covers up incidents by withholding footage or, in some cases, ensuring footage is never recorded. Records released to the Memphis Commercial Appeal show there is at least some officer misconduct being captured by cameras. The records also show a number of violations of body camera policies by officers.

Fifty three Memphis police officers have violated the department’s body camera policy since the cameras were deployed in October 2016, according to police records obtained Friday by The Commercial Appeal.

The department has issued more than 20 reprimands to police officers who have violated its body camera policy. At least 10 of those officers were suspended. Four officers received oral reprimands.

The department’s records also show allegations of officers using excessive force and displaying police misconduct while not operating their body cameras.

Rallings says the comparatively small amount of violations isn’t indicative of a larger problem. Instead, he posits this shows a high rate of compliance by MPD officers.

“Out of 2.4 million videos, you are going to have some officers that either make a mistake or make a bad decision,” Rallings said.

“But I want you to divide that (number of violations) by 2.5 million and you see that it is very rare there is a negative incident. Given the 1,650 officers with body-worn cameras, that is a very small percentage,” he said, referring again to the 53 officers.

It can be both. There can be a small subset of officers who’ve been caught violating policies or covering up misconduct and larger overall compliance by the rest of the MPD’s staff. But assuming the ones who have been caught violating policy are the only ones violating policy is a mistake.

Even if it’s exactly what it looks like, the MPD’s refusal to release footage until forced to doesn’t allow anyone outside the department to double-check this math. Director Rallings says the policy on withholding footage relevant to ongoing investigations will remain in place. This will continue to ensure no footage is released when it is of greatest public interest, as internal investigations can be extended to fit the timeframe needed for outrage to die down.

Rallings is right about one thing, though. Body cameras are in place for one reason — and it’s not the reason most law enforcement agencies would publicly acknowledge.

“We bought the cameras to be an independent witness, not because I don’t trust the police officers, and, officers, y’all need to hear this,” Rallings said. “It is ’cause a lot of the public doesn’t trust you.”

But his internal policy undercuts his words. He acknowledges that the PD needs to rebuild trust, but then says the PD won’t release footage of controversial incidents until it’s convenient for the PD. Collecting footage and locking it up behind restrictive policies won’t make this trust problem go away. And discovering officers are still deactivating cameras during controversial incidents doesn’t exactly give citizens much confidence the new tech will serve anything more than the PD’s interests.

And Rallings heads completely off the rails by stating a deliberate lack of recordings — like in the Martavious Banks shooting — will have zero effect on internal investigations.

“The body-worn camera is just a tool, it’s not perfect,” Rallings said. “There is no law in the nation that says for an officer-involved shooting to be justified, it must be captured on body-worn cameras.”

So, that’s what it’s going to take, huh? That’s a tacit admission officers will continue to act as their own film directors during questionable stops and deployments of force. They’ll decide what the cameras capture and how it’s framed and “no law in the land” will stop them from doing it. Director Rallings could put a stop to it by proactively releasing both footage and officers when questionable incidents are coupled with deliberate deactivation of recording devices. But he’s chosen to go the other way and make the law force recordings out of his hands and accountability onto his officers. The law can only go so far. It’s sad Rallings isn’t willing to make up the difference.

Filed Under: body cams, memphis, memphis police department, mike railings, police

UK Schools Experiment With Police-Style Body Cameras To Tackle 'Low-level Background Disorder'

from the bringing-taser-technology-to-a-classroom-near-you dept

Techdirt has written dozens of stories about US police forces deploying body cameras, with all sorts of interesting consequences. Their use for school police means that body cameras are also turning up in US schools, but the next logical step of putting body cameras on the actual teachers has been taken not in the US, but in the UK, as the Guardian reports:

Teachers in two UK schools are trialling using body cameras in class because they are “fed up with low-level background disorder”, a criminal justice academic has revealed.

?

The former Home Office researcher said the three-month pilot scheme, started within the last month, securely stores footage on a cloud platform like ones used by police forces.

Although only two UK schools are currently involved, a survey carried out by the Times Educational Supplement revealed that a third of the teachers who were asked said they would be willing to try wearing a body camera; two thirds said they would feel safer wearing it; and a tenth even thought it would eventually become compulsory for all UK teachers to use them. Another article in the Guardian responding to this news pointed out the many pitfalls of taking this approach, and noted:

as teachers we want children to be accountable for their behaviour. But increasing the spread of surveillance in schools isn’t going to help us do that. Classrooms will be transformed from spaces cultivating inquiry, in all its forms, to centres wary of the threat of being caught out by an all-seeing eye. Ellis [the criminal justice academic who revealed the existence of the UK trial] is at pains to point out that the cameras will not be on all the time; only “where there is a perceived threat to a member of staff or pupils” will they be used. Quite how this will be decided, and how their use will not gradually become routine, is not clear.

One constraint on the routine use of body cameras by all teachers is the sheer quantity of footage that would be produced, and the near-impossibility of reviewing it all. However, that may not be a limiting factor for long if a move by Taser International, which controls around three-quarters of the body camera business in the US, bears fruit:

Taser International, the military hardware company that essentially owns the police body-worn camera market, believes the solution lies in artificial intelligence. It has acquired a startup called Dextro to build an AI research lab focused on developing tools that make it easier for police to search and analyze the massive video libraries hosted by Taser.

Once it gets easier and cheaper for the police to search through their vast video libraries, it will also become easier and cheaper for others to do the same. At that point, it might not be just schools that start deploying body cameras, but everyone interacting with the public in some way. What could possibly go wrong?

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: body cameras, body cams, privacy, schools, surveillance, uk

Police Unions To City Officials: If You Want Good, Accountable Cops, You'll Need To Pay Them More

from the 5%-pay-raise-for-'not-making-things-worse' dept

Three police unions in different cities have come forward to insert their feet in their mouths following changes to department policies. The thrust of their terrible arguments? Cops should be paid more for doing their job properly.

In Cincinnati, officers are being outfitted with body cameras. This, of course, has sent the local Fraternal Order of Police into defense mode. The FOP sent a letter to the city stating that officers won’t be wearing the cameras until they’re given more money. The union apparently believes any increase in officer accountability should be accompanied by an increase in pay.

A lawyer for Fraternal Order of Police Lodge #69, Stephen Lazarus, sent the city a “cease and desist” letter, saying until pay for wearing the equipment has been decided, officers shouldn’t wear them. He asked that the city cease the program by Wednesday at the latest, pending the bargaining process.

The city’s mayor has already suggested he’d be willing to grant an across-the-board 5% pay increase, but the union wants additional pay on top of that, simply for wearing body cameras. The union insists that cameras will alter many facets of officers’ day-to-day duties, which — judging from other cities’ experiences with body cameras — apparently includes discovering ways of ensuring footage of questionable arrests and uses of force aren’t captured by the recording equipment.

Meanwhile, down in San Antonio, policies affecting misconduct punishments are receiving similar demands from that city’s police union.

The San Antonio Express-News reports that the San Antonio police union demanded higher pay in exchange for accepting changes to their collective bargaining agreement that would have delivered stricter discipline for officer misconduct.

The Express-News notes that right now “the contract limits how far back a chief can invoke prior misconduct in punishing an officer — no more than two years in most instances — and automatically reduces suspensions of three days or less to a reprimand after two years.”

Once again, a union is fighting officer accountability with increased salary demands. In both cases, neither union seems to understand (or care) how tone deaf these arguments are.

Police reform is needed because officers aren’t doing what they’re being paid to do, or they’re doing it in a way that results in civil rights lawsuits and DOJ interventions. The main obstacle to reform appears to be police unions, which often seem to offer hardline opposition to minor changes that even most of those supposedly represented by the union don’t agree with.

It would be one thing if law enforcement was a historically-underpaid profession. But it isn’t. These demands are simply a way to make cash-strapped cities rethink plans to introduce more accountability into the process.

But it’s not always the unions that are at fault. The rank-and-file has its own issues with increased accountability. The city of Boston is outfitting its officers with body cameras. The pilot program asked for volunteers to wear the recording devices. There were no takers.

When the City of Boston called on 100 volunteers from the police department to help pilot a body camera program, something very expected, predictable, and heard of happened: Nothing.

Even with $500 bonuses as a result of negotiations with their union, not a single police officer in Boston volunteered to wear a camera.

If no one responds when asked nicely, the optional aspect goes away.

Speaking during the monthly “Ask the Commissioner” segment on WGBH-FM’s Boston Public Radio on Tuesday, Boston Police Commissioner William B. Evans said that a consultant has selected officers of all ages and races from five sections of the city and the department’s Youth Violence Strike Force to wear the cameras for a six-month trial. Any officer selected who chooses not to wear the camera would be subject to disciplinary action, Evans said.

It’s not as though the police union here decided to sit this one out. When no officers volunteered to wear the cameras, the union claims that randomly selecting officers somehow breaches the department’s contract.

Boston Police Patrolman’s Association President Patrick M. Rose told the Herald that goes against the deal the union reached with the department, which he says specifically states participants must be volunteers.

“The selection process must be from volunteers,” Rose wrote in an email to the Herald, adding that the union still supports that agreement.

“To require non-volunteers to participate in the program would clearly violate the agreement,” he said. “The BPPA would hope that the City and the Department would honor its written agreement with the BPPA concerning (body cameras).”

The Boston Police chief saw it differently, however, pointing out that no volunteers stepping forward to take part in a voluntary program also violates the agreement.

Somewhat ironically, civil rights and accountability activists were skeptical of the volunteer pilot program, fearing that the only cops that would volunteer would be exemplary models of the law enforcement profession and unlikely to generate much footage of misconduct or abuse. What a relief it must be to discover the Boston PD has no officers that fit that description.

Filed Under: accountability, body cams, police, police unions

Body Cam Footage Leads To Federal Indictment Of Abusive Las Vegas Cop

from the accountability:-1,-cops-getting-away-with-stuff:-a-billion dept

Body cameras are working as intended. Of course, this is a very limited sampling and the fact that anything happened at all to the abusive cop was reliant on him being either too stupid or too arrogant to shut his body-worn camera off.

A former Las Vegas police officer was indicted by a federal grand jury Tuesday on felony charges of roughing up a woman he suspected was a prostitute.

Richard Scavone, 49, was charged with violating the civil rights of the woman when he used excessive force while arresting her in January 2015 and falsifying his report of the encounter to obstruct an FBI investigation, according to the Justice Department.

The woman was identified in the indictment only by her initials, A.O.

Scavone, who also faces a local misdemeanor battery charge in the incident, has been summoned to answer the two felony counts in federal court on Jan. 20. He is to appear in Las Vegas Justice Court that day, as well.

The Las Vegas Review-Journal’s depiction of the events (“roughed up”) is far kinder than the DOJ’s press release.

According to the indictment, on Jan. 6, 2015, while acting as a police officer, Scavone allegedly assaulted “A.O.” resulting in bodily injury. The indictment alleges that Scavone grabbed the victim around the neck with his hand and threw A.O. to the ground; struck A.O. in the forehead with an open palm; twice slammed A.O.’s head onto the hood of his patrol vehicle; and slammed A.O. into the door of his patrol vehicle.

And that is far, far kinder than the Las Vegas Sun’s description of the incident from early 2015, when Scavone was only facing a misdemeanor battery charge.

Scavone said in a statement that the woman turned her back to officers, a statement police said was refuted by the corrections officer.

When she asked how she could put her palms together if he had her hands, Scavone threatened to “dump (her) on the floor” and handcuffed her, the report said.

He then told her to spread her feet, and when she replied, “My feet are straight,” he grabbed the back of her neck and threw her on the ground, according to the report.

The woman cursed and told him to take her to jail, and Scavone struck her face with an open hand before grabbing her left shoulder and dragging her several feet away from his vehicle to get her on her stomach, the report said.

Scavone asked the woman if she was “finished fighting” him, the report said.

The corrections officer and Scavone picked the woman up and walked her back to the vehicle, where Scavone grabbed her elbow and reached for her necklace, police said.

When she turned away, he slammed her head twice on the patrol car, police said.

He reportedly told her not to pull away from him and reached inside her dress, pulling out a condom and a cellphone, the report said.

Scavone said in his statement he retrieved the items, which were in the area near her breast and armpit, at least partially for officer safety because they could have been weapons, police said.

The woman, who was not wearing a bra, told Scavone multiple times not to touch her breast, and Scavone pinched her right breast through her dress before removing an undisclosed item from inside the dress, police said.

Police did not find any weapons on the woman, the report said.

Scavone accused the woman of reaching for something, and he grabbed her ponytail and slammed her head on the patrol vehicle again, police said.

He pulled her ponytail as he pushed her head against the vehicle, and she screamed, the report said.

He led her to the back seat of the patrol vehicle while holding her ponytail and slammed her into the passenger window, police said.

“You resisted and fought me,” he told the woman, according to the report.

The federal grand jury indictment is just that: a grand jury indictment. It doesn’t take much to convince a grand jury to hand down an indictment, but it is rather unusual to see one stick to a law enforcement officer. The video captured by his camera apparently played a significant part in the bringing of charges — something that will be applauded by accountability advocates and derided by police unions, etc. who still believe body cameras are nothing more than a nefarious conspiracy to punish cops for doing normal cop stuff.

The assault charge is one thing. It’s the falsification charge that’s going to hurt, if it sticks. According to the DOJ, Scavone lied in his use of force report. That’s netting him a federal obstruction charge which could add another 10-20 years to his sentence if convicted. The civil rights charges alone come with a potential 10-year sentence and $250,000 fine.

Without the footage captured by his own camera, it’s very likely Officer Scavone would still have his job and zero indictments. After all, the woman he apparently abused was suspected of being a prostitute. When it comes down to “her word against ours,” a woman portrayed as a sex worker has no chance against an officer who had previously received a commendation for meritorious service. And contrary to the assertions of body camera critics, the department Scavone worked for doesn’t appear to be poring through its recordings in hopes of finding cops to bust.

Las Vegas police Undersheriff Kevin McMahill said it’s the first time his police department brought “criminal charges associated with the review of a body camera on an on-duty use of force incident.”

That the DOJ’s press release doesn’t mention the use of body camera footage in the indictment process is a little strange considering its push to spread this technology to law enforcement agencies around the nation. Of course, the DOJ is also instrumental in defending law enforcement officers against alleged civil rights violations. Sure, it investigates agencies with abusive histories, but it also works hard to ensure agencies remain legally immunized from the consequences of their actions and has mounted several efforts to keep Fourth Amendment protections to a minimum.

It’s often a house divided against itself, which may explain why this detail has been glossed over, even if the tech that turned a non-event (according to the officer’s police report) into a federal indictment is part of its overall plan to improve the nation’s policing.

Filed Under: body cams, las vegas, police, richard scarvone