Officers With Personal Body Cams Taking The 'Public' Out Of 'Public Accountability'
from the purchase-the-new-Axon-CYA! dept
America’s largest sheriff’s department is rolling towards an accountability train wreck. Despite years of discussing the issue, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department still has no cohesive policy on body cameras, nor has it taken steps to outfit its officers with the devices.
This less-than-ideal situation is being made worse by deputies purchasing their own body cameras with personal funds.
An estimated 20 percent of Los Angeles County’s 10,000 deputies have bought cameras for themselves, according to the county’s inspector general. Sheriff Jim McDonnell concedes some deputies have their own cameras but disputes that as many as 2,000 wear them on duty.
Whatever the number, not a single frame of any video from these cameras has ever made it into the public domain.
And therein lies the problem. Body cameras owned by law enforcement officers serve zero public purpose. Any recordings remain the personal property of the officers, who can delete and edit footage as they see fit. The only footage likely to make its way into the hands of the sheriff’s department are recordings clearing officers of wrongdoing.
While it may be possible to subpoena this footage for civil suits and criminal prosecutions, there’s no guarantee the footage will arrive unaltered, or even arrive at all. Personal body cams are unlikely to be bundled with unlimited storage. Footage will be overwritten often (depending on how heavily the camera is used while on duty) and remains in the control of officers, rather than the department and its oversight.
As is pointed out in the AP article, the use of privately-owned body cameras contradicts DOJ guidance on the matter. A 2014 DOJ report noted private cameras on public employees is an all-around bad idea.
“Because the agency would not own the recorded data, there would be little or no protection against the officer tampering with the videos or releasing them to the public or online,” the report said. “Agencies should not permit personnel to use privately owned body-worn cameras while on duty.”
The LA sheriff’s department makes this worse by allowing the practice to continue without official policies on body camera use. Even the barest minimum of discipline for deleting footage is impossible, as the department is powerless to take action against deputies who vanish away footage containing alleged misconduct.
The head of the local law enforcement union pretty much says the only people benefiting from personal body cameras are the officers that own them.
“It’s really a personal preference,” [union president Ron] Hernandez said. “The guys we have spoken to have said they thought it would be beneficial for them. They see the value in covering themselves.”
Sorry, but that’s not what body cameras are for. They may provide evidence clearing officers of misconduct, but body cameras aren’t there to create law enforcement highlight reels. While it’s great some officers may find the cameras useful for clearing themselves of charges, they are public employees, not private entities engaging in personal enforcement of laws. The footage should be as public as their positions. But this will never happen if their employer is unwilling to craft a solid body cam policy that addresses private ownership of cameras.
As it stands now, the department is allowing its existing policies on evidence handling to act as a stand-in for its non-existent body camera policy. According to these rules, all evidence must be held for two years and turned over on request to the sheriff’s department. Supposedly, this will encompass privately-held body camera footage. But it would be much better for body cam evidence to be stored on site where it’s immediately accessible and less prone to tampering.
Body cameras are already problematic. They have the potential to be great tools of accountability, but this has been continually stunted by legislators and law enforcement agencies, many of which have done all they can to keep this footage out of the public’s hands. In this case, the LASD’s lack of forward momentum on the camera front has turned a portion of its workforce into sole proprietors with badges, guns, and a collection of home movies starring residents of L.A. County.
Filed Under: accountability, body cameras, la, los angeles county, personal body cameras, police, public records
Comments on “Officers With Personal Body Cams Taking The 'Public' Out Of 'Public Accountability'”
"It’s really a personal preference," [union president Ron] Hernandez said. "The guys we have spoken to have said they thought it would be beneficial for them. They see the value in covering themselves."
After an excuse like that I really hope that the union and it’s members they are fine with non-cops recording interactions with police, though I can’t say I’d be too surprised were that not the case.
Not Admissable
Well if the video is open to editing, or being able to be refused to the defense because it is privately owned, then it has no evidence value. Because it has no evidence value it should not be admitted for anything, including departmental proceedings, especially when it has been ‘adjusted’ to clear potential wrongdoings.
But, CYA is strong inside that thin blue line.
Re: Not Admissable
As untrustworthy as some PDs have shown themselves to be,
I wouldn’t automatically assume they haven’t edited the video themselves.
“Because the agency would not own the recorded data, there would be little or no protection against the officer tampering with the videos”
But average joe citizen would. Evidence is “mother fucking evidence”, people have gone to jail for fucking less!
Nice to see that citizens are still 2nd class.
404 Error
Following the link, the Ledger-Enquirer webpage sez 404:
Check the hyperlink in the article above.
Re: 404 Error
This morning I’m still getting a 404 error(*) from the Ledger-Enquirer url linked in Cushing’s article above.
Here’s a (hopefully!) working link to the story from the AP website…
“LA deputies’ private body cams raise transparency questions”, by Michael Balsamo, Associated Press, Aug 12, 2017
Note, though, that the Ledger-Enquirer may have run a different version of this story. I have no way of knowing.
( *404 error: Yesterday, I additionally saw some 502 and 503 errors from that link. Further, at one point, I got a page from the Ledger-Enquirer website that said something like, ‘We’re experiencing technical difficulties’.)
Re: Re: 404 Error
Wayback Machine.
Let me re-phrase “no way of knowing” to “really didn’t care that much.” If someone’s interested, they can run a diff betweened the archived version and the version now on the AP website. I’m not going to bother.
really?
Do you mean like this one?
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/11/us/south-carolina-officer-shooting-tape-amazon/index.html
i don’t have any other info on that officer, but he did get gas-chamber evidence of the shooting.
Re: really?
The whole point of department-owned body cams is that their footage cannot be fudged with by the cop wearing the cam. A personally-owned body cam does not offer the same guarantee. Take that case a few weeks ago where the officer was caught planting drugs and “re-creating” a bust: If the camera that caught the footage was instead owned by the cop himself, the incriminating footage could have been edited out by the cop without anyone else ever knowing it existed.
Cops love body cameras when the footage exonerates them of a crime or provides them with irrefutable evidence of one. Cops hate body cameras when the footage shows them planting evidence, killing someone without justifiable cause, or generally doing something that would get them fired if police unions gave a shit about firing bad cops.
An estimated 20 percent of Los Angeles County’s 10,000 deputies have bought cameras for themselves, according to the county’s inspector general.
Wow, that 20% of the cops in Los Angeles are making even a minor effort to be "good cops" is, frankly, amazing. There’s some kind of warm feeling in my chest, almost like my faith in humanity is being restored…
Whatever the number, not a single frame of any video from these cameras has ever made it into the public domain.
…and it’s gone again.
LA County Government
¦ “The LA sheriff’s department makes this worse by allowing the practice to continue without official policies on body camera use.”
Corrupt leadership is the base problem. LASD has a terrible performance record for decades across the board — and poorly serves the citizens. Concentrated power corrupts — LASD is the largest sheriff’s department and the fourth largest local police agency in the US.
Even worse is the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors in charge of LASD.
Los Angeles County followed the usual California practice in NOT subdividing into separate counties … or increasing the number of elected supervisors as its local population soared after 1920. This resulted in extreme concentration of local government political power in the mere five (5) LA County supervisors– each one now represents more than 2 million people. And despite the County’s diverse population, the districts are heavily gerrymandered by race, with little regard for geography.
LA County Supervisors are known as the “five little kings”.
Unseating an incumbent Supervisor is extraordinarily difficult, due to the many incumbent protections the supervisors have created for themselves.
LA citizens certainly are shortchanged by their entrenched local politicians (and cops).
Body mounted Dash Cam
If I were a cop and my department didn’t issue body-cams, I too would purchase one for myself. I have dash cams installed in every can I drive. Footage may someday help provide evidence of an accident and possibly prove my or my wife’s innocence or possibly provide details for a hit and run. I’ve seen amazing things in my years of driving and wish I had had a dash-cam to record them all. If I were an officer interacting with the public, I would assume another method of corroborating my side of the story is only going to help.
One question – if body camera footage is “public” when generated by police officers, does that mean that we, the public, should have full unfettered access to it? Aren’t there privacy concerns?
I mean, yeah, you could stream it live and beat the pants off “Cops” for entertainment value, but is that really a good idea?
People recording cops doing their job is not public domain, so in the absence of an official policy, cops doing it themselves isn’t either. If they destroy any evidence, it’s the same result as if they didn’t record it in the first place. Altering it would be trivial to unmask. All told, 20% of cops recording is better than nothing, so I don’t see the problem in this case.
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Sep 1st, 2017 @ 6:26pm
It’s worse than not recording at all. A video can be creatively edited to be incriminating.
Re: Re:
Or to remove incriminating evidence.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Again, totally obvious. Altered video can be pretty easily detected unless it is done by an intelligence service or other professional. If a cop could do such high quality work, well then they are in the wrong profession.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Unless no one presses for the video to be properly dissected, a plea agreement is pressed to force the party involved to take ‘the best option at hand’. Plus, editing could come down to ‘the video wasn’t recording at this time’, but was at a different. As for editing, someone else can do an edit, but some things are trivial edits, it’s not like adding 3D or some grand effect.
Re: Re:
If they destroy any evidence, it’s the same result as if they didn’t record it in the first place.
If they were going to destroy any evidence than they wouldn’t bother buying body cameras. No, they’re just going to destroy any evidence which incriminates them.
That’s the problem. That individual police officers are even in a position to do this. That the police as a whole are able to do this. That they’re trying to do this. It’s about trust, and the police standing up as a group and saying, "No, we aren’t perfect. We’ll make mistakes. We’ll do bad things. But when we do there will be just as much evidence of our wrongdoing as there is of yours."
Altering it would be trivial to unmask.
It depends. The larger edits are very easy to spot, but they aren’t that useful either. It’s the framing that’s important. When you start the video, when you stop it. Blur the audio a little more than it already is. Zoom and pan slightly so that thing on the edge of the screen isn’t on the screen anymore. Speed parts up slightly so everything seems more hectic. All simple to do, all difficult to prove, but combined they can significantly alter the perception of those watching it.
Spoliation Instruction
If the officer has a personal video camera, and that footage is not available to the defendant, he is likely going to request a spoliation instruction.
The judge instructs the jury, in effect, that because the evidence was in the sole custody and control of Officer McSnarfley, and has disappeared without good explanation in light of the officer’s knowledge of impending litigation [prosecution], the jury should presume that the missing video would have refuted the cop’s story.
Re: Spoliation Instruction
By now, everyone’s probably seen the police body cam video that Utah nurse Alex Wubbels released at a news conference at her attorneys office last Thursday. According to multiple news accounts, Ms Wubbels does not currently anticipate litigation.
“ ‘This is crazy,’ sobs Utah hospital nurse as cop roughs her up, arrests her for doing her job”, by Derek Hawkins, Washington Post, Sep 2, 2016 (updated)
Of further relevance here, this police body cam video was reputedly obtained through a public records request under Utah law. (Note, though, that I haven’t been able to confirm this detail from a reliable source—at this point, that’s just a believable “rumor”.)
Also note that Salt Lake City Mayor Jackie Biskupski says that she didn’t see the video until after it had been released publicly.
It seems unlikely that the arresting officer would have been put on paid administrative leave without the public release of the video and subsequent media attention.
“Two S.L. police officers placed on leave as video of nurse arrest spreads”, by McKenzie Romero, KSL, Sep 1, 2017 (updated)
Yet again, “For now, Wubbels is not taking any legal action against police.”
Re: Re: Spoliation Instruction
Further, in yesterday’s news conference, Salt Lake City Police Chief Mike Brown says he also first saw the complete body cam video two days ago.
At about 7:35 –:40 in this video of the Sep 1, 2017 press conference with Salt Lake City Mayor Biskupski and Police Chief Brown:
Re: Re: Re: Spoliation Instruction
( … Sep 1, 2017 press conference with Salt Lake City Mayor Biskupski and Police Chief Brown…
Parenthetically, a more complete video of the Sep 1, 2017 press conference with Mayor Biskupski and Chief Brown contains an additional 3:45 or so at the beginning. The q&a that I referenced above occurs around the 11:15 timemark in this more complete video. )
Re: Re: Re: Spoliation Instruction
Salt Lake City Mayor’s Office: “FAQ on July 26th police incident at the University of Utah Medical Center” (undated)
Re: Re: Spoliation Instruction
In Nurse Alex Wubbels’ interview with KUTV 2News yesterday (Sep 1, 2017), she perhaps clarified her current position on impending or anticipated litigation.
Beginning slightly before the 5:30 timemark in the interview video:
With Ms Wubbels’ publicly-expressed indecision here, it’s not certain whether the officers who were wearing the body cams which captured video of the incident — it’s not certain they should anticipate a lawsuit from her.
Re: Re: Spoliation Instruction
The current criminal investigation of the officers’ conduct also appears to have been triggered by the public release of the video.
“SLC mayor, police chief apologize for officer who arrested nurse; criminal investigation to follow”, by Luke Ramseth, Salt Lake Tribune, Sep 1, 2017
Re: Re: Re: Spoliation Instruction
Salt Lake County District Attorney Sim Gill’s post on Facebook yesterday (Sep 1, 2017)—
Re: Re: Re: Spoliation Instruction
Working out the causal chain here, it now appears to me that the current criminal investigation was the direct triggering event for the change in the officers’ status.
“Salt Lake City police endure growing wave of public criticism — including rally against cop brutality — after nurse’s arrest”, by Luke Ramseth and Jessica Miller, Salt Lake Tribune, Sep 2, 2017
This particular direct causal link was not quite crystal clear to me from earlier coverage.
Putting it together, though, the public release of the body cam video led to Salt Lake County District Attorney Sim Gill’s request for a criminal investigation. That, in turn, caused the officers to be placed on paid administrative leave.
Re: Re: Re:2 Spoliation Instruction
Salt Lake City Police Department (@slcpd) Sep 1, 2017 tweet—
“As a result&hellip”
Re: Re: Re:3 Spoliation Instruction
Re: Re: Re:4 Spoliation Instruction
Look at the incident dispassionately. Here are some of the factors that I’ve seen in the reports—
Summing up these, and any other relevant factors, in the totality, does it really amount to more than —as you put it— a “paid vacation” ?
( Incidentally, if dialogue in this thread drifts too much, then maybe we should change the subject line. Or not. I’m still implicitly making a point in response to the OP. ;-).
Re: Re: Re:5 Spoliation Instruction
Lats answer that with another question, would want that officer dealing with say a lost child, or a confused Alzheimers sufferer?
Re: Re: Re:6 Spoliation Instruction
Something I don’t understand clearly is why the Salt Lake City police officers on the scene released Ms Wubbels after 20 minutes in Detecive Payne’s car. While she was confined, did Lieutenant Tracy and Detective Payne complete their intended assault on her patient, burn victim William Gray ?
Re: Re: Re:7 Spoliation Instruction
The Salt Lake Tribune asserts that they have viewed Salt Lake City police officers’ reports on the incident.
In Pamela Manson’s story, “Video shows Utah nurse screaming, being handcuffed after refusing to take blood from unconscious victim” (Aug 31, 2017)—
In Luke Ramseth’s story, “SLC mayor, police chief apologize for officer who arrested nurse; criminal investigation to follow” (Sep 1, 2017)—
I haven’t seen copies of these written reports myself, though.
Re: Re: Re:8 Spoliation Instruction
Limited postscript: On Sep 13, 2017, Salt Lake City Mayor Jackie Biskupski released two redacted reports(*) on the Wubbels incident at a press conference. One of these two reports, the Salt Lake City independent Police Civilian Review Board (CRB) investigation report (signature by panel chair dated “9/9/17”), contains an “official police report” by Jeff Payne on pp. 4-6.
To date, I still haven’t seen reports on the incident written by James Tracy or Denton Harper.
( * Unredacted internal affairs reports were also published on Sep 13, 2017 by the Salt Lake Tribune in a story by Luke Ramseth and Pamela Manson, “Internal affairs investigation finds police officers who arrested nurse violated a number of department policies”. The Salt Lake Tribune story states these full internal affairs reports were obtained through a public records request. )
Re: Re: Re:9 Spoliation Instruction
( Correction/clarification: Partially redacted. — At the Sep 13 news conference, Mayor Biskupski released bare descriptions of the policy violations found by internal affairs. That same day, The Salt Lake Tribune published partially redacted copies of internal affairs memoranda sent to Det Jeff Payne and to Lt James Tracy. )
Re: Re: Re:9 Spoliation Instruction
( On Sep 13, 2017, Salt Lake City Mayor Jackie Biskupski… at a press conference.
YouTube link for Sep 13, 2017 “Press Conference: Update on SLC Police and UMED Incident” (10:16 video published Sep 14, 2017 by Salt Lake City Television).
This is a different video than the Good4Utah.com (ABC4 Utah) 14:38 video published at the bottom of the Sep 13, 2017 story by Simone Francis, “Mayor shares update on nurse arrest investigation”. The YouTube video contains about 2:50 at the beginning which is not present in the Good4Utah.com video. The shorter YouTube video, though, omits about 7:10 of reporters q&a which is present at the end of the longer video. )
Re: Re: Re:6 Spoliation Instruction
Salt Lake City Police Detective Jeff Payne has now been fired from his part-time job as a paramedic.
@GoldCrossUtah on Twitter (Sep 5, 2017)
“SLC detective involved in nurse’s arrest is fired from his part-time paramedic job”, by Luke Ramseth, Salt Lake Tribune, Sep 5, 2017
The Salt Lake Tribune’s excerpted video (published on YouTube Sep 1, 2017) from Det Payne’s body cam contains the detective’s remarks beginning from about the 1:20 timemark up to about the 1:40 timemark.
Re: Re: Re:6 Spoliation Instruction
Oct 10, 2017 Memorandum from Salt Lake City Police Chief Mike Brown to Jeff Payne, “Re: Notice of Decision — Internal Affairs Case # C17-0062 Termination of Employment”.
Via “Chief fires officer who arrested U. nurse; lieutenant demoted”, by Pat Reavy, Deseret News, Oct 10, 2017.
KUTV has video of reaction by Alex Wubbels and her attorney, Karra Porter, attached to the story by Daniel Woodruff, “Alex Wubbels, attorney react after firing of Salt Lake City police detective” (Oct 10, 2017)
For another copy of the termination memorandum, see “Footage ‘tells the truth,’ Utah nurse says after the SLC officer who arrested her was fired”, by Luke Ramseth and Pamela Manson, Salt Lake Tribune, Oct 10, 2017. This story also contains a reaction by (now-former SLCPD Detective) Jeff Payne’s attorney, Greg Skordas—
Additionally, see “Salt Lake City officers will appeal their punishments over nurse arrest; University of Utah hospital changes policies”, by Jessica Miller and Luke Ramseth, Salt Lake Tribune, Oct 11, 2017
Re: Re: Re:3 Spoliation Instruction
Compare those Sep 1, 2017 “additional statements” against the recent (undated) “FAQ on July 26th police incident at the University of Utah Medical Center—
“As a result of this criminal investigation” versus “pending the outcome of the Internal Affairs investigation”.
Re: Re: Spoliation Instruction
( By now, everyone’s probably seen the police body cam video…
Parenthetically again, Good4Utah.com has pages containing both a 30:31 body cam video from arresting officer Detective Jeff Payne, as well as the 19:22 body cam video from another officer. That second webpage actually contains both of these videos on one page, but perhaps seems to feature the 19:22 video — which is also available at the YouTube link I provided above. At present, I’ve been unable to find the 30:31 video on YouTube. )
Re: Re: Re: Spoliation Instruction
( At present, I’ve been unable to find the 30:31 video on YouTube.
Det Jeff Payne 30:01 body cam video, published on YouTube Sep 6, 2017, and described as obtained “through FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request”. This video appears to be missing the initial 30 seconds of audio-free footage seen in the Good4Utah.com (ABC4 Utah) 30:31 video. The two videos appear to end at same point. )
Re: Re: Spoliation Instruction
Backfilling corroboration—
“Union says city ‘made pariahs’ of officers in U. nurse arrest”, by Pat Reavy, KSL, Sep 25, 2017
“Accident victim at center of University Hospital blood-draw controversy dies”, by Stephen Hunt and Luke Ramseth, Salt Lake Tribune, Sep 26, 2017
It was an accurate ”rumor”.
Re: Spoliation Instruction
Before Cushing’s article began to make its way down the Techdirt sidebar, on its way towards leaving the front page altogether here, I kind of expected someone to ask just what exactly the Utah nurse incident had to do with a “spoliation instruction” ?
Perhaps I made my point so plainly enough in my initial response that everyone can see without any further explanation. But I was kind of expecting someone to ask. Maybe it was just a long holiday weekend.
Popping back out into this context, today, here’s a Deseret News column by Jay Evensen which asks, counterfactually, “Imagine if a nurse was arrested and no one shot any video” ?
Meh.
Let them wear their own self-purchased body cameras. They can put it on the uniform opposite the publicly provided camera.
Just as more and more cars get dash cams, why aren’t there more and more bodycams for EVERYBODY, not just cops? If cops with personal bodycams are a problem, this could fairly easily be negated by far more private citizens having these.
Biggest problem are prices… dash cams can be as low as $10, whereas bodycams are crazy expensive.
Re: Re:
If cops with personal bodycams are a problem, this could fairly easily be negated by far more private citizens having these.
Not as much as you might think, just consider the various and numerous stories about police going nuts over people recording them with phones, up to and including grabbing the phones in question(to ‘preserve evidence’ of course) to prevent people from recording them.
If they are already that hostile to the cameras people can already record them with I don’t see that changing by a transition to/addition of bodycams.
What If
What if someone filed a FOIA req for all personal body cam footage?
Re: What If
You mean a request under the California Public Records Act (CPRA)? Submitted to… whom?
Yeah, but the police aren’t the only ones wearing bodycams now. You can get a cheap one under $100 and a better one for under $200. If you work in retail, or have a CDL, or work in emergency services, they can save your job if you’re maliciously accused.
My little MP3 player, which is clipped to my shirt as part of my clothing, has a record mode. It’s audio only, but it has proven useful in various disputes.
I’m mostly waiting for the size of the video recorders to come down, not so much the price; I’m carrying quite a lot of equipment already in my daily load-out, and I don’t want a big bodycam too.
Re: Re:
I’ve used a little MP3 recorder for years. It has enough memory that I can record about eight hours on a set of batteries. It’s gotten two bosses fired.
Crowd Fund?
Anyone here want to help me Crowdfund a pot of money to buy the LAPD EVERYTHING they need to get this program started?