top of page
Search
Writer's pictureLegal Soch Foundation
8 min read

ANALYSING THE LEGALITY OF POLICE BODY CAMERAS AND THEIR IMPACT ON PRIVACY

Author - Riya Sharma (This article has been written by her during the course of her internship at Legal Soch Foundation)


ABSTRACT

This research article delves into the multifaceted issues surrounding the deployment of police body cameras, aiming to strike a delicate balance between accountability, transparency, and personal privacy. The introduction provides an overview of the evolution of body camera technology and its significance in modern law enforcement. It emphasises the benefits of body cameras in highlighting police officers' actions, reducing community complaints, and enhancing accountability.


However, the paper also addresses the invasion of people's privacy as a critical concern. It discusses instances where sensitive footage has been inadvertently captured, leading to legal challenges and ethical dilemmas. Notably, a recent case study from Seattle illustrates the complexities of body camera use in a tragic incident involving a police officer and a civilian.


The paper explores legal and ethical considerations arising from such cases, including the need for clear department policies and the potential public release of footage. It highlights the importance of safeguarding personal privacy while maintaining transparency.


In conclusion, the paper advocates for the continued use of police body cameras but emphasises the necessity of well-defined policies and frameworks. It suggests a balanced approach, wherein video footage is selectively released to the public in cases of use of force incidents, felony arrests, or complaints against officers, with redactions to protect privacy. Ultimately, this research aims to contribute to the ongoing discourse on the responsible use of police body cameras, fostering trust between law enforcement agencies and the communities they serve.




INTRODUCTION

Body cameras are devices used to record audio, video and photographic evidence when police officers and other law enforcement officials interact with the public in some way. In uniform, most officers wear cameras on their shoulders in a way similar to the military and general populations but only for reasons that allow them to address specific requirements of law enforcement.


The first experiments with this technology in law enforcement took place in 1998, when the devices were significantly bulky and difficult to transport. Over the last 20 years, video quality has improved while size and weight have decreased. Some can be worn on the officer’s shoulder, while others are worn on the officer’s helmet or glasses. Some forces also have chest-mounted options available. Nowadays, most cameras weigh between 2 and 5 ounces.


In modern times, the quality of Body cameras has changed drastically as they provide HD quality video. Police Body cams have become a crucial tool in today’s time as they aim to enhance accountability, transparency and trust between law enforcement agencies and the public in general. However, the use of these cameras raises complex legal and ethical concerns about invasion of privacy. This paper aims to explore the different aspects surrounding body cameras, while ultimately advocating for their continued use despite potential privacy concerns.


SIGNIFICANCE OF POLICE BODY CAMERAS

Police Body Cameras highlight what happens in heated situations

The objective of Police Body camera is to highlight officer’s decision-making process when confronted with tense situations. This technology does not alter an individual’s ingrained behaviours. Instead, it will highlight them so that each choice can be scrutinised by the public. The video from these units can be used as evidence and hence, the videos are useful in illuminating police investigations.


This technology can improve how officers and their suspects behave

The average person behaves better when they know that there is some level of accountability for their actions. People who are aware that they are being recorded are less likely to be aggressive with the officer or accuse them of something that did not occur because the evidence will be captured on video.


Reduction of Community complaints after the deployment of Police body cameras

The Police started using Body Cameras because the police officers in countries like US and UK used to persecute the minor communities (African-American) without any reason. After the implementation of Police body cams, the Police in Rialto, California reported that the use of Body-mounted cameras on duty led to decrease in the number of complaints against police officers received by the community by more than 87%. The technology also reduced the use of force by 59% after just one year of implementation. Almost all other departments see similar results.


Now, the community spends less time and resources on civil litigation as there are fewer complaints. It can also serve as a tool to highlight the fantastic actions that officers take in their community every day that are often unnoticed.


The tool provides Accountability and Transparency

The Police body cameras plays a pivotal role in promoting accountability and transparency within law enforcement agencies. Footage can offer an unbiased account of events that took place which reduces disputes and enhance public trust.


INVASION OF PEOPLE’s PRIVACY

Although body cameras bring benefits to fighting crimes, they also raise serious questions regarding public privacy. Police body cameras are increasingly used by departments nationwide, providing a front-row seat to all the action. The police body cameras are an added layer of protection for the officers and for the citizens because everything is recorded. In most cases, the body-worn cameras are turned on during every encounter with a citizen, and officers are not able to delete or alter the video, which is the biggest concern the police department faces in terms of privacy. Gruesome crime scenes or domestic violence cases are being posted for the world to see on YouTube.

 

If none of the footage is available to the public, then there will be great suspicion in cases where there’s a controversial use of force and the police department refuses to release the video. On the other hand, if all the video is made available in public, that will invade a lot of people’s privacy.

 

Police in Suburban Chicago Village filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the police department for those very body cameras. According to the complainant, when the police officers didn’t know the cameras were on, the body cameras recorded the footage. During the seven months in question, video footage was taken of police officers in locker rooms and bathrooms. On the basis of the footage, several police officers have filed a lawsuit, alleging that the footage infringes on their civil rights and their right to privacy.

 

Recent Case Study: Seattle's Tragic Incident and it’s Implications for Police Body Cameras


In this year, a harrowing incident in Seattle has brought the use of police body cameras to the forefront of the public's attention, highlighting the complex legal and ethical issues associated with their deployment.


Overview of the case

In July, a deeply disturbing incident occurred in Seattle, where a tragic accident involving a police officer, Kevin Dave, was captured by his body camera. The incident took place on January 23, and it involved the death of Jaahnavi Kandula, a 23-year-old individual who was struck by Officer Dave's vehicle while crossing the road. The incident raises critical questions about the role of body cameras in law enforcement, their impact on transparency, and their implications for personal privacy.


Circumstances and key points from the body camera footage

The body camera footage revealed that Officer Dave was responding to a "high-priority" call at the time of the incident. Although he had activated his siren intermittently, the footage showed him accelerating to a speed of up to 74 miles per hour. Tragically, Jaahnavi was hit while crossing the road. After the incident, Officer Dave was heard on the body camera footage acknowledging his error, saying, "I f–ked up." Subsequent footage captured Officer Dave attempting to perform CPR on Jaahnavi.


Legal and ethical considerations arising from the case

This case raises significant legal and ethical questions. It prompts us to examine whether Officer Dave's use of the body camera was consistent with department policy and whether the footage should be made public to enhance transparency and accountability. Additionally, the case underscores the potential impact of body camera footage on personal privacy, as it recorded a tragic and deeply personal moment for both the victim and the officer.


Response and actions taken after the incident

In response to the incident, the Office of Police Accountability initiated an investigation to determine whether Officer Dave complied with department policy. Furthermore, a body-worn camera captured disturbing remarks made by Daniel Auderer, a union leader within the Seattle Police Department, about the value of Jaahnavi's life. This incident led to internal discussions within the police department and the wider community about the culture within law enforcement and the need for accountability.


Broader implications and lessons learned from the Seattle case

The tragic incident in Seattle serves as a stark reminder of the complexities surrounding police body cameras. It highlights the importance of clear policies governing their use, as well as the potential for such technology to both shed light on incidents and invade personal privacy. This case underscores the ongoing need for a delicate balance between accountability, transparency, and privacy in law enforcement.


CONCLUSION and SUGGESTION

The body-worn camera technology is being supported by most of the police departments provided that they are deployed with a good policy framework that ensures that they will continue to be effective as an oversight tool and puts in place some basic privacy protections.


Department throughout some of the state’s plan to redact or blur the videos before releasing them to the public.


An officer who is entering somebody’s house shouldn’t able to turn the camera on in that house without permission unless it’s a raid or there’s a warrant. Officers should have the discretion to turn the cameras off it they’re interviewing a crime victim or children, or they’re getting tips about crime from a citizen who might not want to be on camera. But anytime an officer is involved in a call for service, or a law enforcement action, or any encounter that gets in any way hostile, that camera should be on as a matter of policy and officers who don’t adhere to that policy should be punished. Otherwise, the police will use the body cams as and when they want, which will not increase community trust by allowing the public to see what might be difficult encounters.


There may be complaints against the police officers, and if the police officers haven’t turned his or her video on, then the public is going to be left guessing about what happened. If this technology is going to be accepted by the community, it needs to serve not just the needs of law enforcement, but it also needs to serve as an oversight tool to help increase community trust over police officers.


In order to strike a right balance, some of the states have introduced a scheme in which most of the video is not released to the public, but if there’s a use of force incident, or a felony arrest, or a complaint against a police officer, that video would be flagged and would be treated differently and would be presumptively, releasable to the public, with redactions to protect privacy, if possible. There should be proper policies and framework made by the different State police departments regarding how to use the police body cameras effectively.


References

  • The influence of Graham v. Connor on police use of force (police1.com)


  • (PDF) Collateral Visibility: A Socio-Legal Study of Police Body Camera Adoption, Privacy, and Public Disclosure in Washington State (researchgate.net)


  • Body cameras help monitor police but can invade people's privacy (theconversation.com)


  • Body-Worn Cameras, Use of Force and Police-Civilian Interactions | Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice | Oxford Academic (oup.com)


  • (PDF) Debate Introduction: The Privacy and Surveillance Implications of Police Body Cameras (researchgate.net)


  • Body‐worn cameras’ effects on police officers and citizen behavior: A systematic review - Lum - 2020 - Campbell Systematic Reviews - Wiley Online Library


  • Body-worn cameras for police accountability: Opportunities and risks - ScienceDirect








Those interested in reading News, can join this group - https://chat.whatsapp.com/Ez1LHrBwTrtKysBz4nViKt


Recent Posts

See All

Comments

bottom of page