Survey: IMPD Seeks Community Input on Body Cams

[Route 45]

https://www.theindychannel.com/news...-opinion-on-body-worn-cameras-in-iupui-survey

Direct link to the survey: https://iu.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_eXKLuWIVnSK6EoB

 

[phylodog]

More technology, yeah that'll fix everything. One more great big hole to throw money in. Might see a little bit of good come from it, might see a little bit of bad. At the end of the day it doesn't and never will help put bad guys in jail and keep them there.

 

[Trigger Time]

More technology, yeah that'll fix everything. One more great big hole to throw money in. Might see a little bit of good come from it, might see a little bit of bad. At the end of the day it doesn't and never will help put bad guys in jail and keep them there.

The biggest reason I am for bodycams has nothing to do with putting criminals on the street away. I want them to hold public officials accountable while on the clock. Also helps in cases of false accusations Against the police. I see it paying for itself in the end. For those that do their jobs right I dont see these as an issue. For those that may cross a line sometimes and ones that turn a blind eye to it, they may not like them.

As far as locking up the criminals and keeping them there, I've never heard a solid solution to that. Maybe not allowing politicians to have their fingers in LE. But that would take a rewriting of the state constitution i think.

 

[2A-Hoosier23]

More technology, yeah that'll fix everything. One more great big hole to throw money in. Might see a little bit of good come from it, might see a little bit of bad. At the end of the day it doesn't and never will help put bad guys in jail and keep them there.

I recall a shooting not that long ago in Crawfordsville that was talked about extensively on this forum. A lot of people seemed to think bodycam footage might have provided answers to a the situation.

Here's that thread:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...-questions-remain-28.html?463206=#post7789476

 

[2A-Hoosier23]

The biggest reason I am for bodycams has nothing to do with putting criminals on the street away. I want them to hold public officials accountable while on the clock.

This. We put cameras (publicly) on school buses and traffic intersections and (privately) on our homes and business, not just to put away criminals, but to keep honest people honest. most anything that helps keep public servants accountable is good in my book

 

[Ark]

The sky has not fallen in places that have adopted body cameras, and cases like that roadside shooting have shamed Indiana for being behind the curve. All on-duty LEOs in the state should have dash cameras plus body cameras in operation during any interactions with criminals or the public. It is absolutely unacceptable to have a person lying dead on the ground and a police officer shrugging and saying "no body camera, no dash camera, guess you'll have to take my word for it huh?".

On balance the cameras seem to exonerate the police far more than they cause problems, and the content they've generated has been invaluable to both the civilian and professional defense communities. Find the money. Get it done.

 

[thunderchicken]

Like many I can see both sides to body cameras. Concern I would have is if an officer arrives on scene of something that doesn't require turning the cam on per SOP's and the things go really sideways. The big question then will be why wasn't the camera on. That could plant a seed and jam up an officer for something that he/she was right to do. Also how will video be stored and how much will it cost. Gov't in general as we all know often aren't the most frugal.
As for whoever said dash cams should be in every police car. I have seen some videos that would make it seem beneficial. But my concern would be..lets face it even with training cops are some of the most distracted drivers on the road. Listening to their radio, having to look at their laptop for info, car radio on and trying to focus on driving often at high speeds. How many more distractions do they need? Not bashing any LEO's, I get its part of the nature of the beast. But I have seen some crazy stuff that can only be explained by being distracted.
They tell everyone not to text and drive yet we expect them to peck keys on a laptop while driving.

 

[Tryin']

I wonder what is was like in the days of police testimony being given a certain weight.

My department has body cams. They are good for reports: you can go back and review the call pretty much frame by frame. They have also dramatically cut complaints. Not that we are doing things any differently, but complainants start backpedaling pretty quick when asked to come in and review the video of the interaction.

The cameras are a huge expense. The storage and data management requirements are not small. My tiny Department has close to two TB of video catalogued and stored.

The cameras have become officer testimony. They have (anecdotally) cut down on court time due to an increase in bargain agreements, but when they don’t work or officers forgets to turn them on, it’s always somehow “suspect” and causes a bit of hassle.

There are some other issues that are department specific.

It does seem that they are here to stay.

 

[Vigilant]

I’m torn. Always on is the only way they can be useful. If they can be turned off, why have them? That in itself poses problems, Officer Fife needs to drop a deuce, can he/she turn the cam off? What happens when said Officer Fife, while dropping said duece, “sits” in on a drug deal/ goes to gunfight? Do we turn cam on? Officers get breaks as well, do we record those? What if **** goes down on break? Are the police not entitled to their private time? It’s not cut and dried, I’d love to have 100% accountability, rather than Joe Citezen’s 30 second clip of a five minute encounter that ends with a dead guy.

 

[Vigilant]

The sky has not fallen in places that have adopted body cameras, and cases like that roadside shooting have shamed Indiana for being behind the curve. All on-duty LEOs in the state should have dash cameras plus body cameras in operation during any interactions with criminals or the public. It is absolutely unacceptable to have a person lying dead on the ground and a police officer shrugging and saying "no body camera, no dash camera, guess you'll have to take my word for it huh?".

On balance the cameras seem to exonerate the police far more than they cause problems, and the content they've generated has been invaluable to both the civilian and professional defense communities. Find the money. Get it done.

On balance, you seem to be an anti police more than not? Why not volunteer to wear the badge, and learn the other side of the story? Or quit piping up in only anti cop threads?

 

[Tryin']

I’m torn. Always on is the only way they can be useful. If they can be turned off, why have them? That in itself poses problems, Officer Fife needs to drop a deuce, can he/she turn the cam off? What happens when said Officer Fife, while dropping said duece, “sits” in on a drug deal/ goes to gunfight? Do we turn cam on?

Our cameras run in “standby” mode until activated by a simple double tap on a large front-mounted button. Once activated there is a buffer of video (w/o audio) before the activation. This buffer is adjustable between zero seconds and five minutes. Our policy states that all call-based interactions with the public be recorded and recommends that ALL interactions be recorded.

Cameras running all of the time is not practical nor desirable. Camera footage is subject to information requests by the public. There are real privacy concerns (not just for officers) that are not easily overcome.

 

[Vigilant]

Our cameras run in “standby” mode until activated by a simple double tap on a large front-mounted button. Once activated there is a buffer of video (w/o audio) before the activation. This buffer is adjustable between zero seconds and five minutes. Our policy states that all call-based interactions with the public be recorded and recommends that ALL interactions be recorded.

Cameras running all of the time is not practical nor desirable. Camera footage is subject to information requests by the public. There are real privacy concerns (not just for officers) that are not easily overcome.

Im on your side with this, I’m simply stating that always on is the only way they are useful. Again, that presents problems as you stated, privacy concerns for you, and Joe Citizen. A question, during your buffer w/o audio, assuming you remember to double tap, who is responsible for the buffered no audio/video time? It seems to me, the same as random ass video from twenty uninvolved “bystanders” at that point? Trust me, I got out of the LE game before everyone was a CNN reporter, so I don’t know.

 

[VUPDblue]

There’s plenty of technology now to take the onus away from the officer when it comes to turning the recorder on and off. You have systems that have accelerometers to detect running, force, weapon being drawn etc... you also have systems that mesh up with dispatch so they automatically come on when an officer gets dispatched to a run. I’m all for them. The questions now have become not when do they get turned on, but when can they get turned off, and can an officer review the footage before writing a report. Believe it or not, there are groups like the ACLU who want the officers to have to turn the things off at the request of the person they are interacting with. They also want to disallow reviewing the video prior to report writing because it’s unfair. they want officers to type a report from memory and either overlook facts or remember something differently so that they can cry “liar liar pants on fire” at the first discrepancy.

 

[Vigilant]

There’s plenty of technology now to take the onus away from the officer when it comes to turning the recorder on and off. You have systems that have accelerometers to detect running, force, weapon being drawn etc... you also have systems that mesh up with dispatch so they automatically come on when an officer gets dispatched to a run. I’m all for them. The questions now have become not when do they get turned on, but when can they get turned off, and can an officer review the footage before writing a report. Believe it or not, there are groups like the ACLU who want the officers to have to turn the things off at the request of the person they are interacting with. They also want to disallow reviewing the video prior to report writing because it’s unfair. they want officers to type a report from memory and either overlook facts or remember something differently so that they can cry “liar liar pants on fire” at the first discrepancy.

Total BS!! You have to wear them, you can use them, good or bad.

 

[Tryin']

Im on your side with this, I’m simply stating that always on is the only way they are useful. Again, that presents problems as you stated, privacy concerns for you, and Joe Citizen. A question, during your buffer w/o audio, assuming you remember to double tap, who is responsible for the buffered no audio/video time? It seems to me, the same as random ass video from twenty uninvolved “bystanders” at that point? Trust me, I got out of the LE game before everyone was a CNN reporter, so I don’t know.

I’m not sure I understand the question. Let me run a typical call sequence for you:

Dispatch puts out a non-emergent call for x.
I respond.
As I arrive, I activate the camera. I typically do this while marking on scene.
I deal with the call
I clear the call with dispatch and turn off the camera.

Emergency runs, I hit the camera as soon as I acknowledge the dispatch

The buffer is BEFORE the activation, so on non-emergent calls it’s usually 30 seconds of driving to the call. Emergent runs, it’s me eating a donut or taking a leak.

Some of our cars trigger the camera when the emergency lights are activated.

Our Tasers activate the cameras when switched to on. (ALL of the nearby cameras, the light and Taser activation switching range is like 40yds)

Admin has discussed firearm holsters with auto-switching capability.

By and large, the cop just turns the thing on at the beginning of the call and off at the end. You just give yourself a cue and stick with it. For me, it’s the lights or marking on scene. Another officer cues on the door handle. Another guy cues on dispatch acknowledgement.

VUPD, we get to review our footage via the axon app until the camera is uploaded and cleared at the end of shift. That has been mentioned in court but quickly batted down by the judge. I don’t know where any serious cases involving suppression on the grounds of officer review currently stand.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Three words: cost-benefit analysis. Oh wait, a government is involved. Just throw money at it. Serious question: would the family of a 13-time convicted felon (who just wrecked after fleeing from Police) received a 6-digit settlement if there were body cameras at the scene?

 

[Haven]

I’m for body cameras. From what I have seen it has cut down lawsuits and settlements by police departments more often than not. We’ve seen a number of police camera videos clear officers of wrong doing.

My only concern is more about ongoing maintenance, storage of data and backup of that data. ISA is pretty frugal with infrastructure purchases for the most part. But the real cost isn’t buying the cameras but that storage over time. These ongoing costs are the ones that get forgotten too often.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[phylodog]

I recall a shooting not that long ago in Crawfordsville that was talked about extensively on this forum. A lot of people seemed to think bodycam footage might have provided answers to a the situation.

A lot of people assume that a camera will tell the whole story accurately. They very rarely do, they don't see what an officer sees. I get the arguments as to why they could be beneficial but the technology to deliver on that wish doesn't exist yet.

 

[Trigger Time]

A lot of people assume that a camera will tell the whole story accurately. They very rarely do, they don't see what an officer sees. I get the arguments as to why they could be beneficial but the technology to deliver on that wish doesn't exist yet.

You're very right phylodog. They dont show the whole truth or even the real truth sometimes. Nothing is perfect

 

[BehindBlueI's]

More technology, yeah that'll fix everything. One more great big hole to throw money in.

My guess is they will test them, realize they don't have the money for it, and nothing will happen. Just like last time. For those who think they pay for themselves, they don't. I get the thought that reductions in lawsuits might save more money then they cost, but given that a not inconsequential number of departments have discontinued their programs after a few years due to cost that's far from a given. People think of the cameras and the storage as the cost. That's just a part of it, and of course you there are laws on how you store it. At least one state requires video to be stored for 100 years if it involves an unsolved crime. Given how fast storage and software technology changes, that's kind of ridiculous. Several departments around the state ditched body cameras a few years ago when the storage requirement laws for Indiana went into place as they couldn't afford it any longer. Then tack on the expense of the equipment and staff for redacting public release videos. The video is subject to FOIA act requests, so you have to have staff to respond to those requests. Fine, pull video, burn it, send it off...but of course it's not that easy. Cops are routinely in private places or private situations that have to be scrubbed for things that can't be publicly released. The identity of juveniles not charged as adults, for example. Failure to protect confidential data can lead to...you guess it...lawsuits. It's cheap and easy for me to request 10,000 hours of video surveillance. It's neither cheap nor easy for a department to comply. There's no magic editing software that removes sexual assault victim's statements, blurs the faces of juvenile suspects, redacts information that can be used for identity theft, etc. A human has to do that, and has to watch the video in order to do so. Then there's lawsuits for not releasing video in a timely manner. South Carolina tried to address that at the state level by passing a law that body cam footage wasn't public, similar to interrogation videos, and wasn't subject to FOIA requests. That would greatly reduce the cost. I'm not sure if that ever passed, and if it it survived court challenges if it did.

I, frankly, have doubts the city is willing to dedicate the money it would take it actually do it correctly for all involved.