Survey: IMPD Seeks Community Input on Body Cams

[T.Lex]

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.

BBI just Denny'd.

 

[Denny347]

Hmmm, cars or body cameras? I don't see the CCC expanding the budget. Equipment money will be used so it will be either cars or cameras and since we have a terrible terrible fleet, I vote cars.

 

[VUPDblue]

Yep. All those 150k Crown Vics aren’t getting any younger.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

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?".

That's a dangerous precedent to set when talking about "unacceptable". In Indiana, police have exactly one scenario they can use deadly force in that others cannot on the books. To affect an arrest when failing to do so would present an imminent threat to others. Realistically, there's no distinction. If I shoot the active shooter fleeing deeper into the school to affect an arrest or you shoot to protect the students that are probably back there, it's still justified. I've been at this a long time, been on the investigation of lots of shootings, and have yet to come up with one realistic scenario an LEO can shoot and someone else can't.

Given that the vast majority of shootings that lead to investigations don't involve a police officer, period, I'd be real hesitant to declare your scenario as unacceptable. You have any idea how often the general public shoots or shoots at a bad guy and must then make a self defense claim? If I was a Feinstein fan, I'd be quick to pick up your flag and run with it. It's unacceptable for you to kill your fellow citizen and when the police arrive just shrug and say "no body camera, no dash camera, guess you'll have to take my word for it huh?".

 

[Trigger Time]

I frankly do not care if they pay for themselves or not. Yes i figured they would. But just like the government doesn't care how many millions it blows in the coarse to investigate and prosecute a citizen for any offense, we shouldn't care how much we spend to ensure that public officials are held accountable in their duties and that not 1 citizen is unfairly subjected to abuses of power, title or authority. Not just from police, that includes congress, prosecutors, dog catcher, ect.

We have many expenses of government that do not pay for themselves and are frankly bad investments. This is a good one

 

[Trigger Time]

We are supposed to take the police word for it in some cases and not in others.
Democrats and frankly rino republicans, eat it up on their knees when the indiana sherriff association badmouth's constitutional carry.
But when police and facts like actual cases comes to show citizens with guns actually stop mass shooters before the police arrive in manny cases and certainly are there to help save themselves, no one wants to hear that.
We pick and chose what we want to listen to all the time but also a persons title still entitles them to an opinion and its multiple opinions and facts that must come together to form a decision.
My point, i don't trust anyone just because the wear a badge or have a title attached to their name.

 

[thunderchicken]

Yep. All those 150k Crown Vics aren’t getting any younger.

150k? Heck that's low mileage lol.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

But just like the government doesn't care how many millions it blows in the coarse to investigate and prosecute a citizen for any offense...

You've obviously dealt with a much different prosecutor's office and court system then I have if you think the resources required have no bearing in if a case is pursued or not. From petty offense plea bargains to decisions on if the death penalty will be pursued, resources are not unlimited nor inconsequential.

Democrats and frankly rino republicans, eat it up on their knees when the indiana sherriff association badmouth's constitutional carry.

Sheriffs are politicians. Let's not confuse political showmanship with courtroom testimony.

 

[2A-Hoosier23]

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.

I wholeheartedly agree, the camera tells us what it tells us, it doesn't see what the officer sees, it's not a magic tool that will solve all of our problems. But the thing that's good about cameras is they are not corrupted by perception or experience. A police officer's statement or report, by nature, isn't as objective as camera footage. This doesn't mean that interpretations of camera footage cannot be manipulated, of course lawyers will do what lawyers do in the courtroom. Also selective camera footage can be used to obscure the truth rather than help tell it. There are many flaws and I see your reasoning that we maybe shouldn't dump too much money, effort or hope onto cameras.

I don't think we should rely mainly on cameras, rather they're one small part of the bigger idea of checks and balances and maintaining accountability. That being said, if they prove ineffective in making a positive difference, or they're not worth the money, we'd ought get rid of em... which I'm sure our extremely frugal and financially responsible public servants will promptly do...

 

[mmpsteve]

As a permanent record, whatever they record, I vote for cameras. They can only help and not hurt, in terms of recording any event. They see what they see, without bias. Of course, sometimes, footage can be deceiving, but if the chain of custody is maintained so as not to be manipulated, it can be very helpful to figure out what happened. In terms of cost, we spend our money on much less helpful things.

.

 

[phylodog]

As a permanent record, whatever they record, I vote for cameras. They can only help and not hurt, in terms of recording any event. They see what they see, without bias.
.

I guess that depends on your definition of bias but you are right that cameras see what they see. What happens if they see something the officer wasn't capable of seeing or vice versa?

Many cameras see much better in low light than humans do and they adjust to changing light conditions faster. Video showing a suspect dropping a weapon 2/10ths of a second before an officer fires because the officer couldn't see due to poor lighting isn't helpful. Does it tell the truth? Sure but that wasn't the reality for the officer in that moment.

What happens when an officer sees something during an all out sprint and takes action but the camera didn't see it? Body worn cameras don't compensate well for the movement of the officer wearing it. Humans can maintain focus on a person or object during movement much better than body worn cameras.

What happens when an officer is looking in the same direction as the camera but is focused on something a large distance from an important thing that takes place? Humans can't focus in the front and rear sight on a handgun at the same time, let alone two things 30 feet apart. Most cameras have near infinite focus.

What if the body worn camera is facing one way and the officer wearing it turns their head? The camera is no longer seeing what the officer sees and is quite likely to miss something important.

Cameras don't experience tunnel vision, they don't have depth perception, don't estimate speed well and don't experience looming.

Now....I'd be more than happy to testify in any courtroom in the country as to the issues cameras present when we attempt to hold people accountable to what a camera saw. I'm sure the people of the jury would listen intently and maybe even find it interesting. As soon as the video plays everything goes right out the window. We put a lot more faith in what we see than in what we hear, and that goes triple when the two don't match up.

I don't have dog in the fight any longer, I retired last year. I do find it interesting that not too long ago many of the people who were screaming for body cameras in years past were all of a sudden condemning them and calling them racist. Why? Because the videos weren't showing what they thought they should be seeing.

As soon as the technology catches up to see exactly what the wearer sees in all of the conditions I mentioned above I will be 100% onboard with them being required on every officer in the country. Until then they are absolutely a biased witness in far too many instances to be relied upon as heavily as they tend to be.

 

[mmpsteve]

I guess that depends on your definition of bias but you are right that cameras see what they see. What happens if they see something the officer wasn't capable of seeing or vice versa?

Many cameras see much better in low light than humans do and they adjust to changing light conditions faster. Video showing a suspect dropping a weapon 2/10ths of a second before an officer fires because the officer couldn't see due to poor lighting isn't helpful. Does it tell the truth? Sure but that wasn't the reality for the officer in that moment.

What happens when an officer sees something during an all out sprint and takes action but the camera didn't see it? Body worn cameras don't compensate well for the movement of the officer wearing it. Humans can maintain focus on a person or object during movement much better than body worn cameras.

What happens when an officer is looking in the same direction as the camera but is focused on something a large distance from an important thing that takes place? Humans can't focus in the front and rear sight on a handgun at the same time, let alone two things 30 feet apart. Most cameras have near infinite focus.

What if the body worn camera is facing one way and the officer wearing it turns their head? The camera is no longer seeing what the officer sees and is quite likely to miss something important.

Cameras don't experience tunnel vision, they don't have depth perception, don't estimate speed well and don't experience looming.

Now....I'd be more than happy to testify in any courtroom in the country as to the issues cameras present when we attempt to hold people accountable to what a camera saw. I'm sure the people of the jury would listen intently and maybe even find it interesting. As soon as the video plays everything goes right out the window. We put a lot more faith in what we see than in what we hear, and that goes triple when the two don't match up.

I don't have dog in the fight any longer, I retired last year. I do find it interesting that not too long ago many of the people who were screaming for body cameras in years past were all of a sudden condemning them and calling them racist. Why? Because the videos weren't showing what they thought they should be seeing.

As soon as the technology catches up to see exactly what the wearer sees in all of the conditions I mentioned above I will be 100% onboard with them being required on every officer in the country. Until then they are absolutely a biased witness in far too many instances to be relied upon as heavily as they tend to be.

My post was not very well thought out, now that you've posted these nuances that I didn't consider. Thanks for your experienced response, and for not slapping me up side the head, like I probably deserved.

.

 

[phylodog]

My post was not very well thought out, now that you've posted these nuances that I didn't consider. Thanks for your experienced response, and for not slapping me up side the head, like I probably deserved.

.

You didn’t deserve to be slapped. These are things very few people are aware of. I wasn’t aware of them until completing a very intensive training course which covered cameras and a myriad of other things. I just try to share what I can when I can. Thanks for both taking it as a personal attack, I was trying to avoid that perception.

 

[MarkC]

Body cameras and in-car cameras are just tools, and they show only what they can record. They are not magic, and although they are generally beneficial, they will not solve everything. On the whole, it is better to have video and audio that can shed some light on what actually happened, but everything is open to interpretation and being framed as something it is not.

Storage and handling of the huge amount of data, and the cost of this storage and handling, are impediments to broader implementation. Budgets are not unlimited, and this applies to decisions on what equipment to purchase, what investigations to pursue, and almost every other decision a government manager makes.

And, as noted above, some "civil rights champions" demand that officers not be given an opportunity to review video before completing reports. This is solely for the benefit of their clients, as they hope to frame any tiny difference between what the officer wrote and what the tape shows as an evil, intentional lie.

When I had one of the first VHS in-car systems in the early 1990's, I would routinely review the video when writing my report, especially on OWI stops. I saw all kinds of evidence and behavior on the tape that I did not see or did not remember after driving the suspect to the jail, running the Intoxilyzer, arresting the person, and processing them into the jail. Isn't more accurate better?

AND, very troubling, is those who want to argue that any LEO without a video must be covering things up or that the presumption should be against the officer and the agency. Unrealistic, unfair thinking.

 

[mmpsteve]

You didn’t deserve to be slapped. These are things very few people are aware of. I wasn’t aware of them until completing a very intensive training course which covered cameras and a myriad of other things. I just try to share what I can when I can. Thanks for both taking it as a personal attack, I was trying to avoid that perception.

I'm assuming you meant, "thanks for NOT taking it as a personal attack". I didn't. And I did appreciate the incite you brought to the discussion. I was only commenting on my lack of awareness on the points you made.

.

 

[phylodog]

I'm assuming you meant, "thanks for NOT taking it as a personal attack". I didn't. And I did appreciate the incite you brought to the discussion. I was only commenting on my lack of awareness on the points you made.

.

Oops, you are correct. I was typing on my phone and it is absolutely convinced that it knows what I mean to say more so than I do.

 

[Denny347]

150k? Heck that's low mileage lol.

Sadly, it is for our fleet. But imagine that 150k was driven in a 4 sq mile area. 10 sets of brakes and about 6k hours of run/idle time. City miles are very hard on cars. This time of year, my car never shuts off in a 8.5hr shift

 

[Route 45]

Sadly, it is for our fleet. But imagine that 150k was driven in a 4 sq mile area. 10 sets of brakes and about 6k hours of run/idle time. City miles are very hard on cars. This time of year, my car never shuts off in a 8.5hr shift

Off topic, but I know the Crown Vics hold up well. How are the Chargers and Tauruses (Tauri?) holding up?

 

[Denny347]

Off topic, but I know the Crown Vics hold up well. How are the Chargers and Tauruses (Tauri?) holding up?

Transmissions can be an issue for both. Our newest Chargers are 2012's. We've bought the last 2019 Ford Interceptor sedans in the country, they are done making them. Might be going to Charger AWD as they are the only sedan on the market now.

 

[Route 45]

Transmissions can be an issue for both. Our newest Chargers are 2012's. We've bought the last 2019 Ford Interceptor sedans in the country, they are done making them. Might be going to Charger AWD as they are the only sedan on the market now.

Yeah, large sedans are dying. Be interesting to see what SUV gets picked when nobody makes a suitable police car anymore.

Chargers again, eh? Good luck with your new Fiats.