Showing posts with label Police/Camera's. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Police/Camera's. Show all posts

Thursday, October 24, 2013

Fort Worth Police Leading the Charge Locally in Usage of Body Camera's by Monika Diaz WFAA.com/News

Fort Worth police leading the charge locally in usage of body cameras

by MONIKA DIAZ
Bio | Email | Follow: @MoniNews
WFAA
Posted on October 24, 2013 at 10:46 PM
Updated today at 9:23 AM
FORT WORTH -- It's the future of policing; a tiny camera attached to an officer's collar or sunglasses, designed to record every move not captured on patrol dash-cam video.

In Rialto, California, body cameras are mandatory for 70 officers. According to the department, complaints against officers have dropped 80 percent. Use of force went down 67 percent.  The numbers are from a study conducted at the department when the cameras were first introduced.in February 2012.

In North Texas, law enforcement agencies are also deploying these high-tech cameras.

The Fort Worth Police Department leads the effort. It recently got a new shipment of body cameras -- 195 of them. 113 are already on the street, in use, recording encounters and confrontations between officers and citizens.

The voluntary program was launched last year. The video from the cameras is downloaded into a server. It cannot be edited or manipulated.

“This makes it so much easier to understand exactly from the officer's point of view, maybe a justification, a quick decision, or something that can't be explained in a police report or an interview, [that] when you see it on film, it can change your perspective of what was really going on at that date, at that time,” said Fort Worth Police Chief Jeff Halstead.

The Fort Worth Police Officer's Association (FWPOA) supports the body cams, because it believes it will help officers.

“It is a way for us to, one, record events when they happen, and also, a lot of times we have allegations made against us, and they are not always true,” said FWPOA President Stephen Hall.

But for Hall, the cameras also raise questions.

“I'm surprised we don't have a well-defined policy,” Hall said. “There is some policy, but there is not a well-defined policy on how the videos will be used, utilized, and reviewed.”

Without it, Hall believes officers will begin to distrust the technology.

"Then they become suspicious and become more reluctant to use it or rely on it,” he said.

Chief Halstead told News 8 a new version of the body cameras policy is on the way.

“I want that draft finalized by the end of the year,” he said.

He also mentioned that officers’ concerns are being addressed.

“Some of those concerns are what has to be taped and what should be taped, and my position is, the easier the policy is to understand, the more it will be adopted by our employees,” Halstead said. “No one is just going in and kind of like having a free reign of 'Let's see what officer Jones is doing tonight.' We don't do that and we will not allow that.”

Halstead wants the policy to be clear to his officers and the public. Citizens will be on camera, too. He plans to take the policy to community forums and organizations.

“I'm going to review it with a community advisory board that works closely with the chief's office and the police department,” he said.

Additional training for the officers is also part of the plan.

“You have to give them training on how to police on film, 'cause it's different,” Halstead said.

The chief also expects other revisions in the future as the technology changes, including the possibility of random audits.

“Are they being turned on during traffic stops?” he said. "Are they being turned on during critical interviews during the officer's shift? Those kind of audits."

For the chief, the goal is to build best practices that will increase professionalism. The body cameras can be effective in building trust and much more.

“This is going to change our profession,” he said. “But for the better.”

E-mail mdiaz@wfaa.com

Tuesday, October 15, 2013

When Should Cops Be Required to Wear Cameras? By Mike Riggs Oct. 15, 3013.. Atlantic Cities

When Should Cops Be Required to Wear Cameras?

When Should Cops Be Required to Wear Cameras?
AP
study conducted last year by the Rialto Police Department in Rialto, California, found that police officers who wear on-body cameras during their shifts are far less likely to use unnecessary force during stops. This, in turn, can also lead to officers having fewer complaints filed against them. It's fair to say that the use of unnecessary force not only frays the relationship between cops and communities, but also costs cities millions in lawsuits. Requiring police officers to wear cameras would seem like a no-brainer.
Unless, of course, you're a cop. In which case, maybe you don't want to be under constant surveillance. Maybe you'd like to talk department politics without creating a permanent record of that conversation for your boss. Or you're worried that the footage, even if it shows nothing illegal, could still be used against you down the line. You also might object to cameras if you're on the other side of one, and don't want police creating a record of everything in your home whenever they respond to a call.
The privacy concerns on both sides are complicated enough that the American Civil Liberties Union—which ardently supports police accountability measures—recently released recommendations for wearable police cameras to "ensure they protect the public without becoming yet another system for routine surveillance of the public." Here's what the ACLU recommends, issue by issue. 
Which cops should wear cameras? 
The ACLU recommends that cameras "be limited to uniformed officers and marked vehicles, so people know what to expect," but that "an exception should be made for SWAT raids and similar planned uses of force when they involve non-uniformed officers."
Should officers have to tell people that they're recording them? 
"Officers should be required, wherever practicable, to notify people that they are being recorded (similar to existing law for dashcams in some states such as Washington)," the ACLU says. "One possibility departments might consider is for officers to wear an easily visible pin or sticker saying 'lapel camera in operation' or words to that effect."
Can the cameras be used inside people's homes? 
Not all house calls are emergencies, so the ACLU recommends that police announce the use of cameras during non-emergency visits, and that during such visits, residents be allowed to request the camera be turned off. Both the announcement and the resident's request should be recorded. "Cameras should never be turned off in SWAT raids and similar police actions." 
How long should police departments retain camera data?
The ACLU recommends (with some caveats) that "[r]etention periods be measured in weeks not years, and video should be deleted after that period unless a recording has been flagged." Police departments should post their retentions policies online, so that people who have been recorded have a clear sense of the time window during which they can file a complaint. 
"Flagged data" would include footage of any incident "involving a use of force; that leads to detention or arrest; or where either a formal or informal complaint has been registered." This data should be kept for a much longer period, such as three years. 
Who should be able to "flag" an incident, insuring that it is retained long enough for investigation?
The ACLU recommends that any recording subject be able to flag a recording, as well as police departments themselves and third parties (such as watchdogs and journalists) "if they have some basis to believe police misconduct has occurred or have reasonable suspicion that the video contains evidence of a crime."
Should police be able to use camera footage in criminal investigations?
This area is obviously contentious, and the ACLU's recommendation is somewhat murky. The groups says that "use of recordings should be allowed only in internal and external investigations of misconduct, and where the police have reasonable suspicion that a recording contains evidence of a crime. Otherwise, there is no reason that stored footage should even be reviewed by a human being before its retention period ends and it is permanently deleted." 
Who should have the power to delete data? 
For starters, not the person wearing the camera. The ACLU recommends that "back-end systems to manage video data must be configured to retain the data, delete it after the retention period expires, prevent deletion by individual officers, and provide an unimpeachable audit trail to protect chain of custody, just as with any evidence."
Who should have access to recordings?
As with the ability to "flag" data, people have been recorded by the police should be able to acquire the footage in which they're featured. "People recorded by cop cams should have access to, and the right to make copies of, those recordings, for however long the government maintains copies of them," the ACLU says. "That should also apply to disclosure to a third party if the subject consents, or to criminal defense lawyers seeking relevant evidence." 
The group is far more reluctant to extend open records access to footage. "We don't want crime victims to be afraid to call for help because of fears that video of their officer interactions will become public or reach the wrong party." To that end, the ACLU recommends that in most cases, unredacted data be released to the public only with the subjects' permission. "If recordings are redacted, they should be discloseable."
In some cases, releasing an unredacted video without the subjects' permission—for instance, a video that shows excessive force—might be necessary. "In such cases the need for oversight outweighs the privacy interests at stake."
Top image: An on-body camera worn by a member of the Oakland Police Department. AP. 
Mike Riggs is a staff writer at The Atlantic Cities. All posts »

Thursday, October 10, 2013

Rialto, Ca.'s Police are first in nation to begin wearing mini camera while on duty.. The Daily Cougar.. By Katie Wian. (University of Houston)

Rialto, Calif.’s police are first in nation to begin wearing mini camera while on duty

4
The Rialto, Calif. Police Department has been testing the merits of its force of 70 officers donning small cameras while on duty.
According to police chief Tony Farrar the results are “truly amazing.”
These officers are the first in the country to complete a detailed pilot program, and as of Sept. 1, all of the department’s uniformed officers will be wearing them.
Rialto has seen an 88 percent drop in complaints against officers and a 60 percent decrease in use of force. These amazing numbers speak for themselves.
At more than 5,400 officers, outfitting Houston’s police department would be no small feat. At around $900 each, these gadgets are no minor expense. Perhaps this is a small price to pay when compared to the ease with which disputes between officers and citizens could be resolved. In fact, one Rialto officer has already beaten a false charge of police brutality thanks to his device.
The other hurdle to overcome would be the potential officer resistance to being constantly monitored. The measure would no doubt create extra work for them. One Rialto officer had this to say about the mutual benefit that comes with the cameras: “When you put a camera on a police officer or anyone, the natural human reaction is that you behave a little more professional. You follow the rules a little more.”
“On the other side, if a citizen knows the officer has a camera, that person acts and behaves a little bit more professional, too.”
That is to say, the nerve-wracking aspect of being watched by one’s superiors, though daunting, includes the convenient trade-off of well-behaved suspects.
With camera phones in the hands of every man, woman and child, it’s unlikely police will be escaping scrutiny anytime soon, regardless. When Rialto officers balked at the new system, Farrar reminded them of this and asked, “so instead of relying on somebody else’s partial picture of what occurred, why not have your own?”
If an officer is doing their job correctly, there should be no need to fear this innovative safety measure. The cameras create an equal footing for officer and citizen. This technology has the ability to eradicate “he-said, she-said” situations where there is a 50 percent chance of the wrong party facing punishment.
This would be a worthwhile investment for any police department that deals frequently with combative citizens, and there is certainly no shortage of those in Houston.
Opinion columnist Katie Wian is an English junior and may be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com
Tags: , ,

Tuesday, August 27, 2013

Complaints and Use of Force Drop after Rialto Police Don Tiny Video Cameras by Ken Broder.. (AllGov.com)

Complaints and Use of Force Drop after Rialto Police Don Tiny Video Cameras

 

(photo: NBC Southern California)
The Southern California city of Rialto has become the poster child of police videotaping after being cited by a federal judge in his decision (pdf) two weeks ago striking down New York City’s stop-and-frisk law as an unconstitutional use of racial profiling.
U.S. District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin quoted a New York Times story attesting to the usefulness of body-worn cameras by police during an experimental period that began in February 2012 and ended last month.

“[T]he results from the first 12 months [were] striking. Even with only half of the 54 uniformed police officers wearing cameras on any given day, the department overall had an 88 percent decline in the number of complaints filed against officers, compared with the 12 months before the study.”

Perhaps not surprisingly, the study found that officers with cameras used force 60% less often.
Rialto Police Chief William Farrar, with the assistance of Barak Ariel, a visiting fellow at the Institute of Criminology at the University of Cambridge and an assistant professor at Hebrew University, randomly selected officers to place a small video camera on their lapels that recorded events, which were automatically uploaded to a computer for storage.

Police use of video cameras to observe the public has increased dramatically in recent years and drawn the attention of civil liberties advocates who aren’t fond of the authorities recording activities of people not suspected of wrongdoing and storing the data for indefinite periods of time.
Cameras are showing up on street corners and states are considering imbedding trackers in digital license plates. Police also use license plate scanners to profile drivers through storage of their GPS movement.

But recording the activities of police officers, while still raising questions about privacy and surveillance, is a different matter. Jay Stanley of the American Civil Liberties Union told the Times, “We don’t like the networks of police-run video cameras that are being set up in an increasing number of cities. We don’t think the government should be watching over the population en masse,” Stanley said. But “when it comes to the citizenry watching the government, we like that.”   
Stanley, however, expressed reservations about the police videos being stored indefinately and popping up in public at inappropriate times, like on CNN.

Rialto is not the only city using the tiny police video cameras. Oakland, Albuquerque and  Fort Worth use them too, according to the Times, as do others. Oakland has 450 cameras for its 660-member force and stores video indefinately.

Former Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton is a fan and some experts think their widespread use is inevitable as the price comes down.
–Ken Broder

To Learn More:
In California, a Champion for Police Cameras (by Ian Lovett, New York Times)
Wearing a Badge, and a Video Camera (by Randall Stross, New York Times)
L.A. Police Crank up Surveillance Cameras to Spy on 450,000 Residents (by Ken Broder, AllGov California)
Floyd v. City of New York (U.S. District Court for Southern District of New York) (pdf)
Self-Awareness to Being Watched and Socially-Desirable Behavior: A Field Experiment on the Effect of Body-Worn Cameras on Police Use-of-Force (by Barak Ariel and William Farrar) (pdf)

 

Saturday, August 17, 2013

Scottsdale's Taser Inc. at the center of 2 Cases, By Peter Corbett, The Republic AZCenteral.com Aug. 15, 2013

Scottsdale’s Taser Inc. at the center of 2 cases

The TASER X2 features a second shot for instant miss recovery, dual LASERs for improved accuracy, enhanced power magazine with more than 500 firings, and a warning arc that helps prevents conflict from escalating. TASER says their 3rd Q increase in sales
The TASER X2 features a second shot for instant miss recovery, dual LASERs for improved accuracy, enhanced power magazine with more than 500 firings, and a warning arc that helps prevents conflict from escalating. TASER says their 3rd Q increase in sales was driven primarily by a trade-in program for law-enforcement agencies to upgrade to the company's Taser X2 electronic-control device.
Taser International
SHARE URL EMAIL
FONT: A A A
Subscribe Now
The Republic | azcentral.com Fri Aug 16, 2013 5:04 PM
Scottsdale-based Taser International Inc. has found itself the past two weeks in the middle of two policing stories involving civil rights, use of force and emerging technology.
In one case, a teenager died Aug. 6 after a short chase when Miami Beach police shocked him with a Taser, an electronic weapon that briefly immobilizes suspects. Israel Hernandez-Llach, 18, was suspected of vandalism, spray-painting a restaurant wall.
In the other case, a federal judge ordered the New York City Police Department to have some of its officers wear miniature video cameras to help sort out whether police there have engaged in racial profiling in the city’s crime-suppression effort known as stop-and-frisk.
Judge Shira Scheindlin cited a study conducted in Rialto, Calif., that found that use of body-worn cameras significantly reduced problems for police officers in that city, according to the New York Times.
The two-year study by the Rialto Police Department, released in March, showed that complaints against officers dropped 87 percent and officers’ use of force declined 59 percent after the department in 2012 began using Taser’s Axon cameras.
“It improves behavior on both sides of the badge,” Taser spokesman Steve Tuttle said. “This is only going to be beneficial.”
None of the Miami Beach officers was wearing a body camera to record the confrontation that led to the vandalism suspect’s death.
“It’s truly tragic,” Tuttle said.
An investigation is under way.
“We’ve got to wait to see the results from the medical examiner,” Tuttle said.
Amnesty International reported that 500 people have died since 2001 after being shocked with Tasers.
Tuttle explained that Taser no longer refers to its stun guns as non-lethal weapons. They are a less lethal use of force than conventional firearms, he said.
Taser promotes its “Conducted Electrical Weapons” as having “saved more than 110,000 lives from potential death or serious injury.”
More than 17,000 law-enforcement, private-security and military agencies use Taser weapons.
There is also a surge in use of Taser’s AXON flex and body cameras.
The Fort Worth (Texas) Police Department will use 145 of the Axon cameras, which are worn on an officer’s sunglasses or hat.
Taser also announced that the Surprise Police Department will provide all of its officers with Axon cameras and use Taser’s system for digital storage.
Surprise is spending $226,717 for 61 cameras and server space to store the videos, according to Taser.
Surprise police did not respond to inquiries about the Taser cameras.
Follow me on Twitter @petercorbett1.

Will Equipping Police With Cameras Create Nicer Cops Or A Surveillance State?? Aug 15, 2013, by, Jessica Leber

Will Equipping Police With Cameras Create Nicer Cops Or A Surveillance State?

Constant self-monitoring by police officers could reduce civil rights abuses, but do we want even more video cameras on our streets? Now, the nation's largest police force may be forced to experiment.
Imagine thousands of new government-owned video cameras roaming the streets of New York City. Sounds like a huge leap towards a Big Brother state.
Surprisingly, civil liberties advocates are open to it. That’s because the cameras would be worn by police, and could be used to document their bad behavior, whether that is brutality or improper stops and searches. More importantly, cops--like reality show stars and convenience store clerks--might behave differently if there’s a video camera rolling.
From California and Arizona to Florida and Texas, some smaller police departments around the country have been trying out the use of body-worn cameras. But the NYPD is the nation’s largest force, with 35,000 uniformed officers, and this week a federal judge ordered the department start a pilot program. The demand was tucked inside the judge’s ruling that New York’s controversial “stop-and-frisk” policy violates minorities’ constitutional rights. The city bristled: Mayor Bloomberg told the Associated Press wearable cameras would be a “nightmare” for the NYPD, and some people wonder whether it would lead police to be too timid.
Experiments being undertaken around the country, however, are proving otherwise. In a full-year study with the police force in Rialto, California, that concluded in February of this year, researchers found that police used “force” half as many times as they had a year earlier when a tiny camera with a 12-hour battery life was worn on their shirt pocket, hat, collar or sunglasses. There were also only three complaints from the public during the study, compared to 28 complaints a year earlier.
“The study was able to expose what happens when the level of certainty of apprehension for professional misconduct was set at 100%. These are social circumstances that are characterized with an inescapable panopticonic gaze,” the paper, co-authored by Rialto’s police chief and University of Cambridge criminology researcher Barak Ariel.
Results like these, which were cited this week by the judge in the New York case, are why a number of civil liberties groups, including the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) and the Center for Constitutional Rights, cautiously endorse body-worn cameras for the NYPD--despite some concerns about privacy. NYCLU has already fought for police to record full interrogations (not just confessions), and body-worn cameras would be an extension of that, says associated legal director Chris Dunn. While no one wants to see the police taping the general public’s activity, “we make a distinction,” Dunn says, “when it is designed to curb and document police abuse.”
No one knows yet how a pilot in New York City would take shape--for example, when exactly a camera would have to be turned on. If required to wear cameras, however, police officers might have an incentive to keep them running. By documenting the circumstances leading them to stop a person in the first place, they would be able to defend themselves against accusations of discrimination or improper use of force: “The more of it that’s on tape, the better for them,” said Dunn. Many police departments that use cameras like them as a defense against false accusations.
In theory, there would be strong privacy measures that restrict the use of the video unless there's a complaint, investigation or lawsuit--not, say, as evidence for a police officer having an affair with someone’s wife, says Dunn. In Rialto, for example, the video collected wasn't supposed to be randomly reviewed.
But sanctioning law enforcement’s use of body-worn cameras in one scenario could also lead down a slippery slope towards a stronger surveillance state. In fact, in most other situations, the NYCLU is quite concerned about the proliferation of surveillance cameras in public spaces--it sent a team to document 2,397 of them visible on the streets of Manhattan--and, given our recent history, privacy protections for policing cameras might not last in the face of pressure to use the tapes as evidence.
More importantly, the issues raised by these programs aren’t restricted to the expensive, specialized cameras that police departments might purchase. Already, the public is documenting more and more on their phones--and if wearable computers like Google Glass take off, ubiquitous monitoring could simply become a fact of life.
The authors of the Rialto study imagine that other fields, such as the medical profession, might also reduce cases of “alleged unprofessional conduct” if doctors taped their interactions with patients. “We acknowledge that this may pose ethical considerations, though we believe that, on average, the benefits outweigh the costs,” they write.