Police Complaints drop 88%, Use of Force Incidents Drop 59%

[dross]

Police body-worn cameras stop-and-frisk judge suggested have helped Rialto Police Department - NY Daily News

I searched, don't think this is a dupe.

Apparently body cameras on police officers is a win/win.

 

[Tombs]

Of course they're a win win.
They have someone looking over their shoulder now. Which means they can't break the law and that if the law is broken against them they have irrefutable proof of it.

I'd certainly want a camera if I was a cop. Might keep me out of jail if someone decided to have a legal vendetta against me.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I saw this come across my FaceBook feed the other day. It makes sense.

 

[Trooper]

We used pinhole cameras feeding DVR recorders in Afghanistan. Now they have far better commercial stuff.

We used it because we were at risk of someone crying war crimes. This helped us prove that we were within the ROE.

Cops are the same way for the most part. Most do not want false complaints and few are engaging in abusing civilians.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

The complaint things jives with my personal experience. When someone would call to complain to my sergeant about me being rude, cursing, whatever, the first thing he did was tell them I carried a hidden voice recorder (which I did). Then it was "well, it wasn't what he said...it was the way he said it" or "well, he didn't curse exactly but...." I got very few formal complaints. Use of force makes sense, as well. Think of how folk's behavior would change if a news if a Fox59 camera crew was watching them during their interaction with police.

It came in handy when people made threats, too, which were generally accompanied with racial slurs, accusations of homosexual activities, occasionally pedophilia, etc. It was always a hoot when they were in front of the judge. Memorably, I had a DUI arrest apologize to me and was almost in tears because he couldn't believe what a complete a-hat he'd been while drunk when he heard the tape.

 

[Denny347]

Too bad we will get suspended for wearing one. We have a general order prohibiting video cameras.

 

[jamil]

Too bad we will get suspended for wearing one. We have a general order prohibiting video cameras.

I suppose there's a legitimate downside. What if the video of a high profile case gets leaked?

But still, I don't see a reason other than politics that officers shouldn't have video cameras. Maybe someone else can fill in for my lack of imagination.

 

[Trigger Time]

Good for some cops, good for some citizens. Sad Indy won't allow them. We need to write letters to the mayor I guess.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

But still, I don't see a reason other than politics that officers shouldn't have video cameras. Maybe someone else can fill in for my lack of imagination.

I guess it is politics. The Prosecuting Attorney of Marion County is dead set against police cameras. Marion County has an almost pathological fear of cameras. They fought like demons against IRE617 and then wanted a delay for themselves after the Supreme Court finally implemented it.

I think law enforcement's negative attitude on cameras is ultimately self-defeating. If they want to regain trust with the community, then the simple fix is to show the community (the juries) that what they say happened, happened.

 

[jsharmon7]

The complaint things jives with my personal experience. When someone would call to complain to my sergeant about me being rude, cursing, whatever, the first thing he did was tell them I carried a hidden voice recorder (which I did). Then it was "well, it wasn't what he said...it was the way he said it" or "well, he didn't curse exactly but...." I got very few formal complaints. Use of force makes sense, as well. Think of how folk's behavior would change if a news if a Fox59 camera crew was watching them during their interaction with police.

It came in handy when people made threats, too, which were generally accompanied with racial slurs, accusations of homosexual activities, occasionally pedophilia, etc. It was always a hoot when they were in front of the judge. Memorably, I had a DUI arrest apologize to me and was almost in tears because he couldn't believe what a complete a-hat he'd been while drunk when he heard the tape.

It's amazing how people will act right when they know they are being recorded. A few of our guys have started wearing them, I just haven't gotten around to spending the money on one.

 

[jamil]

It's amazing how people will act right when they know they are being recorded. A few of our guys have started wearing them, I just haven't gotten around to spending the money on one.

I see two practical reasons to wear them. CYA and transparency. If you get to choose when to turn it on, then it's only CYA.

 

[dross]

Very few solutions come without serious trade offs. This one seems to be as close to a true win/win as I ca imagine. Clearly cost is an issue, but I'll bet that here in Colorado where we've had some high profile beatings, the citizens would gladly bear that cost.

What a great thing if we could protect officers and citizens, and potentially raise our trust in our police. It seems like the only reason to be against is if you know you're not doing right.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Clearly cost is an issue, but I'll bet that here in Colorado where we've had some high profile beatings, the citizens would gladly bear that cost.

The cameras are dirt cheap and law enforcement is swimming in money. Cost is a non-factor.

 

[USAFVet]

This is a very good idea for everyone.

 

[Electronrider]

I would really like to see every single law enforcement officer in the state be required to have an on-body camers functioning for each and every interation with a person in the community. The tapes should be digitalyy archived, and each and every person charged with a crime is given access to the tape which covered their case. This should be done for all investigations, interviews of witnesses, etc. Should this happen, we would see a LOT of BS go away from both sides. It is really hard for someone to lie about something in front of a judge and jury when they see the video evidence. We would have MUCH better conviction rates, a LOT less court fights ( Plea deals would be very fast I think), and officer accountability would restore our faith in the very people who have taken the call to serve and protect the public. It is a dam shame that police unions and DA's that are afraid of what will be seen by this are stalling these efforts.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

The cameras are dirt cheap and law enforcement is swimming in money. Cost is a non-factor.

The cameras are, the infrastructure isn't, and I'd like to have the budget you apparently think we do. Indy has budget troubles maintaining a fleet of safe and reliable cars, hasn't hired in 2 years, has had a civilian freeze for longer than that, etc. The city has money, but we like to give it to the Colts, etc.

The larger the department, the higher the associated costs. If you only have to store the video from 20 officers, that's not much, a few HDDs and someone's secretary can be responsible for burning video for court, responding to FOIA requests, etc. 1500 officers? That's a lot more video.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I'd like to have the budget you apparently think we do

Ummm, your honeypot money is public record, Pooh Bear. I have posted it before on INGO. Law enforcement is swimming in dough.

The city has money

Nope, then honeypot money is all law enforcement money.

That's a lot more video

And so? How is any different than copying police reports or witness statements. It is evidence, fork it over.

 

[88GT]

The cameras are, the infrastructure isn't, and I'd like to have the budget you apparently think we do. Indy has budget troubles maintaining a fleet of safe and reliable cars, hasn't hired in 2 years, has had a civilian freeze for longer than that, etc. The city has money, but we like to give it to the Colts, etc.

The larger the department, the higher the associated costs. If you only have to store the video from 20 officers, that's not much, a few HDDs and someone's secretary can be responsible for burning video for court, responding to FOIA requests, etc. 1500 officers? That's a lot more video.

Correction: Indy doesn't have budget troubles. It has allocation troubles. I'm taxed plenty well to provide that kind of protection for both the officers and the citizens. If we can entertain conversations about bike paths and mass transit, we can entertain conversations about cameras on LEOs and the infrastructure to support it.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Marion County LE takes in 5M just in diversions. That's a lot of cameras!

 

[Denny347]

Correction: Indy doesn't have budget troubles. It has allocation troubles. I'm taxed plenty well to provide that kind of protection for both the officers and the citizens. If we can entertain conversations about bike paths and mass transit, we can entertain conversations about cameras on LEOs and the infrastructure to support it.

You are 100% correct, we are taxed enough. What we have is **** poor management. Few know this little fact about IMPD's budget: If 30 officers retire this year, the money they were getting paid after they are gone goes to Indy's general fund, it does not stay in our budget. When we auction our old cars, the money goes to the general fund. What to recycle 1000's of old aluminum center consoles from our old fleet, the money goes to the general fund. We want to set up a charity event to pay for cameras, can't, the cash goes to the general fund. The city (during Unigov transition I believe) removed ALL incentives from, then, IPD to think outside the box when it comes to the budget. It's flat out crazy. MCSD had no such problem but at the merger, this BS method of budgeting stayed with IMPD.