In a profession where split-second decisions can have serious consequences, having a video account of officer interactions can exonerate an officer if his or her actions are brought into question at a later date.
Prior to the 1980s, in-car police cameras were largely nonexistent. The first documented effort to install an in-car police camera was in the late 1960s when the Connecticut State Police installed a camera, tripod and equipment in a police vehicle. This technology proved impractical. Twenty years later, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD) brought nationwide attention to DUI and provided funding to law enforcement to equip vehicles with Dash Cams to assist in the prosecution of DUIs.
In the 1990s, during America’s “War on Drugs," Dash Cam video footage was used to show juries that defendants had consented to the search of their vehicles during traffic stops. Dash Cams were also utilized to address sensitive issues such as racial profiling in traffic stops and assaults on police officers. In 2000, the Department of Justice and the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) initiated the In-Car Camera Initiative Program to provide funding for Dash Cams to state police and highway patrol agencies throughout the U.S. Prior to this initiative, only about 11 percent of state police and highway patrol vehicles were equipped with Dash Cams. By 2003, 72 percent of state police and highway patrol vehicles were equipped with Dash Cams.
It is unquestionable that some officers will negatively perceive the usage of Dash Cam video as a means for their employer to supervise their patrol. However, research has demonstrated that Dash Cam video footage exonerates officers of wrongdoing more than 90 percent of the time.
In May 2011, law enforcement officers (LEOs) in Tomah, Wisconsin were exonerated in the fatal shooting of Seth McCloskey after Dash Cam video showed McCloskey exited his vehicle and fired a handgun at the officers. In that case, an eye witness testified that law enforcement misrepresented the facts to justify the shooting. However, the Dash Cam video footage corroborated the officers' version of events. Similarly, in Monona, Wisconsin, Dash Cam video helped exonerate a law enforcement officer in a December 2010 shooting. Outside of Cleveland in 2009, a teenager with a toy gun was fatally shot by law enforcement officers. Once again, Dash Cam video demonstrated that the officers' use of deadly force was justified.
The benefits of Dash Cam technology go beyond simply exonerating officers from wrongdoing. They have been found to enhance officer safety, reduce liability, improve the community/media's perception of law enforcement, and improve conviction rates. Further, in a survey conducted by the International Association of Police Chiefs (IACP) and COPS, 51 percent of people reported that they would change their behavior if they knew they were being videotaped. Although there are many benefits to Dash Cams, those benefits are limited because only about 10 percent of police activity takes place in front of Dash Cams and the measurable benefits are limited to those scenarios.
Video Cameras and Police Liability
There are three sides to every story: yours, theirs and the truth. In law enforcement that can be translated into the officer's side, the citizen's side, and the truth. However, advances in technology and the success of the Dash Cams may permit "video" to be synonymous with "truth." In a profession where it often comes down to two very different versions of the same event, Dash Cams have proven a useful tool. In some ways, a LEO who can serve an entire career without facing some sort of civil liability is an anomaly. More and more, LEOs are finding themselves the target of disgruntled citizens. This usually results in complaints to the agency and/or a lawsuit. In such lawsuits, it’s not unusual for the version of events provided by the citizen to stand in stark contrast to the version recollected by the officer. In fact, many times officers have difficulty recalling the specific circumstances of an event because of the volume and frequency of similar encounters. A camera is an unbiased eye and literally has a photographic memory. By treating the camera as another tool, an officer can not only increase his effectiveness but protect himself from liability, both civilly and professionally.
The Next Step: Body-Worn Cameras
In March 2013, The Police Foundation published a year-long study, “Self-awareness to being watched and socially-desirable behavior: A field experiment on the effect of body-worn cameras on police use-of-force”, conducted in Rialto, California, to determine the impact body-worn cameras would have on law enforcement. The entire population of front-line officers participated in the study using control shifts and monitored shifts. The study was conducted between February 12, 2012 and February 12, 2013. In the three calendar years preceding the study, the Rialto Police Department experienced an average of 65 use-of-force incidents and 38 citizen complaints per year. During the 12 month period of the study, the Rialto police officers utilized force only 25 times and only three citizens’ complaints were filed. Further, of the 25 use-of-force incidents, 17 occurred during control shifts when the officers were not utilizing the cameras. While no data was collected, the study hypothesized that presence of the cameras, and awareness of being videotaped, modified the behavior of those who interacted with police. It is likely this contributed to the significant reduction in use-of-force incidents during the 12 month period. This is consistent with the study conducted by the IACP and COPS in which 51 percent of people surveyed would change their behavior if they knew they were being videotaped.
Understanding the benefits of Dash Cams over the past 30 years and recognizing body-worn cameras can expand those benefits to the 90 percent of police interactions that do not take place in front of Dash Cams, major cities across America including, Baltimore, Dallas, Albuquerque, Fort Worth, Oakland and Houston, have begun experimenting with body-worn cameras on their officers. While some LEOs may raise the same concerns over body-worn cameras as of Dash Cams (i.e., the cameras are there to catch them doing wrong or to watch their every move), the truth is that LEOs are already being videotaped. Everyone has seen videos, often captured on cellular phones, depicting what appears to be egregious conduct on the part of LEOs. Typically, these videos do not capture the entire incident and often only catch the 30 second climax of a prolonged interaction with an individual or group. These videos are posted to the internet, broadcast on the news, and ultimately form public opinion regarding an incident, a particular agency and law enforcement in general. By utilizing Dash Cams and body-warn cameras, LEOs can simultaneously protect themselves from criminal or civil liability and help improve the public perception of law enforcement.
About the authors:
Alan Carroll (A.C.) Nash is an attorney with the Fort Lauderdale office of civil defense litigation firm, Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin. Mr. Nash focuses his practice on the representation of municipalities and law enforcement agencies in federal and state civil rights matters involving false arrest, malicious prosecution and excessive force. He may be reached at (954) 847-4920 or [email protected].
Jason L. Scarberry is also an attorney with Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin’s Fort Lauderdale office. Mr. Scarberry has extensive experience in defending law enforcement officers and agencies against §1983 Civil Rights claims and claims brought under Florida statute §768.28. Additionally, he has defended claims based on violations of the First, Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. He may be reached at (954) 847-4956 or [email protected].
