Are Police Body Cameras Effective?
They told us they would build trust and hold police officers accountable.
When former Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson shot Michael Brown in 2014, it was, as my mother would say, “the straw that broke the camel’s back.” Black people in Ferguson, Missouri were tired of police harassment. And Brown’s death exacerbated that problem. The death of Brown sparked a movement known only by the name of the town in which it occurred, Ferguson. What happened in Ferguson inspired thousands across America to speak up, and to advocate for justice. Around that same time, the media thrust Black Lives Matter, an anti-racism organization concerned specifically about Black people’s oppression, onto the national scene. Social media and the 24/7 news cycle assisted with spreading images and videos of activists blocking major highways in cities and small towns. Black Lives Matter activists’ disrupted the Clinton’s 2016 campaign speeches challenging them on the 1994 crime bill. The reformists wanted America to shine a spotlight on white supremacy, police brutality, and the unjust laws that further inequality. They wanted police accountability, and they wanted police killings to cease.
For some legal experts, activists, and scholars, part of police reform meant equipping police officers with body-worn cameras. “We need to bring them online as quickly as prudently feasible,” said David Klinger, a professor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Missouri–St. Louis, during a 2015 CityLab interview. Conversations about equipping police with body cameras had already begun in 2005, but police departments hadn’t made a decision to use them. The killing of Brown and Eric Garner accelerated the implementation of body cameras. In 2015, The Department of Justice, under the Obama administration, set aside $20 million for local police departments to participate in body camera pilot programs. Some people hoped these cameras would bring accountability to police departments across the nation and perhaps mitigate police brutality. But has this technology achieved what some have hoped?
Lawyers have used body camera footage as evidence against officers to convict them of murder and other crimes. In 2018, for example, a jury convicted Roy Oliver, a Balch Springs, Texas police officer, of killing a 15-year-old Jordan Edwards. Recently, Quentin Perkins won a $75,000 settlement from the city of Austin. SWAT Officer Robert Pfaff illegally used his stun gun on Perkins while he was on his knees with his hands in the air. Pfaff and his partner Donald Petraitis wrote a report saying that Perkins looked like he was going to run, justifying their use of a stun-gun. However, body camera footage revealed a different story. Former Baltimore Policer Officer Richard Pinheiro Jr., was convicted of a misdemeanor for fabricating evidence. Former police officer Pinheiro’s body camera recorded him planting drugs on a Baltimore citizen. He was not fired, but was given two years of supervised probation, and must do 300 hours of community service in Baltimore.
Though the cameras have helped to put some police officers in jail for violating their oath to protect and serve, the technology hasn’t been a tool that communities, criminal justice experts, activists, and lawyers can consistently count on to assist with indicting police officers. Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, the implementation of the technology hasn’t stopped police brutality. Recently, Louisiana police officer Jonathan Landrum shot Jason Landry, 26, who had mental health issues, in the back while Landry was fleeing the scene. Landry later died from the gun-shot wounds. Officer Landrum received a call that Landry allegedly threatened a station clerk with a firearm. Landrum’s body camera recorded the incident. The camera footage was used in court. After reviewing the body camera footage, the grand jury decided not to convict the officer. Some activists warned that police body cameras weren’t enough to hold police accountable, and not able to mitigate police brutality. Grassroots organizers, according to ThinkProgress, in Washington, D.C. strongly suggested that if police officers are going to wear body cameras, there needs to be robust oversight.
Police officers have turned off body cameras during routine stops and, according to the Associated Press, in some states police departments have made it extremely hard for citizens to gain access to body camera footage. In Washington, D.C., ACLU, and Black Lives Matter DC just won a case forcing the Metropolitan Police Department to release body-worn camera footage on police stops. The MPD finally released the data on September 9, allowing community activists to review it.
There is more. Body cameras distort images. Freelance reporter Nicole Wetsman, citing a study, writes in The Appeal that body and police car cameras are not as objective as some people assume. The camera is often positioned on the officers’ chest.This angle of the camera presents a problem. It distorts the image of the subject, causing them to appear bigger than usual. In American culture, and possibly abroad, African Americans and people of color are often depicted as being stronger and bigger than white people. When it comes to judging who is at fault, such bias could be at work, convincing viewers of the footage that the subject was at fault.
She also writes:
“In addition to keeping the wearers off-screen, body cameras keep suspects or civilians engaging with officers as the dominant actors in videos. Researchers have speculated that because suspects or civilians are the focus, viewers might see them as having more responsibility, due to a cognitive effect called illusory causation that makes people more likely to ascribe intent to the dominant thing in their view.”
“… the shaky, low quality of body cam footage often adds what critics call a ‘deceptive intensity,’ which can help justify police use of force,” wrote Albert Fox Cahn, a columnist for The New York Times.
The conversation on whether body cameras are a helpful way to hold police accountable has taken somewhat of a backseat to concerns over facial recognition technology. Right now, body cameras are a topic in so far as the tech is combined with facial recognition. Now tech companies have made body cameras that use this technology to read facial patterns. However, activists and tech researchers have warned about the dangers of this technology. They have shown, convincingly, through extensive research, that facial recognition technology misidentifies people and is unable to read darker skin tones — read more about that here — which could lead to false arrests. Sen. Bernie Sanders announced that he would ban police departments from using facial recognition technology in body cameras.
“A spokesperson for the Sanders campaign said in an email that Sanders plans on introducing a national ban on facial recognition that can be enforced on a state and local level,” according to Vice.com.
After reviewing its ethics board research, Axon, a company that manufactures body-worn cameras, announced that it will not use facial recognition in body cameras, according to The Verge.com.
“Current face-matching technology raises serious ethical concerns,” wrote Carly Partridge, communications manager at Axon, in an email. “In addition, there are also technological limitations to using this technology on body cameras. Consistent with the board’s recommendation, Axon will not be commercializing face matching products on our body cameras. We also encourage other companies like ours to consider the Board’s recommendation and not commercialize face-matching technology on their body cameras.”
Axon has released a new line of police cameras. I asked Partridge how we know if the new cameras aren’t equipped with facial recognition.
“We do believe face-matching technology deserves further research to better understand and solve the key issues identified in the report, including evaluating ways to de-bias algorithms as the board recommends,” she said. “Our AI team will continue to evaluate the state of facial recognition technologies and will keep the Board informed about our research.”
This doesn’t mean that police departments have rid themselves of using this technology. Axon isn’t the only company that manufactures facial recognition and police body cameras. Motorola has been buying companies that make body cameras as well as facial recognition tech, according to NBC News. Despite facial recognition’s lack of accuracy, the Detroit Police Department has decided to allow its officers to use the tech within its body cameras, though with limits. “The police department cannot use facial recognition software on live or recorded video, and it cannot use it to assess a person’s immigration status,” according to The Detroit Free Press.
In August, Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich, criticized DPD for still deciding to use facial recognition tech even after scholars have clearly shown the danger.
“You should probably rethink this whole facial recognition b****t,” she tweeted.
Delaware Police Department has also decided to use facial recognition within its body cameras. Also, police officers have partnered with Amazon Ring to use it as a surveillance tool. Yet, it seems that all this was allowable by society’s push for body cameras.
A lot has happened since the implementation of body cameras. Activists and academics have partnered to demand transparency from police departments and that departments implement rules, one’s responsible for ensuring the proper use of body cameras. Organizations that keep a watch on police body camera usage have made data available. (See here and here).
Yet, there is still this underlying assumption that body cameras are necessary for police accountability, to building trust with communities and to mitigate police brutality. Recently, police departments have ordered a fresh batch of cameras to equip their officers, furthering the surveillance state. There seems to be little resistance from police departments’ to purchase such tech, despite the reality that it is highly possible that body cameras don’t prevent officers from malpractice. Recently, a Fort Worth, Texas police officer shot and killed unarmed Atatiana Jefferson, an African American woman, while in her home. The video has spread on social media like wildfire, looping us all into the same tragedy that somewhat sparked the use of body cameras, and police brutality.