Police Department Says Cop Camera Footage Not Public Record

After resisting for decades, Major League Baseball has adopted
instant replay on nearly all disputed calls, providing a
transparent and public view of what happened. While this frustrates
many by
slowing down the action, it almost always gets the call right.

Michael Brown’s shooting death by Ferguson, Missouri, police has
made a national issue out of the lack of “instant replay” for
altercations between cops and citizens.
At least one witness claims Brown stood with his hands up and
screamed “I don’t have a gun, stop shooting!” while a “source close
to the department’s top brass” told
FoxNews.com that Brown nearly beat Officer Darren Wilson
unconscious before Wilson shot Brown six times. 

With such disparity between eyewitness accounts, and with
high-definition video technology so inexpensive and ubiquitous,
there is a
growing demand for police to record their interactions with the
public. As
Reason‘s Ron Bailey wrote, “Requiring law
enforcement to wear video cameras will protect your constitutional
rights and improve policing.”

There have already been some ups and downs with experiments in
police cameras. Cameras have been turned off, failed to record, and
footage has been lost. It will also likely take some time before
departments require their officers to record and preserve video
evidence rather than merely suggesting they do so. 

Still, in places like Rialto, California, the mere presence of
cameras has resulted in a precipitous drop in complaints and use of
force. It has also improved community relations with the police,
since
everyone tends to exhibit more civilized behavior when they
know they are being recorded.

In
The Guardian, Rory Carroll writes:

“Rialto’s randomised
controlled study has seized attention because it offers
scientific – and encouraging – findings: after cameras were
introduced in February 2012, public complaints against officers
plunged 88% compared with the previous 12 months. Officers’ use of
force fell by 60%.

“When you know you’re being watched you behave a little better.
That’s just human nature,” said Farrar. “As an officer you act a
bit more professional, follow the rules a bit better.”

Video clips provided by the department showed dramatic chases on
foot – you can hear the officer panting – and by car that ended
with arrests, and without injury. Complaints often stemmed not from
operational issues but “officers’ mouths”, said the chief. “With a
camera they are more conscious of how they speak and how they treat
people.”

The same applied to the public; once informed they were being
filmed, even drunk or agitated people tended to become more polite,
Farrar said. Those who lodged frivolous or bogus complaints about
officers tended to retract them when shown video of the incidents.
“It’s like, ‘Oh, I hadn’t seen it that way.'”

Which brings us to the disappointing news coming out of San
Diego, where the police department asserts the evidence captured by
police cameras is not for public consumption. As reported by Sara
Libby in City
Lab:

(The San Diego Police Department) claims the footage,
which is captured by devices financed by city taxpayers and worn by
officers on the public payroll, aren’t public records. Our
newsroom’s request for footage from the shootings under the
California Public Records Act was denied.

Once footage becomes part of an investigation, the department
says it doesn’t have to release them. SDPD also said during the
pilot phase of the camera program that it
doesn’t even have to release footage from the cameras
after an investigation wraps.

Got that? You, the taxpayer, pay for the cameras and the
salaries of the people wearing the cameras who are charged with
protecting and serving the community, but you are not entitled to
review the footage of controversial police encounters, including
shootings. Not even when the case is closed.

Such a policy makes the use of police-worn cameras beneficial
only to police and not to the public. For a
“scandal-plagued” PD like San Diego’s, it’s not surprising that
they would prefer to set the precedent of one-way transparency, but
it’s unlikely to satisfy the public that justice was done.

If the public and the press do not get to vet the video
evidence, they will remain dissatisfied with the government’s
assertion that they got the call right.