Deadly confrontations between police and citizens have sparked a national conversation about the use of force and the need to better document those encounters.
Citizens have taken to their cellphones to record their encounters with police, while many law enforcement departments — including some Tucson agencies — have turned to equipping their officers with body cameras.
While only two local agencies now have the cameras, most police departments here are at least studying the issue of getting the equipment.
- Oro Valley police has equipped some of its motor and patrol officers with body cameras since 2012, when it initially acquired six cameras. Since then the department has increased its inventory to 12. Department officials said there’s been a noticeable decrease in complaints against officers when body cameras are used.
- The Tucson Police Department recently purchased 70 body cameras with a federal grant. Officers will begin using them in the field after they complete the necessary training, likely by April.
- The Pima County Sheriff’s Department, Marana and University of Arizona police departments and the Arizona Department of Public Safety said while they do not have immediate plans to purchase body cameras, they were looking into the possibility.
- Sahuarita police said it would be purchasing body cameras. South Tucson police said it has tested cameras and is seriously looking at purchasing them.
Researchers and law enforcement officials predict that in the next decade, body cameras will become a normal part of law enforcement officers’ equipment. An Arizona lawmaker is pushing to get all peace officers in the state equipped with body cameras. Numerous agencies statewide are already using them, including Flagstaff, Phoenix and Mesa police departments.
“I believe it’s just a matter of time before all officers are wearing them,” said Lt. Chris Olson of the special operations bureau at the Oro Valley Police Department.
But with new technology come new challenges, including the high costs of devices, data storage, maintenance and personnel required to manage the recorded data. Also, there are privacy concerns for the officers and the public.
Departments must develop standards on camera usage, storing and accessing the video — which can be used as evidence — and creating disciplinary consequences to ensure the cameras and video recordings are used properly.
Increasing use
of cameras
The widely discussed benefits to equipping officers with body cameras include reduction in citizen complaints against police and the ability to use footage as evidence in cases, training and internal investigations.
Oro Valley police officers were the first in the Tucson area to use body cameras.
“We wanted to be a pioneer,” Olson said.
Written reports, audio recordings or citizen videos do not necessarily tell the whole story, he said. Having a first-person recording of an incident provides a different perspective — that of an officer.
Since the implementation of body cameras over two years ago, the department has seen fewer complaints against motorcycle and patrol officers, he said.
“Whenever you’re being recorded, I think you’re really on your best behavior,” he said.
He said he has also used the body cameras for training. Once, an officer was seen on footage inappropriately using a less-lethal weapon, he said. “We were able to show him (the right way) so he could correct it,” he said.
Tucson police wanted them for similar reasons to Oro Valley.
It allows for “transparency and accountability for both the agencies and the public,” said Sgt. Pete Dugan, a Tucson police spokesman.
A group of researchers from Arizona State University partnered with the Phoenix Police Department to test the use of body cameras on 56 officers. The findings from the research echoed the widely believed benefits.
One of the main findings was complaints against officers dropped substantially, said Dr. Charles Katz of ASU’s Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety, a lead investigator of the project.
“We also found that when an officer did receive a complaint, they were much more likely to have those complaints dismissed,” he said.
Another major benefit found was the recorded data served as evidence to criminal incidents, especially domestic violence incidents, where victims may recant their testimony, he said. With video evidence, prosecutors could still move forward with the case.
Video evidence also can present a much more complete picture of an incident, he said. “It’s going to remove some ambiguity that maybe is not clear when it’s written in a report or heard in an audio file,” he said.
New technology lacks standard protocols
The use of body cameras by law enforcement is a relatively new development, which means agencies are having to develop new rules for the officers who use them.
“Often times, what happens is that police departments embrace these new technologies without taking sufficient time to pass good strong policies and that becomes problematic,” said Alessandra Soler, director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Arizona.
One of the contentious issues surrounding use of body cameras is when an officer should be required to turn the camera on or off, and whether the officer should have discretion in doing so.
In Oro Valley’s case, officers do have that discretion. They are “encouraged” to turn them on during encounters with citizens but not required, according to Olson. That has worked out so far, he said.
But agencies have differing needs depending on variables, including the city’s crime characteristics and the agency’s size.
For Tucson police, officers will be required to turn them on during calls for service, when he or she is told to by a supervisor, during searches and citizen contacts, including traffic stops, detentions, arrests, Miranda advisement, use-of-force incidents and field interviews.
In an incident where there is serious injury or death, officers are not allowed to stop recording unless he or she is told to by a supervisor, according to department rules.
“Any good policy is going to remove discretion from the officer with regards to when the camera is turned on or off,” Soler said.
When an officer can arbitrarily decide to turn his or her camera off, then it is “counter to the purpose of cameras, which is to ensure that they are on during police-civilian encounters and the officers are not using it improperly to cover up some sort of wrongful misconduct,” she added.
A Police Executive Research Forum study, which is based on interviews and surveys with police executives around the U.S., recommended that officers activate the cameras when “responding to all calls for service and during all law enforcement-related encounters and activities that occur while the officer is on duty” unless it is unsafe or impossible to do so.
But having them on for a prolonged time or in unnecessary situations could be problematic, said Jeremy Christopher, president of Tucson’s Citizen Police Advisory Review Board. While the board supports the use of body cameras by police, he said he has concerned about the cameras violating the privacy of officers and the public.
“It’s something that we have discussed at length and frequently,” he said. “We have obvious questions and concerns.”
Though cameras should be on during any kind of civilian encounter, Soler also said constant surveillance is unnecessary.
“If you don’t have good policies in place, you could have situations where these cameras do violate people’s privacy,” she said.
There are exceptions to PERF’s recommendations to address those concerns — some that are obvious, such as when the officers are on a break. And there are times that recording is unnecessary, such as when a citizen is simply asking for information from an officer. Research has shown that recording those casual encounters could actually even be harmful.
Other instances may require consent from those being recorded, including when officers are interviewing crime victims, especially when a child or a victim of sexual or domestic violence is involved.
These exceptions are followed by Tucson and Oro Valley police.
Tucson police rules say, “when recording a victim contact, consideration may be given if the victim asks not to be recorded.”
Generally, officers should notify crime victims and ask for their consent before recording, Olson from Oro Valley police said. But the department does not require its officers to notify everyone who is being recorded.
Tucson police does not have a specific section in the general order addressing this issue.
Arizona is a one-party consent state, which means that only the person recording has to know that he or she is recording.
The costs — hidden and recurring
Initially, there is a bulk cost of devices and other equipment needed to support them, officials in agencies that have purchased body cameras have said. And then there are hidden costs, which can be problematic for departments with skinny budgets.
That is why Tucson City Councilman Steve Kozachik voted no to a resolution allocating money from the U.S. Department of Justice to Tucson police to purchase the body cameras. It passed and Tucson police received $182,877. That grant period ends in three years.
The initial cost is one thing, he said. Recurring cost is another burden the city would have to carry.
Over the next five years, the deal with Taser International for the 70 devices the agency procured, maintenance, data storage and warranty will cost Tucson police $450,461, according to Officer Kristopher Goins, a department spokesman. That’s over $90,000 a year, and $67,000 of that is strictly for data storage, which is leased through the company.
Roland Gutierrez, president of the Tucson Police Officers Association, said Tucson police officers generally welcome the technology, but have reservations about where the funding is going to come from when the grant money runs out.
“With all the cutbacks and us losing officers because of competitive wages in other agencies, is that funding going to come out of our budget?” he said. “(That) is going to affect other areas where we need the money.”
In comparison, Oro Valley police pays about $10,000 a year to the same company for a bundle of 12 cameras, data storage and other services, which shows that the cost of storing video files can balloon exponentially.
According to Olson, it costs $1.50 per gigabyte of video per officer. Each officer uses about 40 gigabytes of data in a month on average.
Something else to consider is the fact the length in which the video footage is stored. Retention policies regarding the video contributes to the ballooning costs of video storage.
Generally, body camera footage is not treated any differently than other forms of evidence, Olson said. Tucson police rules indicate the same. Both agencies delete nonevidentiary footage after 180 days.
The access to these records has also been on the legislators’ plate in Arizona. Republican John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, has introduced legislation in the state Senate to limit the public’s access to the video footage from body cameras.
“The bill does more harm than good,” Soler said. “It’s counter to the public transparency purpose.”
Evolving adaptation, protocol and policy
What we know for certain, Katz, the ASU researcher said, is that the use of body cameras by law enforcement is not something that only affects the agency using them.
“As a matter of fact, it affects the entire criminal justice system,” he said. “It is a massive undertaking and you cannot underestimate.”
It needs to be an inclusive process, he said. Investigators, the public, defense attorneys, civil liberties organizations and prosecutors will all have to be trained in dealing with body camera footage.
The process is continuously evolving and the best practices of today may also change in the coming years.
“It’s going to take some time to determine really which are the most appropriate policies, not only to protect the police and the public but also the costs,” he said.
