Local police departments move toward officer body cameras

Body-worn cameras are useful to law enforcement because they provide accurate and transparent footage that can be helpful in court proceedings and provide clarity in accusations of abuse of force.

However, the costs of body-worn cameras have prevented some local police departments from obtaining that means of security.

 

Local Police Departments on Funding

Kent is one of those area departments that does not use body cameras.

“I went out into the public and spoke with a number of different organizations and did presentations on body-worn cameras to get people’s feel and input and see whether or not they thought the police department needed body cameras,” Kent Police Lieutenant Michael Lewis said.

The Kent Police Department started looking into acquiring body-worn cameras three years ago. But the major reason the department does not have them is cost.

“We’ve gotten a number of estimates. We met with several companies. We looked at several different plans, and packages were anywhere from $40,000 to $222,000,” Lewis said.

The cost includes more than just the cameras. It includes additional equipment, expensive storage space for data, management, training, administration, and how to handle policy on disclosure of content for public records request.

Ravenna Police Department also does not have body-worn cameras, citing similar reasons related to cost, data storage, and managing public records request. Policy, Captain David Rarrick said, is one of the key reasons the department has yet to seek funding.

“We haven’t applied for funding, but have had several organizations come forward with the notion that they will contribute to cost,” Rarrick said. “We are rewriting our entire department policy right now.”

Rarrick also said the department is looking into where to store the video, whether it is on the cloud or in on-site servers, but that besides obstacles of funding, controlling the record availability is just as difficult.

“We have a state retention policy that states how long we have to keep a record of different types of records,” Rarrick said. Videos from body-worn cameras would be made public record. The problem is editing out what is private information, deemed inappropriate, or is not police related.

In the audio clip above, Captain David Rarrick discusses concerns about storing footage from body cameras.

Every single interaction is required to be recorded, Lewis said, which requires decision makers to weight transparency versus privacy.

Lewis fears that body-worn cameras could also compromise a person’s willingness to speak to a police officer if they are afraid of being recorded and know that anybody, by law, can get ahold of that video.

“Our concern is: Would there be a time where you don’t call police because you don’t want to be recorded?” Lewis said. “Does a camera on my chest make them less likely to get involved and give me a witness statement? Would it make a victim of an offence of violence or a victim of a sex offence less likely to talk to me? I would never want that.”

Although there is an option to just turn the camera off, there are strict policies that an officer has to follow even when the device is off.

Before body-worn cameras and cameras on a police cruiser dashboard, when a person went to court, it was the officer’s out-of-the-mouth testimony that worked for evidence. Now, if there is no video, it is more difficult to get a conviction, Rarrick said.

Footage from body cameras, Rarrick said, “further supports what the officer is doing and it would probably eliminate some of the complaints that we get from people that are not valid. People will complain about certain things and when you produce a video that says something contrary to that, it maybe will help citizens think a little bit more about what they are going to say or do with the police so things are more accurate.”

“How we handle situations, our demeanor, use of force incidents… come under scrutiny. People have different perspectives about how an incident transpired,” Lewis said. “it would be nice to have that recorded.”

There has been a push for body cameras in both Ravenna and Kent police departments.

For Kent, Lewis said it is a matter of time and cost, as they have yet to apply for funding because they are unsure of what brand, model, or servers to commit too.

“I look forward to having them within the next 12 months provided we get all of our policy in order and are able to locate funding an the proper product,” Rarrick said for Ravenna Police Department.

Other local police departments are already using body cameras, including Stow, Streetsboro and Brimfield Township. Representatives from those departments did not respond to calls requesting comment before the deadline.

Nationwide/Statewide Funding

According to an article from NBC News in 2014, former President Barack Obama proposed new funding worth $236 million for police body-worn cameras and training after the shooting death of an Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. This motion was deemed “21st century policing.”

“As part of President Obama’s commitment to building trust and transparency between law enforcement and the communities they serve, Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch today announced that the Justice Department has awarded grants totaling more than $23.2 million to 73 local and tribal agencies in 32 states to expand the use of body-worn cameras and explore their impact,” reads a press release issued by the Department of Justice in September of 2015.

One year later, The Department of Justice announced an additional $20 million would be awarded to 106 law enforcement agencies with body-worn camera programs. Ohio received some of the awarded funds.

“These grants will help more than 100 law enforcement agencies promote transparency and ensure accountability, clearing the way for the closer cooperation between residents and officers that is so vital to public safety,” Attorney General Lynch said in a press release.

Still seeking funding for body cameras in Ohio, former State Rep. Kevin Boyce proposed House Bill 587 worth $54 million for every law enforcement agency in Ohio to be forced to use body-worn and dashboard cameras within the next two years. Introduced in August of 2016, the bill called for the establishment of the Law Enforcement Camera Fund managed by the state’s Department of Public Safety – which meets with the Ohio Collaborative Community-Police Advisory Board. The third such bill of its kind, it was referred to the Finance Committee in November of 2016 where it remains.

Ohio Collaborative, a group created under Governor Kasich to handle police reform, works to make policies more uniform and up to date across the state. Every year, they chose a policy or two to update for law enforcement agencies across the state according to Ohio Collaborative’s guidelines. One of the more recent policies chosen involves body-worn cameras.

“Law enforcement agencies and the community will benefit from clear guidelines involving the use of body-worn cameras and related privacy issues,” said a press release issued in December of 2016 by Ohio Collaborative. The state partnered with the Buckeye State Sheriffs’ Association and the Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police to be sure Ohio’s nearly 1,000 law enforcement agencies are in compliance with these new standards.

While Kent Police Department is exempt from Ohio Collaborative’s policies on body-worn cameras because they do not have them, Ravenna is using their guidelines to help write their policies.

“Part of our policy reworking and other things is to comply with Ohio Collaborative including things like recruiting and other stuff that goes along with that,” Rarrick said.

Ohio Collaborative issued their standards for body-worn cameras, writing, “It is recognized that audio and video data is valuable recorded evidence that may provide a means of accountability for both officers and the public.”

 

Local police officers in search for funding and policy reform for body-worn cameras. Read more https://t.co/PrgbyHnWMD #kentstateuniversity #kentstate #kentstateJMC

— Kathryn Monsewicz (@kathryniskatie) September 26, 2018

 

Some local police departments are hoping to purchase officer body cameras soon, while others already require their officers to wear the devices.https://t.co/hajZA6PvFk

— Dylan Reynolds (@_DylanReynolds) September 26, 2018

Contributions:

Kathryn Monsewicz — researching, interviewing, transcribing, writing majority of story

Dylan Reynolds — researching, calling police departments, creating infographics, editing audio, photography, writing part of story