West Chester Twp. is almost finished with a body camera study it initiated earlier this year to determine if the devices might be a future part of law enforcement there.
“Two years from now it is going to be weird not to have them,” Miami University Police Chief John McCandless said of body cameras, which his department strapped on in February, becoming the first Butler County police force to utilize the devices on a full-time basis.
Body cameras for police has been a hot-button topic, nationally, for the past few years. But interest reached a crescendo following the July shooting of Samuel DuBose by University of Cincinnati police officer Ray Tensing. The fatal shooting was captured on Tensing’s body camera.
“I think it’s safe to say that this case is going to help the cause of body cameras across the country,” Cincinnati Mayor John Cranley said at the time.
Sensing more departments might take an interest in using body cameras, Butler County Prosecutor Michael Gmoser sent a memo to police agencies in the county about how to address public records issues pertaining to footage captured by the devices.
“They need to think ahead and have protocol in place,” Gmoser said. “There is opportunity for abuse in the use of these cameras … but ultimately, justice comes first when officers are equipped with cameras.”
He added body cameras really are like the new DNA; not quite as full-proof, but close.
“It is very difficult to doctor up a tape,” Gmoser said. “A picture is worth a thousand words.”
Gmoser said like it or not, in today’s technologically driven world, certain expectations of privacy have been given up.
“Look, really everybody already has a camera,” Gmoser said, picking up his smartphone.
In the memo, Gmoser said, “If a law enforcement agency intends to adopt body camera/audio equipment, then please keep in mind the agency’s justification for using (them). On the one hand, an agency may decide to describe the camera as being used only to document its officers’ actions as a means of protecting them from liability and for transparency. The agency might also want to say that the body camera is not an investigative tool because they want to avoid avoid 4th and 5th amendment issues…”
He pointed out, if that is the route taken by police agencies, then it is more than likely that the courts will equate the video to more like a 911 call and it will not fall under the confidential law enforcement investigatory record, which would make it a public record.
“On the other hand, if the law enforcement agency justifies the use of body camera/audio for investigative purposes, the release of the (recording) could be withheld as an exception to the definition of public record,” Gmoser said.
But the prosecutor warned, simply having a policy may not stand up in court, because it must meet a high threshold in today’s environment, such as information that would endanger the life or physical safety of law enforcement personnel, a crime victim, a witness or a confidential information source.
Gmoser concluded in the memo, there is really no clear-cut answer.
“When a law enforcement officer anticipates an instance that a body camera will be used investigatively, I have considered advising the officer to make a verbal statement to that effect on camera. However, this could be problematic for those times the words are not spoken, but the video later needs to be withheld,” Gmoser wrote in the memo.
Fairfield Police Chief Mike Dickey said Gmoser raised just a few issues, and there are so many more, including cost and data storage. Dickey said for his department, body cameras are “not at the higher end of my priority list.”
However, Dickey said he believes eventually all departments will have them, which is not a bad thing.
“I am a believer the cameras have helped a whole lot more than hindered,” Dickey said.
Dickey said there are so many departments studying and testing cameras that “I am just going to wait and see what the research shows.”
Butler County law enforcement officials pointed to cost as one of the biggest factors in the body camera debate.
Not just the purchase of the cameras, which range from $99 to $999 on the Internet, but the cost of storing data.
“The cost is prohibitive,” said Monroe Police Chief Bob Buchanan. “There is a massive amount of data to store, whether you do it in house or pay an outside company to do it.”
Miami University Police are fortunate — the university’s IT department is handling the data storage, which brings down the cost, McCandless said. The 3-by-3-inch cameras were purchased for a total cost of about $16,500.
A six page-general order document for body-worn cameras was developed before the cameras were used, McCandless said, and it spells out when the cameras are to be on and when they can be off.
“There is some strong wording in the policy,” McCandless said. “If they don’t have them on when they should, there is going to be a problem.”
Thus far, Miami police have not been tested on their public records policy, he said.
Two Monroe police officers tested body cameras in May 2014. They learned first hand about the issues involved.
Lt. Brian Curlis said he is concerned that a body camera video at the scene of a horrific, tragic accident or where sexual assault victims are reporting a crime could become part of the public record.
“And if you are trying to talk to people after a shooting, they might not want to talk if they know a camera is on,” Curlis said.
Buchanan added: “It is a useful part of the toolbox and part of an evolving issue.”
Chief Deputy Anthony Dwyer, of the Butler County Sheriff’s Office, said they would like to have cameras eventually, but there is no major push right now.
“On the surface, it (body cameras) are simplistic, but it is much more complicated. I don’t think the average person thinks of the other issues,” he said.
But, Dwyer said, people might realize those issues quickly if a deputy responds to their house at 2 a.m. on a call that might be false.
“Do they want that to be part of a public record?” he said.
Middletown police Maj. Mark Hoffman said the city has set as side some money in the 2016 budget to move forward with body cameras.
“But we need the technology to advance a bit until we jump into it,” Hoffman said, adding a policy about what is public record and when officers can have the cameras on and off is essential.
“There are so many privacy issues,” Hoffman said.
Then there are the stumbling blocks of the cameras themselves. Some are easily activated when an officer puts on a seat belt resulting in hours of a video of the officer’s steering wheel and most current cameras have only a four-hour recording capability when most officers work at least an eight-hour shift. Battery charging can also be a lengthy process.
Bucheit said the Hamilton Police Department is moving forward with implementing body mounted cameras for frontline officers. A committee of all police employees will be meeting soon to discuss the program.
“We have had conversations with the community and officers. They are in full support,” Bucheit said.
About the Author
