As the Los Angeles Police Department employs some 7,000 body cameras for its officers, many doubt that it will bring transparency and accountability to police interactions with the public. Chief Charlie Beck says that it would not release footage unless required in court and the department has always considered recordings evidence in ongoing investigations and exempt from disclosure under the California Public Record Act. (Los Angeles Times, February 5, 2-15, by Kate Mather)
The American Civil Liberties Union welcomes the advent of the cameras, but says the information must be part of a system of accountability rather than just another set of eyes on the public. “[t]he challenge of on-officer cameras is the tension between their potential to invade privacy and their strong benefit in promoting police accountability. Overall, we think they can be a win-win—but only if they are deployed within a framework of strong policies to ensure they protect the public without becoming yet another system for routine surveillance of the public, and maintain public confidence in the integrity of those privacy protections. Without such a framework, their accountability benefits would not exceed their privacy risks,” said the ACLU. (From A Report on Body Worn Cameras, by Eugene P. Ramirez of the law offices of Manning & Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP)
Access is the key issue with some law enforcement agencies only using body cameras in violent situations. But critics say the cameras must be on in every situation and left on to increase public confidence that the police are not just using them to protect their own interests. There are also concerns that the volume of footage will overcome the resources available to store and retrieve. (Sacramento Bee, December 13, 2014, by Marissa Lang)