In 2015, police officers in Sussex, England were told by their supervisors to remove a badge from their uniforms with a blue line across a union jack since it was not part of their official uniform.There was a concern that it could be seen as a political statement related to cutbacks in police forces. In Chicago, in November 2016, counterprotesters carried the black and white US flag symbol to. Recently, I was in Levanto on the Italian coast between Genoa and La Spezia, when I noticed, flying above an apartment building, a Union Jack in which the red and blue sections had been replaced with black. Otherwise, it was exactly the same as the British flag. I asked a local person if they knew anything about why such a flag should be flying.

It was a product released by the Facebook page UK Cop Humour in order to signify prt of the thin blue line whilstraise money for the charity Care Of Police Survivors - a charity dedicated to helping the families of those that have died on the job. Proving that Police are human too! In 2015, police officers in Sussex, England were told by their supervisors to remove a badge from their uniforms with a blue line across a union jack since it was not part of their official uniform. There was a concern that it could be seen as a political statement related to cutbacks in police forces.

In Balch Springs, Texas, where a police officer recently shot and killed 15-year-old Jordan Edwards as the teenager’s car was driving away. The police department had video that showed what happened was inconsistent with the officer’s initial statement, thanks to the body-worn camera on the officer. Three days after Jordan was killed, the officer who shot him was fired and now faces murder charges.

As the investigation continues, one thing is absolutely clear — video technology is shaping our world, particularly in the context of police oversight.

Technology is neither good nor bad. It’s what we make it. Last month, the New York City Police Department (NYPD) expanded its body-worn camera pilot program for patrol officers. As the program sparks healthy debate throughout the City and the country, I believe there is both a challenge and an opportunity in using this new technology — with privacy and justice as shared priorities. Concerns about how data will be collected, held, used and shared are legitimate. Yet body-worn camera footage — just like bystander and surveillance video — can be a tool for police accountability and for supporting officers who behave lawfully.

The NYC Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB), reviews almost 5,000 cases of alleged police misconduct every year. Investigators review many types of evidence, including video recordings from diverse sources like surveillance cameras, cell phones from witnesses and, in rare case, body-worn cameras.

Video footage provides investigators objective details of incidents. The CCRB recently analyzed allegations of misconduct in New York City over the last five years, and it found that these recordings help the CCRB make more determinations in allegations of police misconduct than in those without video. Currently, much of this footage is from civilians and CCTV.

The CCRB considers an allegation determined “on its merits” if there is sufficient credible evidence to determine what happened. That could mean we “substantiate” the allegation (it happened and was misconduct), find that it didn’t happen or find that it happened, but the officer behaved lawfully. Thanks to video footage, CCRB has been able to substantially increase the cases we resolve. Last year, the CCRB closed 57% of allegations with video evidence on the merits compared to 45% of allegations without video. In 2015, those numbers were 56% and 41%, respectively. In 2014, the agency closed 53% of allegations with video on the merits” compared to 39% without video that year.

Often, a civilian and a police officer will have different accounts of what happened. A video can tip the balance where we have to show that the evidence supports one version over another. This independent verification benefits all parties. Over the last five years, on average, the CCRB was able to substantiate police misconduct with video at twice the rate of misconduct without video — 18.6% compared to 9.3%.

Video may not be definitive in every allegation within every complaint, but it can help significantly. Body-worn cameras provide investigators with another source of evidence so we can better understand an incident and make an appropriate determination.

Civil rights groups are right to stay vigilant about footage being recorded, stored and utilized in a manner that respects the privacy of minors, victims of sexual assault and any person who may be recorded initially as a subject in an incident but isn’t ultimately determined to have a role in a crime. Some communities — particularly communities of color — have legitimate concerns about being overly surveilled. And advocates also call attention to questions of access to body-worn camera footage between police officers and defendants. CCRB will monitor this issue and ensure officers aren’t abusing access to video to tailor their statements, interviews, and reports to the footage.

The NYPD lacks comprehensive guidance for when an officer activates and deactivates their recording device, and for clear exemptions for use while on patrol. As the pilot continues, the NYPD must develop an inclusive process with stakeholders like the CCRB, civil rights groups, and advocates, to ensure our city has rigorous and well-informed body-worn camera policies.

But video helps curb misconduct by officers and civilians alike. It helps determine what may have happened in police misconduct cases. Because of this, investigators at the CCRB must have direct access to view relevant footage to aid in investigations of misconduct. This is a standard among some police departments, including Washington D.C.’s Metropolitan Police Department. If implemented, it would allow the CCRB to hasten investigations, which is good for all involved in allegations of misconduct.

Thank you!

For your security, we've sent a confirmation email to the address you entered. Click the link to confirm your subscription and begin receiving our newsletters. If you don't get the confirmation within 10 minutes, please check your spam folder. EDIT POST

Why Do Police Wear Black Union Jack Cross

Police body cameras (also called body-worn cameras) are small cameras worn on a law enforcement officer’s chest or head to record interactions between the officer and the public. The cameras have a microphone to capture sound and internal data storage to save video footage for later review. [37][41]

Why Do Police Wear Black Union Jack Tapper

According to the Bureau of Justice Assistance, “[t]he video and audio recordings from BWCs [body-worn cameras] can be used by law enforcement to demonstrate transparency to their communities; to document statements, observations, behaviors, and other evidence; and to deter unprofessional, illegal, and inappropriate behaviors by both law enforcement and the public.” [41] Police body cameras are in use around the world from Australia and Uruguay to the United Kingdom and South Africa. [19] [32] [35][36]

After the police shooting death of Michael Brown on Aug. 9, 2014 in Ferguson, Missouri, President Barack Obama requested $263 million to fund body camera programs and police training on Dec. 1, 2014. [38] [46] As a result the Department of Justice (DOJ) implemented the Body-Worn Camera Policy and Implementation Program (BWC-PIP). Between fiscal year (FY) 2015 and FY 2019, the BWC-PIP has given over 493 awards worth over a collective $70 million to law enforcement agencies in 47 states, DC, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands. Agencies in Maine, Montana, and North Dakota have not been awarded federal body camera funding. [40][42][43] [44]

As of Oct. 29, 2018, the most recently available information, 36 states and DC had specific legislation about the use of police body cameras. At that time, another four states had pending body camera legislation. [45]

Should Police Officers Wear Body Cameras?

Pro 1

Police body cameras improve police accountability and lower reports of police misconduct.

Police body cameras provide visual and audio evidence that can independently verify events. In Texas, a police officer was fired, charged with murder, and sentenced to a $10,000 fine and 15 years in prison after body-worn camera footage contradicted his initial statement in the Apr. 2017 shooting of an unarmed youth. [12] [48]

In Baltimore, Maryland, an officer was convicted of fabricating evidence and misconduct in office after being caught by body-worn cameras planting fake drug evidence.[14] [49]

A RAND study found that use of force by police officers dropped if the officers wearing cameras kept the cameras recording for the officers’ whole shift. [471] In Miami-Dade County, Florida, researchers found a 19% reduction in police officers using physical force against citizen resistance, and civil cases against the police department for use of force dropped 74%. [50]

In Phoenix, Arizona, complaints against officers wearing cameras decreased 23%, while complaints against officers not wearing cameras increased 10.6%. [13]

The cameras also protect police officers against false accusations of misconduct. In San Diego, California, the use of body cameras provided the necessary evidence to exonerate police officers falsely accused of misconduct. The number of severe misconduct allegations deemed false increased 2.4% with body camera footage, and the number of officers exonerated for less severe allegations related to conduct, courtesy, procedure, and service increased 6.5%. [11]

Read More

Pro 2

Police body cameras are a powerful tool in domestic violence cases.

When an officer wearing a camera arrives at a domestic violence scene, the camera is able to record the immediate aftermath of the attack, including injuries the victim has suffered, as well as victim statements that may be more honest than later statements once victims remember emotional and financial ties to their abusers. [51] Victims may also feel more secure in their testimony with video evidence backing up their statements. [52]

Elliott Knetsch, JD, Prosecutor for the City of Burnsville, Minnesota, whose police department uses body-worn cameras, stated, “When the cops are called and come through the door, the victim is very happy and relieved to see them. They feel safe. They tell the officer what happened. That statement given right at that moment is more likely to be the truth than what comes out even half an hour later, when the implications of what has happened start to set in.” [51]

In the six months since body cameras were deployed in Burnsville, police recorded video for almost every domestic violence case, something former Chief Deputy of the Dakota County Attorney’s Office, Phil Prokopowicz, JD, found useful. He stated that camera footage “can be influential in resolving the case in terms of negotiations. The defendant gets to see the act and know what will be displayed in front of the jury. The documenting of those first moments is very critical to those types of cases, as well as any admissions that may occur as officers are entering.” [51]

Why Do Police Wear Black Union Jack Shirts

Officers in the United Kingdom and Queensland, Australia echoed this benefit, stating some abusers plead guilty because they knew there was video footage evidence against them.[52] [53]

Read More

Why Do Police Wear Black Union Jack Shirt

Pro 3

Police body cameras are a good police reform tool and have strong support from members of the public.

Police body worn cameras offer transparency and accountability to the public, which is an attempt to “mend that frayed relationship between the police and the community,” according to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, JD. [56] [57] [58]

Video recorded from police body cameras can be used to train new and existing officers in how to perform during difficult encounters with the public. The Miami Police Department has been using body cameras for training since 2012. Former Police Major Ian Moffitt, MS, stated, “we can record a situation, a scenario in training, and then go back and look at it and show the student, the recruit, the officer what they did good, what they did bad, and [what they can] improve on.” [17]

Amid the Black Lives Matter protests after the death of George Floyd, a June 2020 Reuters/Ipsos poll found 92% of Americans wanted federal police officers to wear body cams. [54] A July 2020 University of Maryland School of Public Policy survey found 90% support for all police officers being required to wear body cameras, including 85% of republicans, 86% of independents, and 94% of democrats. [55]

Read More

Con 1

Police body cameras are too expensive and unreliable for many police departments.

Equipping police departments with body cameras is extremely expensive as forces have to budget not only for the camera but also for ancillary equipment (such as a car charger or mount), training, data storage facilities, extra staff to manage the video data, and maintenance costs. [26] Baltimore Police entered a body-worn camera program in 2016 for $11.3 million. As of June 25, 2020, the costs had tripled to $35.1 million. [59]

Many police departments, especially smaller departments with smaller budgets, have suspended body-worn camera programs citing rising costs of the cameras, maintenance of the programs, employees, and data storage. [27] [28] [29] [30] [60]

A trial in Edmonton, California, found that body-worn cameras had an insufficient battery length for daily policing, especially in cold weather when battery life diminished more quickly. [9]

A sheriff’s office in Virginia stopped using body cameras due to the unreliability of their on-off buttons and poor integration with their IT systems that resulted in the system inaccurately matching camera footage to the officer wearing the camera. [31] As the cameras, supporting equipment, and networks age, costs will only rise to maintain or replace equipment.

In a perhaps extreme but cautionary example, in Oct, 2018 a Staten Island, New York, officer’s body camera burst into flames while the officer was wearing the device. He was luckily not injured, but the department was forced to recall thousands of cameras. [61]

Read More

Con 2

Police body cameras invade the privacy of citizens, potentially exposing victims and subjecting citizens to facial recognition software.

Recording police encounters with the public could lead to the public exposure of private medical conditions such as mental illness. Victims of crimes such as rape or domestic abuse may be further traumatized by recordings. Informants or witnesses may fear reprisal from criminals. People being arrested may fear the damage of public exposure, such as being fired from a job. [17] [19] [34]

Former Spokane, Washington, Police Chief Frank Straub, PhD, notes that “every day we are exposing persons challenged by mental illness, autism, developmental disabilities, addiction, etc. We are creating and making public recordings of their illness and potentially creating life-long consequences.” [22]

Former Chief of Police Ken Miller, MPA, of Greensboro, North Carolina, said that if citizens “think that they are going to be recorded every time they talk to an officer, regardless of the context, it is going to damage openness and create barriers to important relationships.” [23]

One such barrier is fear of retaliation. A US Justice Department report notes that some “people will be less likely to come forward to share information if they know their conversation is going to be recorded, particularly in high-crime neighborhoods where residents might be subject to retaliation if they are seen as cooperating with police.” [23]

Another privacy fear, according to the ACLU, is that police body cameras will be worn as “roving surveillance devices that track our faces, voices, and even the unique way we walk” that could be used “to track, classify, and discriminate against people based on their most personal, innate features.” [62]

Read More

Con 3

Police body cameras decrease the safety of police officers and negatively affect their physical and mental health.

Assaults on police officers were 14% higher when body cameras were present. [18] Some people may respond negatively or violently to being filmed by police, especially those who may be under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or who are suffering from mental health problems.

University of Oklahoma Professor of Law Stephen E. Henderson, JD, stated that the use of police body cameras may be psychologically damaging to officers because “nobody does well to be under constant surveillance.” [21]

Pat Lynch, President of the Police Benevolent Association of the City of New York, stated officers “are already weighed down with equipment like escape hoods [gas masks], Mace, flashlights, memo books, ASPs [batons], radio, handcuffs and the like. Additional equipment becomes an encumbrance and a safety issue for those carrying it.” [17]

Other potential health and safety issues include head and neck injuries, electric shock or burns from faulty or damaged equipment, and the spread of contagious infectious diseases if the units are shared. [20]

Read More

Discussion Questions:

1. Should police officers wear body cameras? Why or why not?
2. In what ways might body worn cameras improve policing? In what ways might they complicate or impair policing? Explain your answers.
3. Should police departments consider other reforms in addition or instead of body cameras? Which ones? Explain your answers

Sources:

1.	Associated Press, 'Britain Straps Video Cameras to Police Helmets,' nbcnews.com, July 13, 2007
2.	Rory Carroll, 'California Police Use of Body Cameras Cuts Violence and Complaints,' theguardian.com, Nov. 4, 2013
3.	Vivian Hung, et al., 'A Market Survey on Body Worn Camera Technologies,' ncjrs.gov, Nov. 2016
4.	National Conference of State Legislatures, 'Body-Worn Camera Laws Database,' ncsl.org, Oct. 27, 2017
5.	Total Security Solutions, 'Police Body Camera Basics, Part 1,' tssbulletproof.com, Sep. 14, 2015
6.	US Department of Justice, 'BWC Program Update: Fiscal Year 2017,' bja.gov, 2017
7.	Tony Farrar, 'Self-Awareness to Being Watched and Socially-Desirable Behavior: A Field Experiment on the Effect of Body-Worn Cameras on Police Use-Of-Force,' policefoundation.org, Mar. 2013
8.	University of Nevada at Las Vegas, 'Study: Police Body-worn Cameras Reduce Reports of Misconduct, Use of Force,' forensicmag.com, Nov. 30, 2017
9.	Edmonton Police Service, 'Body Worn Video: Considering the Evidence,' www.bwvsg.com, June 2015
10.	Tom Ellis, et al., 'Evaluation of the Introduction of Personal Issue Body Worn Video Cameras (Operation Hyperion) on the Isle of Wight: Final Report to Hampshire Constabulary,' researchportal.port.ac.uk, Feb. 2015
11.	David Garrick, 'Report: SDPD Body Cameras Reducing Misconduct, Aggressive Use of Force,' sandiegotribune.com, Feb. 9, 2017
12.	Maya Wiley, 'Body Cameras Help Everyone - Including the Police,' time.com, May 9, 2017
13.	Charles M. Katz, et al., 'Evaluating the Impact of Officer Worn Body Cameras in the Phoenix Police Department,' asu.edu, Dec. 2014
14.	PBS SoCal, 'Three Police Misconduct Cases - All Involving Body Cameras - Had New Developments This Week. Here's What Happened,' pbs.org, Aug. 11, 2017
15.	Lynne Grossmith, 'Police, Camera, Evidence: London's Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial of Body Worn Video,' college.police.ac.uk, Nov. 2015
16.	Emily Ekins, 'Cato/YouGov Poll: 92% Support Police Body Cameras, 55% Willing to Pay More in Taxes to Equip Local Police,' cato.org, Jan. 5, 2016
17.	Michael D. White, 'Police Officer Body-Worn Cameras: Assessing the Evidence,' nicic.gov, 2014
18.	Barak Ariel, et al., 'Wearing Body Cameras Increases Assaults against Officers and Does Not Reduce Police Use of Force: Results from a Global Multi-Site Experiment,' sagepub.com, 2016
19.	Emmeline Taylor, 'Lights, Camera, Redaction... Police Body-Worn Cameras: Autonomy, Discretion and Accountability,' queensu.ca, 2016
20.	Home Office (UK), 'Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices,' college.police.ac.uk, July 2007
21.	Stephen Henderson, 'Fourth Amendment Time Machines (and What They Might Say about Police Body Cameras),' upenn.edu, 2016
22.	Nancy La Vigne, 'Evaluating the Impact of Police Body Cameras,' urban.org, Aug. 5, 2015
23.	Lindsay Miller, et al., 'Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned,' policeforum.org, 2014
24.	Jason Kotowski, 'Money, Storage Primary Obstacles in Police Body Camera Implementation,' govtech.com, Mar. 8, 2016
25.	Bobby Allyn, 'Philly Reaches $12.5m Deal with Taser Maker for Police Body Cameras,' whyy.org, Oct. 23, 2017
26.	National Institute of Justice, 'Research on Body-Worn Cameras and Law Enforcement,' nij.gov, Dec. 5, 2017
27.	Laura Giles, 'Pleasant Grove Officers Forced to Stop Using Body Cameras,' heraldextra.com, Sep. 30, 2016
28.	Rick Callahan, 'Why Two Police Departments Stopped Using Body Cameras,' csmonitor.com, Sep. 10, 2016
29.	Nichole Mann, 'Police Department Stops Using Body Cameras after Legislation,' journalstar.com, Jan. 15, 2017
30.	Benjamin Yount, 'Costs Pushing Some Police Departments to Stop Using Body Cameras,' effinghamradio.com, Sep. 25, 2017
31.	Jason Shueh, 'After Endless Glitches, Montgomery County Shelves Police Body Cameras,' statescoop.com, Nov. 28, 2017
32.	Reveal Media, 'Uruguay Police Partner with Reveal in South America's First Major Body Worn Video Study,' revealmedia.com, July 12, 2016
33.	Matt Pearce, 'Growing Use of Police Body Cameras Raises Privacy Concerns,' latimes.com, Sep. 27, 2014
34.	Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press, 'Access to Police Body-Worn Camera Video,' rcfp.org (accessed May 23, 2018)
35.	Business Tech Staff Writer, “South African Police Officers to Wear Body Cameras,” businesstech.co.za, June 24, 2019
36.	Privacy International, “Every Police Force in the UK Will Soon Use Body Worn Video Cameras to Record Us in Public,” privacyinternational.org, Mar. 3, 2019
37.	Metropolitan Police, “How and When Are BWV Cameras Are Used,” met.police.uk (accessed Aug. 12, 2020)
38.	Carrie Dann and Andrew Rafferty, “Obama Requests $263 Million for Police Body Cameras, Training,” nbcnews.com, Dec. 1, 2014
39.	US Department of Justice, “Body-Worn Camera Program Fact Sheet 2015,” bja.ojp.gov (accessed Aug. 12, 2020)
40.	US Department of Justice, “Body-Worn Camera Program Fact Sheet 2016,” bja.ojp.gov (accessed Aug. 12, 2020)
41.	Bureau of Justice Assistance, “Body-Worn Camera: Frequently Asked Questions,” bja.ojp.gov, 2015
42.	US Department of Justice, “BWC Program Update: Fiscal Year 2017,” bja.ojp.gov (accessed Aug. 12, 2020)
43.	Bureau of Justice Assistance, “Program Update: Body-Worn Camera Policy and Implementation Program, Fiscal Year 2019,” bja.ojp.gov, Oct. 2019
44.	Bureau of Justice Assistance, “Program Update: Body-Worn Camera Policy and Implementation Program, Fiscal Year 2018,” bja.ojp.gov, Nov. 2018
45.	Urban.org, “Police Body-Worn Camera Legislation Tracker,” apps.urban.org, Oct. 29, 2018
46.	AP, “Timeline of Events in Shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson,” apnews.com, Aug. 8, 2019
47.	RAND, “Investigating the Effects of Body-Worn Cameras,” rand.org (accessed Aug. 13, 2020)
48.	Faith Karimi and Emanuella Grinberg, “Texas Ex-Officer Is Sentenced to 15 Years for Killing an Unarmed Teen,” cnn.com, Aug. 30, 2018
49.	Kevin Rector, “Caught Fabricating Evidence, Convicted Baltimore Police Officer Remains on Force 2 ½ Years Later,” baltimoresun.com, Mar. 9, 2020
50.	Weston Publishing, LLC, “Researchers Find that Body-Worn Cameras Decrease Citizen Complaints Against Police Officers in Miami-Dade County,” prnewswire.com, Jan. 7, 2019
51.	Shannon Prather, “Police Body Cameras Are Newest Tool against Domestic Violence,” startribune.com, Apr. 26, 2015
52.	University of Leeds, “‘Tipping the Balance’ against Domestic Abuse,” phys.org, June 27, 2018
53.	Axon, “Using Modern Technology to Combat Domestic Violence,” axon.com, Nov. 14, 2017
54.	Chris Kahn, “Exclusive: Most Americans, Including Republicans, Support Sweeping Democratic Police Reform Proposals - Reuters/Ipsos Poll,” reuters.com, June 11, 2020
55.	Nolan D. McCaskill, “Americans Agree on Police Reforms That Have Divided Washington, New Poll Shows,” politico.com, July 14, 2020
56.	Carl E. Heastie, “Assembly Passes Legislation to Require Body Cameras for All New York State Police Officers,” nyassembly.gov, June 9, 2020
57.	Ton Lutey, “Daines Backs Police Reform Bill That Includes More Body Cameras and Accountability,” billingsgazette.com, June 18, 2020
58.	Andrew Cuomo, “Governor Cuomo Signs Legislation Requiring New York State Police Officers to Wear Body Cameras and Creating the Law Enforcement Misconduct Investigative Office,” governor.ny.gov, June 16, 2020
59.	Mark Reutter, “Price of Baltimore’s Body Camera Program Triples to $35 Million,” baltimorebrew.com, June 25, 2020
60.	Rick Callahan, “Some Police Departments Shelve Body Cameras, Cite Data Costs,” apnews.com, Sep. 10, 2016
61.	Ashley Southall, “Police Body Camera Bursts into Flames; New York Pulls 2,990 from Use,” nytimes.com, Oct. 21, 2018
62.	Matt Cagle, “California Just Blocked Police Body Cam Use of Face Recognition,” ACLU, aclu.org