Introduction
The proliferation of cell phone cameras has made it easier than ever for citizens to record controversial interactions between officers and civilians. But rather than see citizen recordings as a threat or an inconvenience, police departments should embrace them as a tool for accountability and an opportunity for transparency. Police accountability is an issue that concerns everyone, whether concerned about police officers’ safety or the safety of those they are sworn to protect. As constitutional attorney Harvey Silverglate writes, “police accountability is a firmly established American value — one rooted in the First Amendment.” Citizens armed with cell phones and video cameras have played a significant role in documenting police misconduct. This trend has not been lost on law enforcement officials
Recent headlines have shown that citizen cameras can help hold police accountable, particularly in instances of excessive force.
Recent headlines have shown that citizen cameras can help hold police accountable, particularly in instances of excessive force. In July, a police officer in Minneapolis was indicted for second-degree manslaughter after he fatally shot an unarmed black man named Thurman Blevins. The shooting occurred because Blevins allegedly fled on foot after being stopped by police. Video footage revealed that Blevins did not resist or fight back with the officer; instead, he ran away and appeared to be unarmed when he was shot several times from behind by the officer who was chasing him on foot.
In June 2019, another video surfaced showing two officers tackling a young woman at a pool party and tasing her multiple times while she screamed in pain and pleaded for help from others present at the scene—all while they mistakenly believed she was underage and had been drinking alcohol earlier that day at another location nearby where she’d been arrested earlier this year before being released pending further investigation (which took place less than 24 hours later). While these are just two examples among many others documented over time since law enforcement first began using cameras as standard equipment back in 2000s thanks to the rise of social media platforms like Youtube along with smartphones which became ubiquitous around 2010 onwards due to falling prices for smartphones across all income levels worldwide–and more importantly are far more recent examples than most other cases where videos were used successfully against officers accused of misconduct–they demonstrate how important it is to hold police accountable so we can make sure no one ever goes through what these women did again.”
The proliferation of cell phone cameras has made it easier than ever for citizens to record controversial interactions between officers and civilians.
The proliferation of cell phone cameras has made it easier than ever for citizens to record controversial interactions between officers and civilians. Footage captured by individuals has helped bring justice to victims of police brutality and misconduct, while also raising questions about how the criminal justice system handles such cases.
On the other hand, some law enforcement officials have expressed concern that citizen-recorded video footage can often be misleading or incomplete, creating an inaccurate picture of what happened during a given event. For example, one former police chief told NPR that he’s seen video recordings where people were arrested for “walking down the street with a tennis racket in their hands.” In this particular case, however, there was more context: The man was walking down the street holding his child’s tennis racket after helping them play tennis at home earlier that day—a fact which could not be discerned from watching only one angle of his interaction with officers on camera (and which might have been overlooked altogether if no cameras had been present).
But rather than see citizen recordings as a threat or an inconvenience, police departments should embrace them as a tool for accountability and an opportunity for transparency.
In a world where police officers are increasingly becoming the subject of citizen recordings, the best solution is not to try to stop the flow of information. Rather than see citizen recordings as a threat or an inconvenience, police departments should embrace them as a tool for accountability and an opportunity for transparency.
Police officers can use citizen videos to their advantage by showing the community that they are doing their job properly (or correctly). Police officers can also use citizen recordings as evidence in court cases where they are accused of misconduct. For example, if an officer is accused of using excessive force against someone who was already in handcuffs and unable to fight back, then his colleagues’ videos could be used by prosecutors who aim to prove that he violated department policy regarding use-of-force techniques.
Police accountability is an issue that concerns everyone, whether concerned about police officers’ safety or the safety of those they are sworn to protect.
Police accountability is an issue that concerns everyone, whether concerned about police officers’ safety or the safety of those they are sworn to protect. It should be considered by all law enforcement personnel as a constitutional right, public safety issue, public relations issue and legal matter.
Police accountability is also a political priority for them as well.
As constitutional attorney Harvey Silverglate writes, “police accountability is a firmly established American value — one rooted in the First Amendment.”
As constitutional attorney Harvey Silverglate writes, “police accountability is a firmly established American value — one rooted in the First Amendment.”
In fact, citizen recording of police activity has been protected by law since 1991, when the Supreme Court ruled in a case that police officers have no reasonable expectation of privacy while they are carrying out their duties in public. That ruling affirmed that citizens have a right under the First Amendment to record officers performing their official duties.
Citizens armed with cell phones and video cameras have played a significant role in documenting police misconduct.
But the power of citizen videos to hold police accountable for misconduct is not a new phenomenon. In fact, it goes back nearly two decades, when an amateur video helped exonerate four New York City police officers accused of beating and sodomizing Haitian immigrant Abner Louima in 1997. The footage shot by a bystander showed that the cops were not guilty of wrongdoing; rather, they had been responding to a violent assault by Louima on one of them.
One year later, another amateur video helped bring about justice for another victim—this time from the other side of the badge. After police officer John Zieleniewski was acquitted for shooting African-American teen Timothy Thomas during an incident at an Ohio gas station in 2001 (prompting riots across Cincinnati), footage taken by resident George Holliday showed that he had been following proper protocol when he shot Thomas after being attacked with rocks and bottles while investigating reports of gunshots fired at a nightclub nearby.*(See footnote)
This trend has not been lost on law enforcement officials.
This trend has not been lost on law enforcement officials. Body cameras have become standard issue for police departments nationwide, and officers are encouraged to record interactions with citizens. In most cases, an officer who observes or witnesses a crime or incident is required by law to record it for evidentiary purposes. But there are still rules about when it is appropriate for an officer to turn on their body camera, and what they can record at any given time.
For example:
- Officers cannot record people inside their homes without first obtaining consent from those individuals (in most cases). This means if you’re in your home and an officer wants to come in, you can tell him no—and then he must leave your premises immediately (or risk being sued under Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure).
- Law enforcement officials cannot use body cameras as surveillance tools unless they have probable cause that one party involved in an encounter is committing a crime (or has committed one previously). In other words: If you see someone who looks like a criminal but you don’t know whether or not he really is committing any crimes himself, then don’t film him with your cell phone camera!
Yet the kinds of restrictions that many departments impose on their employees’ ability to record indicate that they still view these records as something to be discouraged, if not outright forbidden.
The issue isn’t simply whether police should be allowed to shoot first and ask questions later. It’s also what happens after a shooting, when the public has to decide whether that use of deadly force was justified or not.
In an ideal world, there would be no need for video evidence; conflicts would always be settled peacefully and professionally, with both parties following all appropriate procedures. But we don’t live in that world—and it’s not just because some people are violent criminals who can’t get their brains around the concept of “bending over backward” to avoid conflict whenever possible. Even among everyday citizens with good intentions and no history of violence (or even crime), misunderstandings happen frequently enough that everyone involved should take steps to ensure that their interactions are recorded so they can be evaluated objectively later on if necessary.
That attitude needs to change, and law enforcement organizations need to publicly encourage their members to record encounters with citizens as often as possible.
As a police officer, you might be thinking that you don’t need the help of citizen cameras. You’re trained and equipped to handle the situation, right? You’ve been at this for years—you know what’s best.
But think about it: there are benefits to having a camera on your side. For one thing, they hold you accountable if anything goes wrong or if you make a mistake (and we all do). They also give citizens documentation of what happened in an encounter with the police—and sometimes even more important than that is how it can change how citizens perceive their interactions with law enforcement officers. As such, police departments need to start encouraging their members to record encounters with citizens as often as possible so that everyone benefits from transparency and accountability in policing.
It is in the interest of both police and the public to do so.
This is in the interest of both police and the public. Police officers should embrace citizen cameras because they can hold their members accountable, improve transparency, and promote accountability. The police safety benefits will be obvious, but there are other reasons why it’s smart for officers to encourage citizens to record encounters with them.
The most obvious advantage is that it helps hold police accountable. If an officer has done something wrong or illegal, a citizen’s recording might be all it takes for prosecutors (and ultimately juries) to realize this and convict accordingly. This may seem like an extreme scenario—but consider just how many instances of brutality or misconduct by law enforcement have been caught on camera in recent years: Eric Garner’s death at the hands of NYPD officers; Walter Scott’s murder at the hands of North Charleston police; Freddie Gray’s death while being transported by Baltimore Police Department officers; Sandra Bland’s arrest and booking into jail in Waller County, Texas; Samuel DuBose’s murder by University Of Cincinnati campus police officer Ray Tensing…
There are many more examples than these—and there will continue to be more as long as our system remains broken.
Conclusion
We recognize that there is a lot of mistrust between police officers and the communities they serve. This mistrust can lead to violent encounters, both real and perceived. But we believe that citizen recordings can help break down those barriers by offering evidence of what really happens during a police encounter. This evidence can be used as a tool for accountability, not only in individual cases but on an institutional level as well. When it comes down to it, every officer wants to do his or her job well—and all departments want their officers to remain safe while doing so. By embracing this technology, law enforcement officials will be able to better protect themselves from false accusations while also ensuring public safety through increased transparency about when force was necessary or not used appropriately during arrests.”
