My latest Ask-the-Sheriff column in the Goshen News: Misconceptions of Police Body Cameras (Part 1) Dear Sheriff: I am happy to see the Sheriff’s deputies wearing body cameras. Finally, this will solve the issues of the officer versus the suspect in any use of force questions. Thank-you! Answer: I wish it was that simple! Public sentiment is developing that once every police officer is equipped with a body camera (cam), all controversy will be taken out of officers’ use of force and everyone will know “what really happened.” Based on my officers’ and other departments’ experience, including the Force Science Institute (an agency which studies the dynamics of police use of force) the use of body cams is far from a panacea. Any of the below quotes will be from the Force Science Institute report. A camera can be knocked off of the body. Recently one of my officers was arresting a combative suspect and the officer’s camera was knocked off and removed from its power source during the struggle. Although both officer and suspect sustained minor injuries, the officer’s resulting force, needed to make the arrest, was not recorded on the body cam. The camera does not see where the officer is actually viewing. The camera field is broad and does not indicate what the officer sees. The officer may be missing action that the camera is seeing because the officer’s eyes are looking elsewhere. Similarly, the officer’s peripheral vision, and his resulting perception of danger from the side, will not be visible on a camera. Some important danger cues can’t be recorded. The officer’s perception of a threat could be different than the camera view due to an adrenalin rush and the resulting physical and psychological stress. Nuances such as the suspect tensing up when the officer touches the suspect to arrest them may not be visible on a camera. The camera cannot “record the history and experience the officer brings to the encounter.” Suspect behavior, although appearing harmless to the public, may convey a substantial risk to the experienced officer. The camera view differs from the speed of life. Action is faster than reaction. In other words, the suspect’s action facilitates a reaction by the officer. Due to the scientific fact of the delay that any trained person’s reaction will be, “an officer can be half a second or more behind the action” as it develops on the video. The officer’s recognition of a threat, the use of force, the stopping of force, and overall decision making all take time, but obviously can’t be shown on camera. The public can make an errant judgment call on any video if facts other than what is on the video are not considered. Grand juries and investigators look at all the facts, not just the video. A camera’s view may sometimes be “better than the officer’s view in low light.” Body cams can record in high definition and make automatic adjustments to the lighting to get the best viewing quality possible. When the video is viewed, you might actually be able to see details that were not visible to the officer at the time of the incident due to the low light. “On the other hand, cameras do not always deal well with lighting transitions. Going suddenly from bright to dim light or vice versa, a camera may briefly blank out images altogether.” Next time, I will continue with Part two of the misconceptions of body cameras worn by police officers. Ask-the-Sheriff a question by emailing Elkhart County Sheriff Brad Rogers at brogers@elkhartcountysheriff
Posted on: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 16:48:06 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015