Advertisement

Calgary police leading way towards new normal of officer-mounted cameras

Police in Calgary and Toronto will soon wear body-mounted video cameras while interacting with the public, as Canadian officers join the growing number of North American agencies moving to embrace the surveillance world.

But with body-mounted cameras becoming the new normal in policing, significant questions arise about how the technology should be used, and how police agencies should ensure they don’t breach the public’s privacy.

The Calgary Sun reports that Calgary Police will deploy about 550 body-mounted cameras by the end of the year, giving the service permanent records of the public’s interaction with frontline officers.

It is a step being taken in several cities across the country, following several high-profile conflicts that included the shooting death of Toronto teen Sammy Yatim and most recently the police shooting death of a black teen in Ferguson, Missouri.

“The speed of the change now is incredibly rapid,” Chief Rick Hanson is quoted as telling the police commission. “A number of agencies have announced a full rollout because of the events of the summer.”

“I don’t think there’s any way to avoid this.”

Hanson is right, it is only a matter of time before police forces across the country are latching lapel cameras to uniforms before hitting the beat. Pilot projects have already run successfully in several cities, including Calgary and Victoria, and more are underway. Toronto is set to test body-mounted cameras on 100 officers beginning later this year. Vancouver is mulling the idea, and other agencies, including Halifax, have said they are monitoring the trend.

The technology has become just a common in the U.S., where Los Angeles is already on board and New York has launched a test run of its own.

There are obvious benefits to body-mounted cameras: The footage offers solid evidence and protects both the officer and the public in cases of heightened aggression. Anecdotally, it has also been reported that officers and suspects are better behaved when they are aware they are being recorded.

The rollout, however, has not been without its detractors. In 2009, in response to Victoria’s pilot project, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association came out opposed to the measure. “Would you like your privacy invasion super-sized?” begins a viscerally-critical statement released at the time.

Seattle recently launched its own yearlong test with body-mounted camera, but when the debate began a few years ago the city’s police guild was concerned for its officers.

Kelly Ernst, the president of the Rocky Mountain Civil Liberties Association,says Canadian police forces will need to establish workable guidelines to govern the use of cameras and recordings.

"This raises more questions than it does answers," Ernst told Yahoo Canada News.

"Part of the reason is that the Calgary Police policy on this is not entirely transparent. We are not terribly clear if this is a benefit to the public, and the protection of the public. Or is this for the benefit and protection of police?"

The American Civil Liberties Union recently released a generally positive position statement on wearable cameras, ruling that, if used correctly, they would be a benefit to everyone.

"Although we generally take a dim view of the proliferation of surveillance cameras in American life, police on-body cameras are different because of their potential to serve as a check against the abuse of power by police officers," the statement reads.

"Historically, there was no documentary evidence of most encounters between police officers and the public, and due to the volatile nature of those encounters, this often resulted in radically divergent accounts of incidents. Cameras have the potential to be a win-win, helping protect the public against police misconduct, and at the same time helping protect police against false accusations of abuse."

The ACLU notes, however, that strong guidelines must be set, and kept, to balance the threat of privacy invasion with the assurance of police accountability.

The key concern is that while police cameras have the ability to ensure oversight of officers, the technology is placed in the hands of those same people. In theory, officers could turn the recordings on and off based on what they want to have recorded. It isn’t reasonable to expect the cameras to run 24/7; after all, how many Tim Hortons visits do we need to record? The ACLU also points out that such recordings could be used by supervisors to chronicle small infractions, which could be used to punish whistleblowers or union activists within the force.

The ACLU writes in its position statement:

The balance that needs to be struck is to ensure that officers can’t manipulate the video record, while also ensuring that officers are not subjected to a relentless regime of surveillance without any opportunity for shelter from constant monitoring.

There are ways around this, however. Recorders could be placed on an automatic trigger, set off by raised voices or certain types of movements (the way some dash-mounted cameras are triggered when sirens are used). Another option would be to leave the activation of body cameras to the discretion of individual officers, but under strict guidelines of when they should be used. It would be a significant red flag if an officer were to stray from those standards.

The second major concern is the matter of personal privacy - recordings will capture the public engaged in entirely legal behaviour, both on the street and inside their homes. To mitigate those concerns, officers should be required to notify people when they are recording - either by telling them or by wearing a warning on their uniform. The ACLU similarly notes that only uniformed officers should be given cameras (except in the case of SWAT raids or other significant events).

The retention of recordings should also be limited, deleted shortly after its recording unless flagged as significant.

Ernst, of the Rocky Mountain Civil Liberties Association, agrees with most of these policies, adding that it is also important to ensure the presence of video footage does not undermine the presumption of innocence.

“The public now is used to looking at videos online, but very often when you look at videos online things look clear, but we don’t know the context surrounding the scenario,” he said. “There are scenarios that, at first glance, look like somebody is guilty but when you look at the broader context you understand that maybe it is not (the case).”

With police agencies across North America moving toward body-mounted cameras, it will become more important than ever to establish those policies and stick to them. This can either be a boon for public protection or a curse. The potential benefits are enticing enough to go down the rabbit hole.