If the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, had been recorded on camera, one of two things would likely have occurred: Either the cop who shot him would be in jail, or Al Sharpton would be plying his trade elsewhere. Either way, it is entirely possible that the unrest seen recently in Ferguson would have been avoided.
The riots and looting seen there appeared to be crimes of opportunity whereby criminals took advantage of the ability to hide among demonstrating crowds. Those protests, however, were fueled in large part by anger backed by rumors and suppositions.
Had the authorities had the ability to show actual video of the incident and what led up to Brown’s death, it is entirely possible that they could have shown that Brown himself was at fault. By the same token, had the video shown the shooting was not justified, there is no way the powers that be in Ferguson could have covered up or ignored the shooting. Then, too, had Brown and the cop both known that they were on camera, things may not have gotten to the point of violence.
The Southern California city of Rialto ran an experiment on those questions. As reported in The New York Times last year, each week, it randomly chose half its police officers and equipped them with miniaturized video cameras and microphones. In the first year of the trial, the Rialto police force overall experienced an 88 percent decrease in the number complaints filed against officers and a 60 percent drop in the number of times police used force. Moreover, when force was used, it was twice as likely to be done by one of the officers not wearing a camera.
Dashboard cameras have been widely used for some time. And as they show, cops benefit, too. A 2004 study done by the International Association of Chiefs of Police and reported by USA Today showed that in 93 percent of the cases where dashboard camera evidence was available the police were exonerated.
There are objections, of course, chief among them concern about privacy. Police routinely encounter people who have done nothing wrong or who were stopped for a minor matter such as broken tail light. What do we do with those cases? What about bystanders or the guy who broke no law but told his wife he was somewhere else?
More serious concerns center on rapidly advancing facial recognition technology. Combined with cop cameras that could allow law enforcement agencies to develop extensive databases – including video of innocent people – and “troll” for crimes.
What use is appropriate depends on how the video technology is applied. As an official with the American Civil Liberties Union told the Times, “We don’t think the government should be watching over the population en masse.” But, he said, cameras on cops are different: “When it comes to the citizenry watching the government, we like that.”
One answer to privacy worries would be to require the videos be destroyed after a period of time, which might vary according to the case. Videos in capital crimes or police-related deaths should probably be kept indefinitely. Video evidence in lessor crimes could be deleted after a specified time. Video of routine patrols, minor uneventful traffic stops and innocent civilians should be short-lived.
Policies can and should be developed as to what can be public, how long videos can be kept, how they can be used and by whom. And those policies can be adjusted and adapted over time. But as cellphones and GoPros are already proving, the technology – and its uses – is here to stay.
