http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2023610513_spdbodycamerasxml.html

Curious on other's thoughts. I think that using these as a tool to hold officers accountable is a great idea. Cops that follow the law and act appropriately would have proof and could avoid frivolous or fraudulent allegations and litigation by the public. Officers that do not follow the law or abuse their positions would likewise have their actions recorded. How their departments or attorney's offices use the footage is a whole other issue.

I believe that this could level the playing field between the public and the police to some extent, which is a good thing. However, giving the officers the ability to shut off the cameras undermines their usefulness. Making laws or policies about when the officer can and cannot turn off the cam opens up the times when it is appropriate to turn them off to the discretion of the officer, often at times of high stress. It also gives the bad apples the ability to pick and chose the footage they want available.

As a member of the law enforcement community you should be held to a higher standard and not be "above the law". Having proof of officers' actions is a good thing in my opinion. But only to the extent that it accurately and completely depicts those actions.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

That's pretty much perzackly the way that I feel.
This is not a case of spying on officers- they are being paid to perform a very important public service and often called to testify in a "he said/she said" manner.
I have -personally- witnessed public servants lying under oath so it's clear that they are human like the rest of us. Bad guys and good guys apparently twist the facts and manipulate the message in such a way as to shine the best light on their side of the case.

If I was in court facing charges and had to have conflicting testimony with a public servant I'd want to have an objective video.



I am kind of confused... How is a public servant's interaction with the public a privacy issue? I can see a clerk's interactions being private (forms and financial info and the like) but when police or other LE interact and the interaction could be part of a court proceeding? It almost meets my definition of "public's right to know."

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx ... &full=true
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.73.030

I am going to call BS on it being against the law for LE to record audio in interactions with the public. Utter BS.
If they had a facialbook page and posted it without consent, then maybe.... But not a recording of an interaction that may be used to understand / prove a case.
I want AUDIO!!!

We are already running a pilot program with small lapel cameras similar to these at the Special Offenders Unit at the Monroe Correctional Complex. Currently they are only worn by the Shift Sergeants as we are the Quick Response Strike Team (QRST) leaders and as such are one of the first responders to any incident that occurs at the institution. They are actually intended to protect us from frivolous or unfounded law-suits which tend to occur more frequently within our particular demographic of offender. That is to say the offender population with mental issues.

Long before the lapel camera pilot program we have responded to incidents with a video camera for recording the incident and we continue that practice even with the lapel camera program in place. One reason for this is because the lapel camera can often times be unreliable if it gets knocked off during an altercation, broken or if it has not been charged properly. The lapel cameras are quite small and not as durable as one might like.

Currently only our supervisors (above the Sergeant level) can access and download video from the lapel camera. This prevents the QRST leader from being able to alter or omit any video that gets recorded during an incident.

One of the problems with the lapel camera is that during spontaneous use of force, a QRST team leader (or member) does not always have the time or mindfulness to turn the camera on. To be distracted with the operation of the camera could be both dangerous and deadly to an officer in a spontaneous and emergent situation where there are only seconds to act. Many situations go from 0 to 60 very unexpectedly and without pre indicators. In those situations it would be unfortunate to see an officer faulted or possibly blamed for wrong doing because he neglected or did not have the time to activate the lapel camera.

I think that despite what the media may lead you to believe, 99.9% of Law Enforcement officers are truly well intended and continue to have the best interest of the public in mind. Having a lapel camera will not eliminate the other percent of "bad apples" within law enforcement, and the media will continue to sensationalize those occurrences. A career in law enforcement is an inherently stressful job and certainly only a small percentage of the population possess the desire to serve the public in such a capacity. It is very easy to arm chair quarterback situations but I would challenge anyone to walk a mile in our shoes and come out f the experience unchanged.

Just my long winded 2 cents.

I am pretty confident that LE working with the general public is on the receiving end of misrepresented or mistaken accusations more often than legitimate accusations also.




So these do not run all the time... I was under the impression that they ran for the whole shift, and data would be stored for 30 days or so then overwritten.
If they need to be turned on before each encounter they're close to useless for the reasons that you stated. If I was tasked with a LE job and a situation "went south" I'd not take the time to fumble around turning on a tiny device either.



Well said... When I had a bad encounter with LE I was outraged. I was right and they were wrong. I knew it.
When I calmed down enough to have a 2 hour chat with their supervisor he said some things that helped me see things from another perspective. I live out in the relatively peaceful countryside. I was raised in a relatively quiet area... I don't see the seedy side of life. There are no suspicious "deals" being made on or near my property that I am aware of. I do not face a population with a significant portion who distrust and hate me for the clothes I wear.

Basically, things look different to the folks who routinely interact with the problem areas.
It's not like Mayberry and our LE isn't like Barney Fife.
When a person is insulated from the seedier parts of society it's not difficult to form an idealized view of how LE should be doing their jobs and performing "Monday morning quarterbacking" when an interaction goes south and makes the news.

That being said, I still believe that LE should be held to the higher standard that the law calls for.

One of the big ones for me is - I expect LE to reject enforcement of infringements on the 2nd Amendment and other rights guaranteed by the US Constitution. I wish that more of our men and women in blue would support and defend the Rights of the People.

As I was typing that out, I realized that what I really want is for LE to support and defend the rights of the people as I see those rights.
Truth is, it's a complicated subject and most folks are doing the best they can with what they have.



I very much appreciate it.

I'm curious, will the officers be required to say (when talking to witnesses or suspects) this conversation is being recorded?

I think it is great for officer accountability and protection against frivolous suits -- I'd just like to know if any statements I make are being recorded.

The way I read it is that concerns may revolve around the victim's privacy, not the officer's. If someone has called the police because of domestic violence, for example, they may not want to be filmed while describing how their parent or spouse harmed them. Incidents with minors may also get different treatment, but again, not for the officer's sake but for the victim's. That's my interpretation, at least.

I hadn't looked at it from the LE speaking with a victim standpoint... I can see that now. I was only thinking about it in an adversarial type of stop.

It still seems like a crazy RCW that would prevent LE from making an audio recording of each and every conversation that takes place as part of his or her official duties.
I could understand it if someone posted it on the Facialbook - but not as potential evidence in a criminal or even civil investigation.

I would support a switch to Oregon's "one party" rule... Or even making an exception to the RCW for all interactions with a public servant or in a public space. I am not limiting that "public servant" to mean LE. Basically, if the public is paying their salary...

Another thought... How could a recording of a conversation be used against one of the 99.9% good LE? Simply being taken out of context?
I'd like to hear some of the reasons why it's a bad idea to have a lapel cam or continuous audio recording, to be downloaded and used ONLY by supervisors in an investigation or court case...

You all can keep trying to demand more from cops . At some point those cops are gonna say FUCK THIS it ain't worth it. Then who will you all call.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

I dunno...who did we call 200 years ago?...oh...wait...we didnt.... we handled it ourselves... either by digging a hole...or dragging the guy to the sherrif/judge.

Shit! That's impressive Techno.... I didn't realize you were so old.

Damn good idea. Protects everybodies interests. Cant think of a reason not to.

If im in public (extra specially a public servant, as am i) I have no privacy expectations. You are paying me to do a job AND its your dollar that fills my paycheck. I had better be an open book.....unless i have something to hide

As far as recording a conversation, the 2 party rule has some exceptions. "IF" the officer announces that the conversation is being recorded, and the subject acknowledges and says "I do not consent to being recorded", but continues to talk, knowing the recording is being made, it is considered implied consent to record. Ask how I know this, 29 years of experience.

Implied consent. Gotta love it.

The law only comes into play when a conversation is considered private. Public conversations are by definition not private. Also, public servants, ARE the public, and nothing they do on the clock is considered private (sans bathroom breaks and the like, where an expectation of privacy would exist). Even personal cellphone records of an officer aren't private if the cellphone is used for public business..

I agree with you 100%. The mass media knows that feel good stories about people doing their jobs right aren't the ones that sell. I'm sure I will incur the wrath of many by saying that I work for the state and have for 18 years. The first 16 were at DSHS and the last two have been with the Attorney General's Office. The small percentage of people caring for the elderly or developmentally disabled that were doing a shitty job got about 99% of the press. Same thing for state workers. Most of the people I've worked with have been damn hard workers. Often putting in well over 40 hours a week while being overtime exempt. Of course there are those that don't do shit except take up space and collect a paycheck but they were the exception, not the rule.

I could never deal with the dregs of society on a daily basis like LE. Just like I could never be a child protective services worker or counselor. Being involved with those that have no respect for the law, or listening about other people's fucked up lives day in and day out would drive me batshit crazy.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Ghostbusters....duh