Submitted by Chief Jim Hurley
Fernandina Beach Police Department
January 3, 2017 10:00 a.m.
Beginning in January 2017 the Fernandina Beach Police Department will begin deploying body cameras to supplement the in-car cameras that have been utilized by officers for more than a decade. For reasons of consistency, performance, and budget, our officers will be outfitted in phases with the Watchguard Vista wireless body camera. The first group of seven officers are scheduled to receive the new “body cam” by the middle of the month.
Officers were selected because they are already assigned to the latest version of the Watchguard in-car camera, which is designed to be compatible with the new Vista wireless body camera product. As older cameras are replaced with the Watchguard 4-RE in-car camera system, and older vehicles are retired or moved from patrol operations, another group of body cameras will be introduced, five in July 2017, and then more the following budget year.
Several issues have been considered in advance of this deployment, such as policy implementation, officer safety and training, video storage and retrievability, and a host of concerns related to public records requests and other mandates. This modern update in technology allows the accumulated video to be automatically uploaded wirelessly to a dedicated server on our IT network. To be sure, national debates regarding police accountability and public perception of police-community interactions has also driven this purchase decision. Equally important, from our perspective, is the proliferation of abbreviated and edited cell phone video of police-involved incidents. These incendiary nuggets often go viral in moments and are designed to incite mayhem in the short term and distrust in the long term.
By moving into this new era of body-worn camera technology, we are hoping to improve both police accountability and better behavior by those citizens being contacted. As we embark on this new project it is important to caution about misconceptions and new concerns. We are not anticipating or advocating for a “Robocop” scenario. Technology will never replace the complexities of human interaction, especially when emotions are high and violence is possible or likely.
Our supervisors will now have additional evidence to review as they work to hold officers accountable for their words and actions during citizen contacts. These new video recordings will also be available to assist with internal complaints and I believe they will be most valuable in clearing officers of any wrongdoing. Some incidents are simply misunderstood by community stakeholders and additional video may immediately help dispel rumors and build trust.
On the other hand, time after time we learn that “eyewitness” testimony has been deliberately fabricated in order to lay blame on the officer or misdirect public opinion in the early stages of an investigation of “viral” incidents. It is apparent that many people have become extremely comfortable with dishonesty if it serves their agenda. We need to fight that trend and hold citizens accountable once it is determined that they have tried to manufacture damaging evidence. Meaningful, personal relationships and thorough, competent investigations are the best way to build trust in the community. The fact that our officers are very willing to wear body cameras is also a meaningful step toward improving community trust, as some departments actively resist having to wear body cams.
Another intended consequence of wearing body cameras should be that fewer criminals will take the risk of going to trial when they realize that their negative behavior has been captured on video as compelling physical evidence. Audio and video is largely indisputable and will result in more guilty pleas, in much the same way that in-car cameras have impacted the resolution of DUI cases. This is true because body-worn cameras can allow others to understand what the officer was experiencing by letting them see and hear the context and behavior of both the officer and the citizen being contacted. Cameras can record details and exact language that officers may not be able to remember or articulate, such as facial expressions, non-verbal messages sent with body language, tone and volume of voice.
By capturing citizen contacts on video we will create a luxury not afforded the officer in the moment, especially when quick movements are being made. For example, the video can be viewed and stopped numerous times to confirm if the suspect was holding or reaching for something and what that item was or may have been. Unfortunately, many people believe that a camera shows exactly what the officer saw and perceived at the time of an encounter. Common sense, however, reminds us that the camera records a series of still images that are captured only within the angle of the lens. A human being can’t see everything, especially under stress when the brain tends to focus on one point at a time and then interprets that information.
It is also important to understand that the angle of the camera, which follows the motion of the body, may provide a different perspective than the officer’s eyes, which are moving all the time. In other words, just because the camera catches an image does not mean that the police officer saw the same thing during the citizen contact. Myriad issues exist that must be taken into account, such as the effect of bright or low light on the human eye versus the camera lens.
More to follow….