body cams – C-VILLE Weekly

I spy: Changes in local police surveillance

When photos of Danville police popping the hoods of their patrol cars spread on social media last month, so did speculation that it was being done to shield dash cams from filming officers’ interactions with civilians. While that city’s department explained that their cars have had a continual issue with overheating and it has vowed to stop the hood popping, a look at hyper-local police camera usage shows that surveillance is more than meets the eye.

Every uniformed officer and security guard in the University of Virginia Police Department has worn a body camera since July 2015.

“When we started putting these out, there was no pushback,” says Officer Ben Rexrode, the department’s crime prevention coordinator. “The cameras can work both ways because they hold officers accountable, but they also protect us if something is being alleged.”

Highly criticized police shootings, such as the killing of unarmed 18-year-old Michael Brown by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, have pressured law enforcement agencies all over the nation to adopt this new body-worn technology. But Rexrode says that wasn’t what encouraged his department to try it out.

“Why wouldn’t we?” he says. “It’s a good thing to have.”

Cameras are clipped on an officer’s uniform over his heart. They stay on standby mode until a button in the unit’s center is double clicked. Then, the camera begins recording with audio and recalls the previous 30 seconds of soundless film.

It is the UVA Police Department’s policy that officers use the cameras during any enforcement action, such as a traffic stop, disturbance or suspicious incident, Rexrode says. Every recording is stored for 90 days and if it is being used in an investigation or court case, it will be saved longer.

While researching different camera models, drafting a policy and training officers to use the cameras takes a good deal of time, Rexrode says the toughest part for most departments is the financial commitment.

For 150 cameras and on-site training, UVA paid $363,000. A five-year contract for camera maintenance, licenses and storage costs an extra $150,000 per year.

At the Charlottesville Police Department, Lieutenant Tom McKean says officers are currently testing 40 body cameras before a full deployment, though that date is not set.

The transition to body cameras began under former Police Chief Timothy Longo, and the first cameras were deployed at the beginning of this year.

And CPD’s Lieutenant Steve Upman says there are no dashboard cameras currently in operation—their old system is no longer supported, and they are starting to spec out new systems.

Over at the Albemarle County Police Department, each patrol car is equipped with a dash cam that is always rolling, according to spokesperson Madeline Curott. At any time, officers can choose to record with audio, and both video and audio will automatically record when an officer activates the car’s lights and sirens or the car hits 85 mph.

The video is archived and entered into evidence if it’s part of an investigation. If not, it’s thrown out after 60 days. Video is reviewed quarterly and periodically by the department’s Office of Professional standards and patrol shift supervisors.

While those at the ACPD have been working on implementing body cameras for well over a year, Curott also notes the expense of the equipment and says they’re working on a policy pertaining to juveniles, schools and privacy issues. Next, patrol officers will start training on them.

But, from experience, Rexrode notes that the training can often take longer than one would expect, and a “grace period,” he says, is necessary for police to get used to wearing them.

“We’re not robots,” he says.

“When we started putting these out, there was no pushback,” says Officer Ben Rexrode, the UVA Police Department’s crime prevention coordinator. “The cameras can work both ways because they hold officers accountable, but they also protect us if something is being alleged.”

Candid cameras: Albemarle police hear citizen concerns on body cams

In January, C-VILLE reported that body cams were “imminent” for Charlottesville police. Nine months later, city cops still are not sporting the cameras and the University Police Department became the first local law enforcement agency to outfit its officers. The Albemarle County Police Department is moving toward the cameras as well, and approximately 50 people attended a citizen forum September 15.

“I think the community was a bit startled at how complex this issue is,” says Albemarle’s chief, Colonel Steve Sellers. His department piloted the cameras last winter, and is working to get the policy right. “Some departments rushed into it,” he says. “They’re regretting it now.”

A key consideration is when the cameras get activated. Privacy of victims is a big concern, as is footage shot in a home that is not a part of a criminal investigation or that includes a child.

Commonwealth’s Attorney Denise Lunsford stressed the importance of policy so “we all know what the policy is and when an officer is supposed to activate them and when they’re supposed to turn them off.”

Some wondered about privacy under the Freedom of Information Act and whether their neighbors can request video from the night the police showed up at their door.

“These videos are a public record,” says John Blair with the county attorney’s office. But the average citizen’s ability to access them could be limited under the criminal investigative files exemption, he says.

Some attending wanted to know if they could have a private conversation with an officer without being recorded. Richard Lloyd, Republican candidate for the Albemarle Board of Supervisors, said, “If you want to have a private conversation with an officer, you should be able to do that.”

Albemarle resident Fred Scott wanted to know if there was a problem in the community with police use of force or was Albemarle doing it “because everyone is doing it?”

Other police departments have discovered that everyone behaves better when they know they’re being recorded, and citizen complaints about officer misconduct and incidents of police use of force both dropped dramatically, said Lieutenant Mike Wagner.

For example, the Rialto Police Department in California conducted a one-year study after its cops started wearing the cameras, and found that citizen complaints of officer misconduct fell by 87.5 percent, while uses of force by officers fell by 59 percent.

In the current draft policy, an officer would have to account for why the camera was turned off, said Sellers. He also said that for every dollar spent on body cameras, “we can save the county $4 in litigation.”

Sellers sought buy-in from his officers. “Overwhelmingly the vast majority wants them,” he said. He compares the cameras to equipment like protective vests that no one relishes wearing on a 90-degree day. “Officers really do want to do the right thing,” he said. “And these provide them some protection” from unwarranted complaints.

The cameras themselves are not the big ticket expenditure, it’s the storage, said Sellers. He’s anticipating spending around $45,000 for the body cams, while the storage of the video will be about $66,000 a year. He said he’ll also need a person to be in charge of the data and will include that in his budget request to the Board of Supervisors this fall.

As beneficial as the technology can be, Sellers warned about what it couldn’t do: “Body cams don’t measure the hair on the back of a police officer’s neck when he hears someone coming up behind him. It doesn’t tell the whole story. It helps tell the story, but it doesn’t tell the whole thing.”