BCCO PCT #4 PowerPoint

1. BODY CAMERAS for Law Enforcement - TCOLE# AND UNIT THREE BCCO PCT #4 PowerPoint BCCO PCT #4 PowerPoint

2. Learning Objectives Learning Objective 3.0: Participant will learn to instinctively activate and use their Body Worn Camera (BWC) to reduce civil liability, exonerate themselves against false claims and identify perpetrators. Learning Objective 3.1: Participant will learn the legal perspective (Rights) on both law enforcement and civilian use of body worn cameras. Learning Objective 3.2: Participant will learn key factual information learned from study.

3. Learning Objectives – Cont’d: Learning Objective 3.3 : Participant will learn and apply Bexar County Constables Office Policy & Procedure concerning BWC Learning Objective 3.4 : Participant will clearly understand citizen’s right to video tape law enforcement officers in performance of their duties. Learning Objective 3.5 : Participant will understand citizen restrictions as it pertains to officer safety.

4. 3.0 USE OF BODY CAMERAS Can save you and your agency from: A. a civil lawsuit, B. false claim (Lie). C. Identify person(s) that injured you.

5. NIKE“JUST DO IT” Immediately upon being dispatched. Upon any citizen contact Upon observing an crime TURN ON Your BWC

6. 3.0.1 USE OF BODY CAMERAS A. Many officers are hesitantto alter their tactics. B. Despite statistical evidence that 2015 will most likely be one of the safest years for officers in U.S. history, police frequently feel attacked.

7. 3.0.2 USE OF BODY CAMERAS Citizens are now armed with pervasivedevicesthat can capture and publish officer actions without giving viewers the benefit of full context. They are also better informed of their rights and are aware of police procedures, knowledge that can heighten confrontation

8. 3.1 CASE LAW on VIDEO TAPING A. Sharpe vs Baltimore B. Glik vs Cunniffe C. Gericke vs. Begin

9. 3.1.1 SHARPE Vs. BALTIMORE PDCase 1:11-cv-02888-BEL Document 24 Filed 01/10/12 A. On May 15, 2010, while in the Clubhouse at the Pimlico Race Course, Plaintiff Christopher Sharp observed Baltimore City Police Department (“BPD”) officers forcibly arresting his friend. 1 1 The United States assumes the facts presented in the Plaintiff’s Complaint are true for the purposes of this Statement of Interest. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, ---, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009). 1. Although not included in the Complaint, Defendants’ to dismiss complaint or for

10. 3.1.1 SHARPE Vs. BALTIMORE PDCase 1:11-cv-02888-BEL Document 24 Filed 01/10/12 for Summary Judgment indicates that Mr. Sharp’s friend was arrested for “striking a citizen in the presence of a police officer, resisting arrest, [and] assault second degree-law enforcement.” See Def. Motion to Dismiss Complaint or for Summary Judgment at 2 & n.1, ECF. No. 20. Compl. at 9, ECF. No. 2. 2. Mr. Sharp used his cell phone camera to video and audio record the officers’ conduct. Id 3.. Several officers, in succession, approached Mr. Sharp and ordered him to surrender his

11. 3.1.1 SHARPE Vs. BALTIMORE PD Case 1:11-cv-02888-BEL Document 24 Filed 01/10/12 3.-Cont’d: phone. Id. at 10. After twice refusing to comply with officers’ demands, Mr. Sharp surrendered his phone to an officer who indicated that he needed to review and possibly copy Mr. Sharp’s recording as evidence. Id. 4. This officer left the Clubhouse with Mr. Sharp’s phone. Id. at 11 5. When the officer returned with Mr. Sharp’s cell phone, he ordered Mr. Sharp to leave the premises. Id. As Mr. Sharp left the Clubhouse, he discovered that officers had deleted all of the recordings on his cell phone, including the

12. 3.1.1 SHARPE Vs. BALTIMORE PD Case 1:11-cv-02888-BEL Document 24 Filed 01/10/12 5. – Cont’d: phone. Id. at 10. After twice refusing to comply with officers’ demands, Mr. Sharp surrendered his phone to an officer who indicated that he needed to review and possibly copy Mr. Sharp’s recording as evidence. Id. 6. This officer left the Clubhouse with Mr. Sharp’s phone. Id. at 11 7. When the officer returned with Mr. Sharp’s cell phone, he ordered Mr. Sharp to leave the premises. Id. As Mr. Sharp left the Clubhouse, he discovered that officers had deleted all of the recordings on his cell phone, including the

13. SHARPE Vs. BALTIMORE PD Case 1:11-cv-02888-BEL Document 24 Filed 01/10/12 7. – Cont’d: two recordings of his friend’s arrest and at least twenty personal videos. Id. at 12. The personal videos included recordings of his young son at sports events and parties and other videos of great sentimental value. Id. 8. Mr. Sharp’s cell phone had also been reset so that it only permitted emergency calls. Id. 9. BPD initiated a roll call training on August 17, 2011, that informed BPD officers that “[i]t is lawful for a person to videotape activities by a law enforcement officer in a public place and in the course of a law enforcement officer’s regular duty.”

14. 3.1.2 Glik vs Cunniffe B. BOSTON -- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled unanimously late Friday that Simon Glik had a right to videotape police in action on Boston Common. 1. Mr. Glik sued three police officers and the City of Boston for violating his civil rights after police arrested him and charged him with illegal wiretapping, aiding the escape of a prisoner, and disturbing the peace--all for merely holding up his cell phone and openly recording Boston police officers who were punching another man on Boston Common in October 2007.

15. Glik vs Cunniffe – Cont’d: 2. As a defense, the argued the law was not clear, but the Court decisively rejected their claim of immunity from being sued.

16. 3.1.3 Gericke Vs. Begin C. The town of Weare, New Hampshire, settled a lawsuit last week for $57,500 with a woman arrested for videotaping a police officer, adding to the growing list of settlements stemming from police officers’ restriction of video and audio recordings in public places. 1. In Gericke vs. Begin, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston (1st Cir.) upheld a lower court opinion that Carla Gericke was within her First Amendment rights to record a police officer at a traffic stop.

17. 3.1.3 Gericke Vs. Begin – Cont’d: 2. Following that opinion, instead of choosing to continue with the trial, Weare settled the case with Gericke. 3. Mickey Osterreicher, general counsel for the National Press Photographers Association, said most of the cases in which citizens sue police for unlawfully arresting them or confiscating their cameras reach a settlement, although this settlement was low in comparison to others he has noticed.

18. KEEP HONEST COPS HONEST

19. DEFINE & PROCESS Define 3.0: Explain the three cases on public’s right to video law enforcement. Process: 19

20. 3.2.0 First of it’s kind Body Worn Camera Study A. The use of force and police behavior continues to be a prominent topic in the media. B. Several recent high-profile incidents involving police use of deadly force have resulted in increased scrutiny of officer behavior and police-community relations by the media, policy-makers

21. 3.2.0 First of it’s kind Body Worn Camera Study – Cont’d: civil rights groups, and academics, leading to nationwide interest in police-worn body cameras to increase transparency and accountability. C. While the use of body-worn cameras on police to address these issues has been endorsed by the media, government, social activists,

22. 3.2.1 First of it’s kind Body Worn Camera Study – Cont’d: policy makers alike, there is scant scientific evidence to support or refute the perceived benefits or drawbacks. D. A first-of-its-kind study by researchers from Florida Atlantic University and collaborators, measured law enforcement leadership, attitude

23. 3.2.1 First of it’s kind Body Worn Camera Study – Cont’d: toward police wearing body cameras, and published results of their study in the current issue of the American Journal of Criminal Justice.

24. 3.2.2 Key findings from the study reveal that: 1. Fifty percent support the use of body-worn cameras in their agencies. 2. Only 21 percent agree or strongly agree that body-worn cameras would affect officer behavior while on duty; 3. more than 58 percent were

25. 3.2.2 Key findings from the study reveal that: - Cont’d: 4. One-third believe body-worn cameras would improve police officer behavior during interactions with citizens; 5. 50 percent are neutral 6. Nearly 50 percent agree that body-worn cameras will impact

26. 3.2.2 Key findings from the study reveal that: - Cont’d: officers’ decision to use force in encounters with citizens 7. Nearly 50 percent believe that body-worn cameras will improve citizen behavior during interactions with police. 8. Almost 60 percent agree or

27. 3.2.2 Key findings from the study reveal that: - Cont’d: agree that the media will use data from body cameras to embarrass or persecute police 9. More than 60 percent agree or strongly agree that pressure to implement body-worn cameras comes from the media.

28. 3.2.2 Key findings from the study reveal that: - Cont’d: 10. Two-thirds agree or strongly agree that use of body-worn cameras is supported by the public because society does not trust police. 11. Fifty percent agree or strongly agree that body-worn cameras will result in an increase in guilty pleas from people charged with crimes.

29. 3.2.2 Key findings from the study reveal that: - Cont’d: 12. Nearly 63 percent do not believe that body-worn cameras are an invasion of a police officer’s privacy, but are evenly split on whether they are an invasion of citizens’ privacy. 13. Almost half agree or strongly agree that body-worn cameras could be used by supervisors to ‘fish’ for evidence used to discipline officers

30. 3.2.2 Key findings from the study reveal that: - Cont’d: 14. Fifty percent believe that the maintenance and upkeep of body cameras will take time away from normal duties. 15.“While the general public might be enthusiastic about the potential benefits of police body-worn cameras, until this study, it was unknown how leadership in law enforcement felt….

31. 3.2.2 Key findings from the study reveal that: - Cont’d: about these cameras,” “We found the lack of empirical research on this subject to be very intriguing, and that’s what motivated us to pursue this important study.” 16. The study was conducted in Sunshine County, a large southern county with 27 local law enforcement agencies, a number of state & federal

32. 3.2.2 Key findings from the study reveal that: - Cont’d: enforcement agencies, and a population of approximately 1.3 million. 17. Participants were in leadership positions such as chief, deputy, sheriff, major, colonel, and captain. 18. Twenty-nine items were used to measure their perceptions,

33. 3.2.2 Key findings from the study reveal that: - Cont’d: a. questions were divided into eight perceptual domains — officer behavior, officer effectiveness, evidentiary impact, privacy, safety, use of force, impact on citizens, and public/media interest. b. Most of the departments/agencies that participated in the study were not currently using cameras

34. 3.2.2 Key findings from the study reveal that: - Cont’d: however, multiple departments / agencies were either planning on or considering using them. E. A survey in 2013 by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) of 500 law enforcement agencies throughout the United States; of

35. 3.2.2 Key findings from the study reveal that: - Cont’d: the 254 departments that responded to the survey, showed that only 25 percent reported that they used body-worn cameras at that time. F. Those who caution against the use of these cameras are concerned with a number of privacy issues for both police officers and citizens.

36. 3.2.15 Key findings from the study reveal that: - Cont’d: G. Open records laws in many jurisdictions such as Florida, further compound this issue. • Questionsstill persist as to who will have access to the video footage captured by the cameras and 2. the policies and guidelines related to public release of videos

37. 3.2.2 Key findings from the study reveal that: - Cont’d: H. As of September 1st, 2015 11 states (Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, and Vermont), enacted laws related to body-worn cameras, several of which directly address public disclosure and privacy issues.

38. 3.2.2 Key findings from the study reveal that: - Cont’d: I. “The perceptions of law enforcement leadership are vital because it could either make the possible transition to body-worn cameras less disruptive or situate departments/agencies in climates that are less than favorable for something that may be inevitable.

39. 3.2.3 RESEARCHERS - SOURCE John Ortiz Smykla, Ph.D., lead author, director and professor in FAU’s School of Criminology and Criminal Justice within FAU’s College for Design and Social Inquiry; Vaughn J. Crichlow, Ph.D., assistant professor in FAU’s School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Matthew S. Crow, Ph.D., Department of Criminal Justice, University of West Florida, and Jamie A. Snyder, Ph.D., Department of Criminal Justice, University of West Florida.

40. DEFINE & PROCESS Define 3.2: Explain the key findings discussed from BWC Study Process: 40

41. NIKE“JUST DO IT” • Immediately upon being dispatched. • Upon any citizen contact • Upon observing an crime TURN ON Your BWC

42. 3.3.0 BODY WORN CAMERA Policy #010 Bexar County Constable Office PCT #4 Policy & Procedure

43. 3.3.1 Bexar County Constable Office PCT #4 Policy & Procedure 010 BODY WORN CAMERAS (BWC) I. PURPOSE: This policy is intended to provide Deputy Constable(s) with instructions on when and how to use body-worn cameras (BWCs) so that Deputy Constable(s) may reliably record all their contacts with the public in accordance with the law.

44. 3.3.2 BODY WORN CAMERAS (BWC) 010 Policy & Procedure – Cont’d: II. POLICY: A.It is the policy of this agency that Deputy Constable(s) shall activate his/her BWC upon any/all public contact and/or prior to exiting patrol vehicleand any time BWC use is appropriate to the proper performance of his or her official duties, where the recordings are consistent with this policy and law.

45. 3.3.3 BODY WORN CAMERAS (BWC) 010 Policy & Procedure – Cont’d: B. This policy does not govern the use of surreptitious recording devices used in undercover operations. III.PROCEDURES A. Administration, This agency has adopted the use of the BWC to accomplish several objectives

46. 3.3.3 BODY WORN CAMERAS (BWC) 010 Policy & Procedure – Cont’d: B. The primary objectives are as follows: • BWCs allow for accurate documentation of police-public contacts, arrests, and critical incidents

47. 3.3.3 BODY WORN CAMERAS (BWC) 010 Policy & Procedure – Cont’d: 2. They also serve to enhance the accuracy of Deputy Constable reports and testimony in court. C. Audio and video recordings also enhance this agency’s ability to review probable cause for arrest, Deputy Constable(s

48. 3.3.3 BODY WORN CAMERAS (BWC) 010 Policy & Procedure – Cont’d: C. – Cont’d: and suspect interaction, and evidence for investigative and prosecutorial purposes and to provide additional information for Deputy Constable(s) evaluation and training.

49. 3.3.3 BODY WORN CAMERAS (BWC) 010 Policy & Procedure – Cont’d: D. The BWC may also be useful in documenting crime and accident scenes or other events that include the confiscation and documentation of evidence or contraband.

50. 3.3.3 BODY WORN CAMERAS (BWC) 010 Policy & Procedure – Cont’d: E.When and How to Use the BWC 1.Deputy Constable(s) shall activate the BWC to record all contacts with citizens in the performance of official duties.