Memory versus Body Cam Video
By Albert B. Kelly
These days, most everybody agrees that the use of body-worn cameras by police is a good thing. Without these body cams, we might not be privy to a whole host of situations whether it involves excessive use of force by police or it shows police restraint and professionalism and contrary to what some might think it does show both. To my way of thinking, the presence of body worn cameras by police has brought a level of transparency and accountability that’s been absolutely necessary.
In the last few months, lawmakers in New Jersey required all police departments to equip their officers with body cameras and in addition, also provided the resources to help departments achieve compliance. The Attorney General’s Office drilled down further and provided policies and guidance with regard to the use of these cameras as well as the video produced by these devices.
I am proud to say that the City of Bridgeton has been somewhat ahead of that curve whether it involved equipping police vehicles with video capabilities as far back as 2009 or purchasing and equipping officers with body worn cameras beginning in 2016. This effort to be proactive was initiated within the department by our current chief and when the mandate came down that all police were now required to utilize body worn cameras, we were already there.
That said, one part of the new guidance coming out of the Attorney General’s Office that is concerning involves what police cannot do as part of their job; namely review the video from their body worn camera “prior to creating any required initial reports, statements, and interviews regarding the recorded event”. This has the feel of a “gotcha” moment.
I say that because we all know how unreliable eyewitness memories and testimony can be and this includes police officers. Line up ten people to any one event or incident and you’ll likely get ten vastly different accounts of what occurred, who was present, what they looked like, along with what was said and done. And that’s in relatively calm moments. Try that out in the heat of a moment, with dozens of people, when all hell is breaking loose, and you’ve basically got a nice story that may or may not be what actually occurred.
My point is that when it comes to creating a record of what occurred which is the one main purposes of a police report, why should officers be prohibited from checking or refreshing their recollections of what occurred in a given incident with the video from their body worn cameras? I would think that what we’re after is as much accuracy as possible and it would follow that police officers should be able to utilize this tool as they would any other in order to achieve the greatest degree of accuracy.
Yet, they’re prohibited from using this tool and as I suggested previously, it has much the same feel as when police advise suspects that anything they say may be used against them in a court of law. Even if they get to do a second report, what an officer writes or doesn’t write in his or her initial report may be used against them, whether in a court of law or court of public opinion, as those initial reports get picked apart against the body cam video in an effort to impeach credibility.
We clamor for transparency and accuracy and so we should, especially when it comes to policing and the street. In speaking with officers locally, they point me to the utter chaos that took place recently in the mass shooting that occurred at a house party in Fairfield Township with hundreds of people running for cover trying to get away from the shooter. In doing what we want and need them to do in the aftermath of such an incident, I don’t want them to guess or suppose or speculate if they don’t have to.
I would think we would want as much accuracy as possible as quickly as possible and if viewing the video from body worn cameras will allow officers to be more certain of the details and therefore more effective at their jobs, then this makes all the sense in the world to me and should be something we strive for on every call. With that in mind, I hope those crafting the guidance will reconsider what seems like an unnecessary hurdle to accurate police work.