Let Body Camera Experiment Proceed
The great body camera experiment of 2015 is underway at the Riverside County Sheriff's Jurupa Valley station. And if the experience of the first week is any indication, the voluntary program is yielding some fascinating and unexpected results.
Deputies are a bit more conscientious of how they interact with the public, for one. The sheriff's deputy union's complaints about the pilot program are looking more and more like empty bluster, for another.
In the program's first four days, 105 deputies volunteered to wear one of the 160 cameras on offer. They're obliged to follow a short but evolving Standard Operating Procedure that lays out how and when the cameras should be used, and what to do with the footage deputies collect at the end of their shifts.
In the first week, the Jurupa deputies have already figured out they need to be able to adjust their cameras to conform to their safety stances. And because the cameras aren't on all the time, they're are getting a feel for when best to switch the cameras on.
Overshadowing the experiment is the Riverside Sheriffs' Association's opposition. In January, the deputy's union sued the department and county officials, alleging that the voluntary program is a change in terms of employment.
Initially, the RSA's lawsuit alleged that the department was coercing its members into participating. But the union cannot make a credible, prima facie case that deputies are being “voluntold” to wear the cameras. Its case is further undermined by its own members' enthusiasm for the technology. So, instead, the union is left with insinuation and bluster.
But assume for the moment that the RSA has a point. Why not establish some ground rules that everyone can be happy with, and then test them out? Why can't everyone just get along?
Because labor relations aren't a ‘70s-era encounter group exercise, that's why. The whole point of a pilot program is to figure out what works and what doesn't work through trial and error, and then draw policy conclusions suited to both the department's needs and the needs of the public. You don't draw conclusions first, then test.
Look beyond the union's lamentations and what you find is a good, old-fashioned power play. At the core of the union's “concerns” is how the body camera videos may or may not be used against its members. Just as a video could be used to exonerate a deputy of misconduct, couldn't it also be used to punish a deputy for misconduct? Obviously. Well, the union doesn't like that.
And just as deputies may use videos as an aid in writing their routine reports, shouldn't they have a chance to review footage after a shooting or other critical incident? That isn't so obvious. The union doesn't like that, either.
Riverside County has a well-established procedure investigating officer-involved shootings. First, the deputy must provide his supervisor with a “safety statement” at the time of the incident, detailing what he perceived at the time and why he took a particular course of action.
Later, the deputy gives a more detailed formal statement, usually in a face-to-face interview, but sometimes in written form. What a human being perceives in a moment of conflict is often quite different from what the camera sees.
When the Sheriff's Department first allowed deputies to use their own cameras a few years ago, top brass didn't think through the implications of letting line officers review videos before giving their formal statements. Investigators quickly discovered that deputies would shape their statements based on what they saw on video, rather than their own memories or perceptions at the time.
If deputies are shaping their statements based on knowledge obtained after the fact, they may appear coached. Their credibility is automatically suspect. Law enforcement's credibility with the public – already at a low-ebb – would be even further diminished. We'll have a better idea in about six months of how body-worn cameras may work on a department-wide basis. Sheriff Stan Sniff says he wants to make sure the department is “on sure footing” before the department invests in 3,000 cameras and the massive storage capacity that goes along with it.
At that point, all of the stakeholders – including the four unions representing deputies, sergeants, command staff and civilian employees, as well as community members – will have their say. Whatever the sheriff decides to do, it's the public interest, and not the union interest, that should prevail.
This piece originally appeared in Riverside Press Enterprise
This piece originally appeared in Riverside Press Enterprise