The Grand Forks Police Department is on track to equip every officer with a body-worn camera by this fall, just as the shooting in Ferguson, Mo., that left an unarmed, black teen dead is sparking calls across the nation for more police surveillance.

Lt. Dwight Love said officers have been using the cameras since February on a trial basis, and that the department just purchased 52 Vievu cameras, each costing about $830, using federal grant money. Officers will not begin using the cameras regularly until the department creates a policy for their use and officers go through training this fall, he said.

listen live watch live

Public discourse surrounding body cameras erupted online following the deadly shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown, the circumstances of which are still murky, with police claiming Brown was shot during a tussle over the officer’s gun and with witnesses insisting Brown’s hands were raised in compliance.

An online petition at WhiteHouse.gov calling on the federal government to require all police officers to wear a body camera racked up signatures in the days following the shooting. As of Friday evening, the petition had garnered nearly 150,000 signatures, which is 50,000 more than is required for an official administration response.

Love said he has seen the push for body-worn cameras in police departments mounting in the last year or so.

“I think in five years, everyone will have one anyway,” he said.

Minimal tension

Love said that though tensions are not as high between police and people in Grand Forks - the department received nine complaints from citizens in 2013, seven in 2012 and 10 in 2011 - the body-worn cameras will help the public and police to stay on their “best behavior.”

“I think the public in general knows if they’re being videotaped, they tend to be on their best behavior, and the police are no different than anybody else,” he said in an interview earlier this year.

But police misconduct is not unheard of.

Former Grand Forks police officer David O’Toole was fired in 2009 after he was convicted in state district court of reckless endangerment for leaving a man pulled over in a traffic stop to stand outside in subzero temperatures. The man, who had not been wearing a coat, hat or gloves, developed frostbite on his ears.

Studies

Though research on body-worn cameras is lacking, several studies have documented substantial decreases in public complaints against police, according to a report from the U.S. Office of Justice Programs. However it is unclear whether that is due to better-behaved police, a better-behaved public, a combination of the two or other factors.

Michael Meyer, a criminal justice professor at UND, said the cameras will also provide a “fuller record” of interactions between the police and the public.

“Part of the whole issue is you have this incredibly rapid increase and presence of cell phones and the ability to record incidents at any time. The police are left with less than sufficient support,” he said. “The body cameras help to counter that.”

This plays a key role in the courtroom.

Meyer also said the Police Department would have to enforce its policy and not leave camera usage to officers’ discretion.

“If they make the individual decision about when to start and when to stop (recording), then the questions is, ‘What wasn’t there?’” he said.

Love said that the department is in the process of drafting a policy and is considering such questions as when officers will be required to record and how long video footage will be stored.

Meyer said he does not see body-worn cameras becoming a nationally required part of the police uniform anytime soon.

“But that doesn’t mean it won’t become widespread in usage,” he said.