Our View

Delaware officials, police authorities and community groups have all expressed a growing interest in body cameras for law enforcement officers. The idea is that a digital camera worn by an officer would provide accountability (from one viewpoint) or protective documentation (from another) of the officer’s actions.

The discussion comes out of the Ferguson, Missouri, incident where a police officer shot and killed Michael Brown. Many people say that had the police officer been wearing a body camera, the dispute over what happened would have been settled quickly. Or, better yet, it never would have happened.

The arguments for cameras are strong. They potentially could prevent police misconduct or provide backup for an officer’s version of what happened.

However, body cameras are not a cure-all.

First, both sides in disputes between police and citizens have claimed the body cameras would back up their arguments. Common sense tells us that in an incident involving force, for instance, both sides cannot be right. These cameras have limited range. The camera will not capture all of the important evidence. Since viewpoints can actually limit what we see, a scrambled video could as likely add to the dispute as well as settle it.

Second, as the journalist Radley Balko, author of “The Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America’s Police Forces,” has pointed out, body cameras will be little good if the proper policies do not come along with them. In jurisdictions where the cameras are in use, the police have often refused to release the video, saying it is part of an “investigation.” The police are unlikely to get away with that tactic in a case as notorious as the one coming out of Ferguson. However, most cases do not get much publicity and are barely noticed by the public.

In addition, cameras have a way of malfunctioning. For example, body cameras filmed two shootings in San Diego, but the cameras somehow failed to work. A police officer in New Orleans shot a man in the head while wearing a body camera. However, that camera also malfunctioned. Even taking the most optimistic view of our criminal justice system as possible, accidents do happen, and video footage does disappear.

Finally, what about the camera when the officer is not involved in a confrontation? Should it run all through the officer’s day? What if the officer forgets to turn it on or off? Also, police only spend about 20 percent of their time with potentially explosive incidents. Most of their time is spent performing what, in effect, is social work – handling someone who drank too much, calming people involved in a dispute or talking with and taking information from victims of crime. Should the camera be operating while the victim is being interviewed?

These are not arguments against body cameras. They are merely indications that the question of body cameras is not as simple as it seems.