Police Body-Worn Cameras: We See What You See, But Is it Helping?

By Elenice DeSouza Oliveira and Reginia Judge

 

ABSTRACT

Body-worn cameras (BWCs) are valued as useful recourses. They serve to increase police transparency and accountability, provide evidence of police-citizen interactions, and assist in police officer training. Conversely, BWC use creates grave concerns regarding privacy rights, mandatory use by police officers, and the availability of video footage to the public. It becomes clear that they are not the entire solution to the need for greater police surveillance, but are only one viable factor.

Keywords: Body-worn cameras, police technology, video footage, police-citizen interactions, transparency, privacy, surveillance


  1. INTRODUCTION

Police departments across the nation take full advantage of modern technology. From pole cameras to dashcams, law enforcement continues to utilize innovations that help them implement new surveillance strategies. One of the most promising instruments in modern policing is the body-worn camera (BWC). BWC programs have grown exponentially. “By the middle of 2016, half of the seventy largest cities in the United States had begun using or committed to using them.”[1] New demands for the use of BWCs arose after the increase in incidents involving police brutalities like those occurring in Ferguson, Missouri in 2014, and Baltimore, Maryland in 2015. These acts of excessive force and others resulted in the rapid deployment of BWCs by patrol officers in many departments.[2]

Law enforcement professionals and the general public look favorably upon BWCs. They believe that the video produced will tell the entire story and eliminate all uncertainties. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that video footage from a dashcam was the determining factor in a case involving contradictory statements by officers and civilians.[3] It is foreseeable that a similar ruling will be made in favor of BWC videotape. Critics, however, question their legitimacy when they can be deactivated at an officer’s discretion or when access to controversial footage is denied. Issues surrounding privacy rights also call into question their effectiveness. The use of BWCs is a double-edged sword. They produce significant benefits while simultaneously posing severe detriments.[4] This paper examines both the positive and negative characteristics of police BWC use.

  1. POSITIVE ASPECTS OF BODY-WORN CAMERA USE
  2. Produces Positive Behavior on Behalf of Officers and Citizens

The use of BWCs has resulted in positive police-citizen encounters since they encourage good behavior on both sides. A study of the Rialto, California Police Department conducted from February 2012 to July 2013 included the random assignment of fifty-four officers with the Taser Axon body-camera system. It found that “[s]hifts without cameras experienced twice as many incidents of use of force as shifts with cameras,” and “the rate of use of force incidents per 1,000 contacts was reduced by 2.5 times overall as compared to the previous twelve-month period.”[5] “This dramatic reduction in the use of force indicates that BWCs may have had a “civilizing” effect on officers, as the presence of a camera appeared to drastically lower the frequency with which officers “resorted to the use of physical force – including the use of OC spray (‘pepper spray’), batons, Tasers, firearms, or canine bites.”[6]

Studies have also found that officers using BWCs initiate more contact with community members in comparison to those who are not using them.[7] In turn, positive civilian reactions have resulted.[8] These reactions are also produced because people are aware that they are being filmed. Some police officials believe “the visible presence of a camera [can] … compel highly agitated people to calm down more quickly.”[9] Members of the community are more inclined to comply with officers’ command when they are aware that their actions are being recorded.[10] People tend to be less resistant to police authority in the presence of BWCs. The cameras have contributed to the creation of improved police-citizens interaction and have prevented the occurrence of situations requiring the use of force by police officers.[11]

  1. Ensures Officer Truthfulness

BWC use encourages officers to be honest. Here it prevents them from “purposefully fabricat[ing] their testimony to paint a misleading picture of an event” or testilying.[12] The term “testilying” was coined by police officers to describe occasions when they lie to help convict those they perceive as guilty and avoid the consequences of the exclusionary rule.[13] The exclusionary rule, established by the Mapp v. Ohio case, prevents illegally obtained evidence from being admitted against a defendant during a judicial proceeding.[14] Its purpose is to deter police misconduct. Some feel, however, that the exclusion of evidence precipitated by the rule serves as an incentive for officers to invent facts in order to render the evidence admissible.[15] Use of BWC thwarts this conduct since the video provides uncontroverted proof of an actual occurrence. An example is provided in a NY case where the defendant, Gregg Allen, was charged with disorderly conduct and obstructing government administration. The arresting officers, William Gardner and John Blanco testified to Mr. Allen’s criminal behavior at trial; however, their video footage told a different story. The tape exposed the officers’ testimony as a fabrication and Allen was found not guilty in reliance on that footage.[16]

  1. Reduction in Citizen Complaints

The deployment of BWCs has significantly lowered the number of use of force complaints made against law enforcement officials.[17] There was a reduction in the number of use of force complaints filed against officers assigned to wear cameras, in comparison to those not using them. This result was determined by a control-group study conducted in the Mesa Police Department in Arizona in 2012.[18] The decrease in complaints is tied to the fact that officers wearing BWCs tend to act more cautiously during encounters with citizens.[19] This finding is corroborated by a recent randomized controlled trial research conducted on the use of BWCs by the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD).[20] This study, which involved a sample of 400 officers, presented new evidence regarding the benefits of outfitting police officers with BWCs. The reduction in officer complaints has translated into a savings of manpower that was previously expended in the resolution of allegations against police officers.[21] BWCs have served to reduce investigative costs since they reduce the amount of time spent on investigating complaints. A simple review of the videotape can confirm or contradict the alleged misconduct of an officer. It is estimated that the LVMPD’s annual monetary benefits per BWC user was $4,006.[22]

  1. More Efficient Resolution of Criminal Investigations

The quality of investigations conducted by police officers has also been impacted by the use of BWCs. The footage captured improves the accuracy of police reports and the collection of crucial evidence for criminal investigations.[23] Studies have also shown that BWCs reduce individuals’ resistance during arrests[24] and increase police efficiency by reducing officers’ time spent solving criminal cases and preparing paperwork.[25] They also increase officer productivity, as evidenced by an increase in police citations and arrests.[26] In addition, the availability of evidence obtained through BWC footage helps officers prepare reports in reliance on the videotape commemorating their encounter with the public, rather than on their memories.[27]

  1. Improved Officer Professionalism

BWCs have become powerful tools for officer training. “Recordings are used for remedial training and are also shown to correct the bad behavior of individual officers against whom misconduct allegations have been filed.”[28] “Thus, footage is incorporated into training programs to demonstrate what actual, on-the-ground civilian encounters should (and should not) look like, and review of body-camera footage may be particularly useful in monitoring new officers.”[29] Besides, when officers know that their superiors will periodically review their footage, it is believed that they act with more efficiency and with professionalism. The review of BWC video footage has translated into the exhibition of higher standards of efficiency on behalf of law enforcement officers since they are sensitive to the evaluation of camera footage by their supervisors.

  1. Captures Accurate Evidence for Trial

BWCs have been useful in obtaining information that may be used later during a trial and influence the decision-making of judges, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and juries. They objectively record crime scenes and preserve witness and victim statements.[30] Camera footage has provided crucial evidence, such as the identification of the perpetrator of a crime and corroboration of eyewitness testimony.[31] A survey of one thousand prosecutors found that over 60 percent of them agreed that BWCs have not only increased their efficiency, but also helped the preparation of witnesses who can easily recollect the events of an incident after they review the videotape.[32]

Officers’ wearing of BWCs provides crucial evidence in specific types of crimes involving sensitive natures, i.e., domestic violence and intimate partner violence. These victims are often reluctant to testify against their abusers, and BWCs have facilitated the preservation of their statements in these instances.[33]

BWC video has also led to increases in guilty pleas.[34] Uncontroverted evidence of guilt and the likelihood of conviction have caused many to accept plea deals rather than risk longer incarceration sentences after being found guilty by a jury.[35]

III.       NEGATIVE ASPECTS BODY-WORN CAMERA USE

  1. Selective Use of Cameras; Destruction of Footage

BWC advocates boast of their ability to make law enforcement officers’ behavior more transparent and allow for increased accountability to the public. It is presumed that police officers wearing body cameras that are recording their every move will act professionally and with integrity. This is only the case, however, when the officer uses the camera at all times when on duty. “Research has concluded that those wearing cameras behaved better, and resorted to force less often, because of their awareness that they were being watched.”[36] Officers who do not activate their cameras, however, are not motivated to behave in accordance with the law.[37] On the contrary, the thought that there will be no evidence of their action is an incentive to behave in ways that they know are inappropriate; freedom from observation serves to relax the bounds of professional behavior.[38]

Some police departments provide officers with discretion when it comes to turning off their BWCs. Police officers have the option of doing so during service calls and during law enforcement-related encounters and activities, such as traffic stops, arrests, searches, interrogations, and pursuits.[39] The mode mechanism found on some cameras also gives officers the option of erasing what has been recorded. Cameras can be set to online mode, which automatically downloads all video footage to a remote database, or to offline mode, which allows officers the ability to pick and choose which footage they can erase.[40]

The ability to discard footage or to turn off the camera negates the objective of BWCs, however. These acts create an environment ripe for abuse. Not activating BWCs or erasing footage takes away the ability to obtain an impartial video of what occurred during an encounter. “If police are free to turn the cameras on and off as they please, the cameras’ role in providing a check and balance against police power will shrink, and they will no longer become a net benefit.”[41] Take for example, the New Orleans police officer, Lisa Lewis, who shot an unarmed black man named Armand Bennet in the forehead. The officer had been wearing a body camera, but she disabled it before the shooting.[42] Officer Lewis claimed that the camera was disabled at the end of her shift; however, her shift ended at 2:00 a.m. and the shooting occurred at 1:15 a.m. “Although New Orleans police recently adopted body cameras in an effort to build trust between law enforcement and the public this sort of incident demonstrates how officers can still circumvent the technology to insulate themselves from oversight.”[43]

  1. Nondisclosure and Untimely Disclosure of Video Footage

BWCs are used for various reasons, some of which include providing evidence of police encounters with civilians and suspects. The video footage helps illustrate both positive and negative behavior on the part of police officers and the people with whom they interact. Problems arise, however, when authorities are selective with the videos they choose to release, especially those that may display police brutality. In some cases, video only showing officers doing good deeds (saving lives, helping homeless people, etc.) are publicized, while others containing controversial content are withheld.[44]

BWCs lose much of their purpose unless they are reasonably available to the public. If one accepts that a goal of the BWC is “to strengthen officer performance … and to enhance agency transparency,” then it is inappropriate to exempt them from disclosure categorically.[45] Suspicions are legitimately raised when video footage is not released, especially those involving highly publicized incidents. “[I]n the case of police shootings, nondisclosure of dashcam videos can undermine confidence in law enforcement and the work that officers routinely perform. It can also fuel the perception that information is being concealed – a concern that is enhanced when law enforcement officials occasionally reveal footage that exculpates officers.”[46] The same is felt with the nondisclosure of BWC videos that display negative police behavior. “[N]ot making a body camera video publicly available – at least within a reasonable period of time following an incident – could lead to accusations of a cover-up of police brutality and misconduct by law enforcement and other public officials.”[47] An example involved the yearlong delay of the release of the tape capturing the shooting of Laquan McDonald in Chicago, Illinois.[48] The video proved that Officer Jason Van Dyke continually shot Mr. McDonald, even after he lay dying on the ground. The officer reported that Mr. McDonald brandished a knife and lunged at him before the officer pulling his trigger.[49] The videotape revealed that Officer Van Dyke lied.

Another shortfall occurs when law enforcement’s failure to immediately release footage creates a one-sided version of the events.[50] This leaves citizens to speculate about what happened and can lead to negative conclusions. An even bigger problem can occur when bystander video of the same incident is released on social media networks. In some instances, the bystander videos do not tell the whole story and leads to even more conjecture.[51] It has been suggested that one way to ensure that BWC video footage is released in a timely manner is to take the decision-making regarding the release of videos out of the hands of law enforcement. Here, the departments themselves would have no say in what footage is or is not released to the public.[52]

Statutory and case law provide the American public with a right to access the records of government agencies pursuant to the Federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).[53] While state freedom of information laws are jurisdictionally separate, they are based on federal law. Both statutory amendments and case law have stipulated that electronic audio and visual files also qualify as government records.[54] “[Al]though it establishes a presumption of disclosure for public records, FOIA recognizes that countervailing interests in specific contexts – including law enforcement – may weigh against the interests of disclosure.”[55] Those interests related to BWCs include Exemptions 7(a) and (c),[56] which cover records that are likely to interfere with law enforcement investigations and covering records that could reasonably lead to an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.[57] While the FOIA’s broad provisions favor the disclosure of information to the public, its mandate is not absolute. [58] Courts have held that these exemptions are discretionary, allowing an agency to disclose potentially exempt information if that agency concludes that there would be no resulting harm from public disclosure [59] In pursuit of disclosure, FOIA also flips the typical burdens of administrative law. “While an agency decision usually must be upheld unless a plaintiff demonstrates the decision was arbitrary and capricious, FOIA specifically shifts the burden to the withholding agency to sustain its action of nondisclosure.”[60]

The state of South Carolina seeks to automatically exempt BWC videos from its freedom of information law in order to prohibit videotape releases. Ironically, this measure was proposed as part of an amendment to a bill requiring that all state and local law enforcement officers wear body cameras.[61] It provides, “Data recorded by a body-worn camera is not a public record subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.”[62] Thus, instead of being subject to a presumption of disclosure like other South Carolina public records, BWC videos are only disclosed at law enforcement’s discretion.[63]

Both Florida and Georgia regulate when footage can be accessed. Although the state of Florida provides access to camera footage, recordings are only retained for 90 days, which is hardly enough time for the public to properly access and review recordings.[64] The state of Georgia deems video to be law enforcement records, thus preventing them from being accessed by the public. Critics have labeled public records restrictions a “misguided effort that is unnecessary and risks complicating existing public records laws.”[65]

  1. Privacy Issues

The use of BWCs presents essential privacy issues. The public’s right to know and an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy interests must be balanced in the recording of and dissemination of videotapes.[66] There are times when one would want a BWC to record an interaction with an officer, and times when they would prefer not to have this occur for various reasons. “Officers typically encounter people during the worst moments of their lives. The presence of a camera could amplify a victim’s feelings of being violated, exposed, and vulnerable while the police come to their aid.”[67] Situations involving “the occurrence of a traumatic event, the aftermath of domestic violence, or an interview concerning sexual abuse illustrate this point.”[68] Although officer assistance is needed in those situations, a victim would not want that happenstance recorded and the video potentially being released to the public. This view extends to family members of victims as well: “…[they] won’t want to see their loved one in those [settings themselves] and certainly wouldn’t want the rest of the world to [either].”[69] It is because of these circumstances that some have called for a neutral party to step in for decision-making purposes. This entity would delineate what circumstance presents privacy concerns and therefore should not be recorded.[70] This same organization could also regulate the taping of minors in school settings. “Recently, BWCs have even begun to make their way into several states’ high schools. Unfortunately, the footage of minors would not be confidential under the Family and Educational Rights and Privacy Act, which keeps most student data held by school police private. The footage of students could, therefore, become public and negatively affect future opportunities that student might have.”[71]

The U.S. Constitution creates various zones of privacy; the Fourth and Fifth Amendments protect against all governmental invasions of a person’s home and private life.[72] One would want to keep video that could produce a possible threat to a person’s reputation or dignity or cause embracement private.[73] Connection to a disturbing video could also disrupt relationships and threaten employment.[74] Granted, not everything should be filmed, to prevent personal shame or humiliation or the exploitation of sensitive images.[75] BWCs capture individuals in highly contentious and controversial actions with police. Private individuals can, therefore, face public scrutiny after any interaction with law enforcement. [76]

Some states have created policies that address privacy issues as they relate to BWCs. Florida has exempted videos taken at specific locales from being considered public records. These incidents include private homes and healthcare facilities.[77] Anyplace one would reasonably expect to be held private is covered as well. “The cost to privacy of the police use of body cameras will depend on the extent to which access to the footage is available to the public and news media, and in particular, whether it could be broadcast by a media outlet or uploaded to the Internet and indexed so that it became readily accessible by using a search engine.”[78]

Storage of video touches on privacy issues as well. Police departments must safeguard the images captured on BWCs. Private individuals fear that police departments could release sensitive recordings or sell them to third parties for a profit. Even with the appropriate safeguards, there are also concerns that someone could hack the system, or an employee could engage in misconduct to the detriment of civilians or officers in the recordings. Ultimately, the party managing the storage of the tapes must ensure that there are safeguards in place to limit delicate encounters from being released to the public. “There must also be severe consequences for employees or others who misuse the body camera recordings.”[79]

  1. The Cost to Maintain Video Coverage

In addition to the purchase of BWCs, police departments must be concerned with the maintenance and storage of this technology. “Cameras can cost anywhere from $120 to $2000 per device, which does not include the cost associated with the maintenance of storage for the recordings.”[80] “The costs of deploying police body cameras will likely include not only the costs of the cameras, but also ancillary equipment, training in the use of the equipment, protection and storage of the video, administrative and legal costs -including responding to open records requests – and other costs related to data storage, management, and disclosure to the public.”[81] “Total storage costs for police departments for the first few years of operation are often comparable to the initial investment of purchasing the cameras. During the New Orleans Police Department’s 2-year plan to purchase and operate 350 BWCs for $1.2 million, most of the funds were earmarked toward storage costs.”[82] An inadequate infrastructure – that is, insufficient time and resources – can preclude everyone who needs to see the video to achieve the desired benefits from being able to do so.[83]

  1. Limited Lens Scope

Another issue that must be considered is the size of the frames on BWCs. “The camera always presents a certain point of view and a frame that includes some images also excludes others.”[84] Given the size of the camera itself, the frame is consequently small and therefore presents narrow views. “Video footage is inherently limited by its own frame of reference; it offers an incomplete perspective on events: “[F]or example, the video’s picture may not show what happened outside the camera’s view, the causation for actions shown, or what depended on ‘the camera’s perspective (angles) and breadth of view (wide shots and focus).”[85] This fact can create more ambiguity and create doubt and confusion. An example is found in the trial of Officer Jeronimo Yanez of the St. Anthony Police Department in Minnesota.[86] Officer Yanez was prosecuted for the death of Philando Castile. He was seen on tape firing seven shots into Mr. Castile at close range. “The limited scope of the footage made it difficult for jurors to determine what actually happened.”[87] They struggled with what they could not see since the patrol car with the dashcam was parked behind Mr. Castile’s car. It therefore, only showed the rear of the vehicle and the officer, not Mr. Castile. The footage made it difficult to determine whether Castile was reaching for his ID or for a gun because it did not clearly depict the front seat where Mr. Castile sat.[88] Officer Yanez was ultimately found not guilty. “Though a BWC would offer an officer’s perspective and might have made the situation clearer in the Castile shooting, BWC footage is still susceptible to multiple interpretations.”[89]

  1. CONCLUSION

At first glance, BWCs seem to provide many benefits that include, “…increased transparency and accountability, improved citizen perceptions of police, more civil police-citizen interactions, evidentiary benefits in criminal prosecutions for countering claims of misconduct, and improving police officer training.”[90] “Body cameras are a viable solution to police misconduct, and they ensure the fair and accurate administration of justice for those who pursue the aid of the court system to remedy violated constitutional rights due to allegations of excessive force.”[91] Conversely, the use of body cameras present grave concerns for privacy rights, mandatory use by police officers, and the availability of video footage to the public. It becomes clear that they are not the entire solution to the need for greater surveillance, but instead are only one viable factor.

 

References

[1] Seth W. Stoughton, Badge Cams as Data and Deterrent: Enforcement, the Public, and the Press in the Age of Digital Video, 96 N.C. L. Rev. 1363 (2018).

[2] Cynthia Lum, Megan Stoltz, Christopher S. Koper & J. Amber Scherer, Research on Body-Worn Cameras, 18 Criminology & Public Policy 94 (2019).

[3] Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2009).

[4] Bryce Clayton Newell, Collateral Visibility: A Socio-Legal Study of Police Body-Camera Adoption, Privacy, and Public Disclosure in Washington State, 92 Ind. L. J. 1136 (2017).

[5] Considering Police Body Cameras, 128 Harv. L. Rev. 1794, 1800 (2015).

[6] Id.

[7] Justin T. Ready & Jacob T. N. Young, A Longitudinal Analysis of the Relationship Between Administrative Policy, Technical Preferences, and Body-Worn Camera Activation among Police Officers, Policing (2016).

[8] Brett Chapman, Research on the Impact of Technology on Policing Strategies, Final Report (2018).

[9] Id.

[10] Id.

[11] Michael D. White, Police Officer Body-Worn Cameras: Assessing the Evidence, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 50 (2016).

[12] Iesha S. Nunes, Hands Up, Don’t Shoot: Police Misconduct and the Need for Body Cameras, 67 Fla. L. Rev. 1805 (2019).

[13] Christopher Slobogin, Testilying: Police Perjury and What to Do About It, 67 U. Colo. L. Rev. 1037, 1040 (1996).

[14] Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).

[15] Nunes at 835.

[16] Nick Malinowski, Testilying: Cops Are Liars Who Get Away with Perjury, February 3, 2013. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/jmv94x/testilying-cops-are-liars-who-get-away-with-perjury. Last visited, June 6, 2019.

[17] White.

[18] Mesa (Arizona) Police Department, On-Officer Body Camera System: Program Evaluation and Recommendations, Mesa, AZ: Mesa Police Department (2013).

[19] Ready & Young.

[20] Anthony Braga, James R. Coldren, William Sousa, Denise Rodriguez, & Omer Alper, The Benefits of Body-Worn Cameras: New Findings from a Randomized Controlled Trial at the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice (2017)

[21] Martin Goodall, Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices, 2007, http://revealmedia. com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/guidance-body-worn­devices.pdf/. Last visited December 12, 2018.

[22] Id. at 23.

[23] Lum et al. at 108.

[24] White.

[25] Chapman

[26] Braga et al. at 23-24.

[27] Lum et al. at 103.

[28] Considering Police Body Cameras at 1801.

[29] Id at 1802.

[30] Karson Kampfe, Police-Worn Body Cameras: Balancing Privacy And Accountability Through State And Police Department Action, 76 Ohio St. L.J. 1182 (2015).

[31] Nunes at 1824-25.

[32] Linda Merola, Cynthia Lum, Cristopher S. Koper, & Amber Scherer, Body-worn Cameras and the Courts: A national survey of State Prosecutors (Report for the Laura and John Arnold Foundation). Fairfax, VA: Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy, George Mason University, 27-8 (2016).

[33] Kampfe.

[34] Chapman.

[35] Lum et al. at 108.

[36] Julian R. Murphy, Is It Recording? Racial Bias, Police Accountability, and The Body-Worn Camera Activation Policies of the Ten Largest Metropolitan Police Departments in the USA, 9 Colum. J. Race & L. 154 (2018).

[37] Stoughton at 1415.

[38] Id.

[39] Newell at 1349.

[40] Bradley X. Barbour, Big Budget Productions with Limited Release: Video Retention Issues with Body-Worn Cameras, 85 Fordham L. Rev. 1725, 1741 (2017).

[41] Murphy at 166.

[42] Craj Vicens, Putting Body Cameras on Cops is Hardly a Cure-All For Abuses: Deploying the Technology Properly Will Require Time, Money, and Smart Management, August 21, 2014, https://www.motherjones.com/wp-content/uploads/chest_cam630.jpg?w=990. Last visited June 17, 2019.

[43] Considering Police Body Camerasat 1804.

[44] Stoughton at 1400.

[45] Joseph Wenner, Who Watches the Watchmen’s Tape? FOIA’s Categorical Exemptions and Police Body-Worn Cameras, 2016 U. Chi. Legal F. 903 (2016).

[46] N. Jersey Media Grp., Inc. v. Twp. of Lyndhurst, 163 A.3d 887, 907 (2017).

[47] Alberto R. Gonzales & Donald Q. Cochran, Police-Worn Body Cameras: An Antidote to the “Ferguson Effect”?, 82 Mo. L. Rev. 322 (2017).

[48] Lingering Questions in the Shooting of Laquan McDonald by Chicago Police, N.Y. Times, December 6, 2015, http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/04/us/questions-in-laquan-mcdonald-shooting.html. Last visited June 15, 2019.

[49] Kelley Czajka, The Laquan McDonald Case and Police Brutality in America: An Essential Reading List, January 18, 2019, https://psmag.com/news/the-laquan-mcdonald-case-and-police-brutality-in-america. Last visited May 27, 2019.

[50] Gonzales & Cochran at 322.

[51] Id.

[52] Kampfe at 1173.

[53] 5 U.S.C. § 552.

[54] Werner at 877.

[55] Werner at 874.

[56] 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7).

[57] Werner at 874.

[58] John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp., 493 U.S. 146, 152 (1989).

[59] Wenner at 879.

[60] Id.

[61] Id. at 873.

[62] S.C. CODE ANN. § 23-1-240(G)(1) (2015).

[63] Wenner at 873.

[64] Nunes.

[65] Sarah Breitenbach, States Grapple With Public Disclosure of Police Body-Camera Footage, September 22, 2015, https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2015/09/22/states-grapple-with-public-disclosure-of-police-body-camera-footage. Last visited May 24, 2019.

[66] Gonzales & Cochran at 314.

[67] Kampfe at 169-70.

[68] Martin Kaste, As More Police Wear Cameras, Policy Questions Arise, November 7, 2011, https://www.npr.org/2011/11/07/142016109/smile-youre-on-cop-camera%20%5Bhttps:/perma.cc/3L6T-SGXP%5D. Last visited June 25, 2019.

[69] Kampfe at 1169-70.

[70] Id. at 1173.

[71] Id. at 1170.

[72] Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, (1965).

[73] Mark Tunick, Regulating Public Access To Body Camera Footage: Response to Iesha S. Nunes, “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot”, 67 Fla. L. Rev. F. 149 (2016).

[74] Gonzales & Cochran at 314.

[75] Newell at 1134.

[76] Wenner at 897.

[77] FLA. STAT. § 119.071(2)(l)(2) (2015).

[78] Tunick at 146.

[79] Nunes at 1840-41.

[80] Id.

[81] Gonzales & Cochran at 318.

[82] Barbour at 1742-43.

[83] Stoughton at 1400.

[84] Considering Police Body Cameras at 1813.

[85] Wouter Zwart, Slow Your Roll Out of Body-Worn Cameras: Privacy Concerns and the Tension Between Transparency and Surveillance in Arizona, 60 Ariz. L. Rev. 783, 795 (2018).

[86] Teresa Nelson, Two Years Later After The Police Killing of Philando Castile, Justice Continues To Be Denied, July 6, 2018, https://www.aclu-mn.org/en/news/two-years-later-after-police-killing-philando-castile-justice-continues-be-denied. Last accessed June 15, 2019.

[87] Mitch Smith, Minnesota Officer Acquitted in Killing of Philando Castile, N.Y. Times (June 16, 2017).

[88] Zwart at 797.

[89] Id.

[90] Newell at 1342.

[91] Nunes at 1842.

 

 

 

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s