On Sept. 12, Boston Police Dept. commenced a pilot program which will make up to 100 patrol officers wear body cameras when they are going about their work. This is not the first time that the program was discussed. Police Commissioner William Evans announced it in September 2015, but the pilot was delayed as there were negotiations between the department and the officer’s union, the Boston Police Patrolmen’s Association (BPPA), and later, a lawsuit.
Originally, the BPPA agreed with the Boston Police Dept’s. proposal under which 100 volunteers would be part of the six-month pilot and would received an additional $500 once the pilot was over. When no officers volunteered, the Boston Police Department randomly selected 100 officers. The BPPA took Boston Police to court over their action, citing that the City of Boston violated terms of their agreement.
BPPA Union President Patrick Rose said that originally during negotiations with the city, Rose had told members to not wear the cameras until an agreement had been reached. Rose stated that once the agreement had been made he encouraged officers to volunteer for the program.
Suffolk County Superior Court Judge Douglas Wilkins, who oversaw the lawsuit, ruled that the union had not fully helped the city find volunteers. Wilkins also ruled that it was within Commissioner Evans’ power to make randomly selected officer wear the cameras on their uniforms.
The Director of Northeastern University’s School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Dr. Anthony Braga, and the Director of Northeastern’s Institute on Race and Justice, Jack McDevitt, were in charge of randomly selecting 100 officers and will also be in charge of evaluating the program and will release a report about two months after the six-month program ends. Once the report is released, the City of Boston will do a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether officers shall be required to wear the cameras.
The 100 officers chosen by Braga range in race and ethnicity, age, and unit assignment. Boston Police Dept. told WBUR that “of the officers [included,] 55 are white, 29 are black, 13 are Latino, and three are Asian.” The department also noted that 87 percent of the officers are male. The officers come from the five patrol areas in the city and also from the department’s gang unit. Additionally, eight members of the Commissioner’s command staff will also be wearing body cameras during the pilot program, though their wearing the cameras is not part of the study. In total, the City of Boston has set aside $500,000 for the program.
Two companies, Seattle-based Vievu and Taser International, are providing body cameras to the department during the trial period. The two cameras have the same purpose of recording officer’s activities, but differ in terms of where the video is stored.
Superintendent-in-Chief William Gross, the highest ranking uniformed officer and in Commissioner Evans’ top staff, explained to WBUR the differences. Gross, who is one of eight command staff wearing a camera, wears a Taser International camera and said Taser’s cameras store video to cloud storage versus Vievu which stores the video at “An external storage device that’s kept at the station.”
In the same interview he added that once it is stored to the cloud, “you can’t alter it, you can’t send it to YouTube, you can’t touch it. It’s all administrators [that] can only touch that.”
While there is much data provided to figure out the usefulness of police body cameras, several cities (including New Orleans, Louisiana and Albuquerque, and New Mexico) have equipped their officers. Several large cities, including New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago, are also having trial programs. Some departments have had good results. According to the United States Department of Justice report released in 2014, in Rialto, California the department found an 88 percent reduction in complaints and in Mesa, Arizona, there were less complaints about use of force. In other studies, questions have been raised about inconsistencies and limitations.
In addition to some Bostonian advocates, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Massachusetts and the Boston Police Camera Action Team (BPCAT) are pleased that the Boston Police have implemented the program. BPCAT believes that the cameras have the potential for helping with accountability and help with building trust.
“A poll in July [2016] reported that 73 percent of residents view the Boston Police favorably, though a gap emerged between white and black residents (82 percent versus 65 percent) with a favorable view of the department” according to Boston.com. While the department does try to practice community policing, including using an ice cream truck, BPCAT co-founder told Boston.com that “Building trust isn’t as simple as handing out ice cream cones.”
The ACLU on their website recommends that all cities and towns in Massachusetts have body cameras and say that it is part of three core principles: “accountability, privacy, and transparency,” in addition to good policing policies. ACLU Staff Attorney Carlton Williams told the Boston Globe that “having a body camera is like having three witnesses.”
The cameras have an on/off switch and according to Boston Police policies, officers are required to turn them on when interacting with the public (including pulling vehicles over and searching suspects, among others). Officer are required that the camera must be on during the whole interaction and can only be turned off after it is done. In these instances, officers do not require consent by the involving parties to record. There are some exceptions, however. If an officer goes into a home without a warrant, the persons present must be told that they are being recorded and agree to it.
Certain aspects of the use have come under fire, however. Currently, the policy states that while police personnel involved in or witnessing a shooting are not allowed to view the footage before investigators have looked at it, they can view it before giving statements to investigators. Access to the footage might be problematic for media as it would require media to have to go through a public records request. Witnesses and victims of crimes would have to go through the department’s Office of the Legal Advisor.
In addition to being problematic for other’s to view, Attorney Williams told the Boston Globe that “Having a person review it [beforehand] creates a super witness,” adding, “that’s problematic.”