X

Massena, Potsdam, Ogdensburg, Canton chiefs and county Sheriff not opposed to police using body cameras; questions linger

Posted 12/24/14

By ANDY GARDNER Following the recent high-profile cases of the deaths of two black men at the hands of white police officers, national attention has focused on relations between law enforcement and …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Massena, Potsdam, Ogdensburg, Canton chiefs and county Sheriff not opposed to police using body cameras; questions linger

Posted

By ANDY GARDNER

Following the recent high-profile cases of the deaths of two black men at the hands of white police officers, national attention has focused on relations between law enforcement and the public they are tasked to serve and protect. In response, some police departments throughout the country are considering equipping their officers with body cameras to document all of their interactions.

Here in St. Lawrence County, such a program probably won’t become a reality overnight. Top local law enforcement officials seem to think they have the potential to help policing and some want to pursue grant funding for such a venture, but several of them see a few issues that first need to be resolved.

Chiefs Not Opposed

“I think it’s a good idea … a recording doesn’t have any bias. I think it will tell exactly what happened,” Canton Police Chief Lori McDougal said, adding that she has had brief discussions with county Sheriff Kevin Wells about the issue. “I think it’s a win-win.”

“I think they would be very helpful in making sure officers are doing the right thing,” Potsdam Police Chief Kevin Bates said, adding that he hasn’t “had any conversations yet” with other law enforcement officials.

Massena Police Chief Mark LaBrake said he thinks they would make “a great evidentiary tool.

“I think it would help policing tremendously,” LaBrake said. “I think there would be less trials because it’s right there on camera.”

He added that he has spoken with some of his officers and “nobody here has any objections to that.”

Ogdensburg Police Chief Richard Polniak says he thinks the cameras are a double-edged sword, and he hasn’t talked about them with other agencies or his officers.

“I think they can be good or bad. Even if it’s on video, the actions … still become a matter of interpretation by the viewer, just like the Rodney King video,” Polniak said. “I think it’s a knee-jerk reaction to what occurred.”

He is referring to the recent deaths of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo. and Eric Garner in New York City. Each was a black man killed by on-duty white police officers. Garner was being arrested for selling illegal cigarettes on the street and died as a result of a chokehold that a medical examiner ruled resulted in a homicide. Brown was stopped under suspicion of stealing from a convenience store and shot dead after struggling with a police officer. A grand jury cleared each of the police officers.

“I think people are losing sight that the alleged victims had committed offenses. The officers were doing their jobs,” he said, noting that the officer who shot Brown testified to a grand jury that Brown had tried to grab his gun.

St. Lawrence County Sheriff Kevin Wells said he is talking about equipping deputies with body cameras but they not only need to find funding, but also craft a sound policy to govern their use.

“It’s a point of discussion … for well over a year,” Wells said.

He says that they probably won’t have a detrimental effect on police work because many people record encounters with police using smartphones and other mobile devices.

“Law enforcement is constantly being taped … by the public,” Wells said.

A New York State Police spokesperson says the agency’s leaders are looking at body cameras, but don’t yet have enough information to make a stance on their use.

“It is too premature for us to weigh in on the pros and cons or possible funding sources,” said state police Director of Public Information Darcy Wells. “The state police have been reviewing cameras and emerging technologies for some time now and we will continue that effort.”

Who’s Going To Pay For Them?

Funding is a big obstacle to getting the cameras, and they aren’t cheap. They can go for as little as $200 to over $1,000.

Sheriff Wells said the county could look at pursuing federal or state grants, and LaBrake agreed that government money is probably the best way to finance them.

“We’re more than willing … as long as funding is available,” LaBrake said. “It’s difficult when (municipal and police) budgets are bare bones.”

He also noted that the records management aspect of body camera use could carry a hefty price tag.

“You’re taking about hundreds of hours of video per day. Somebody’s got to manage that,” he said. “I don’t have the funding to do that.”

“I’ve heard the cameras were expensive. Some type of grant would be nice,” Canton’s McDougal said.

Earlier in December, President Barack Obama announced that he is seeking $263 million to buy 50,000 body cameras. The funds would be dispersed over a three-year period and be matched with state money.

How Should They Be Used?

One question the cameras raise is whether they should constantly record or if the officer should be able to turn them on and off.

LaBrake said he thinks officers wearing body cameras in people’s homes could constitute illegal government surveillance. Therefore, the officer needs to be able to switch it off when necessary.

“Do I want the police coming into my house with a body camera on? As a homeowner, I’d have objections to it,” according to LaBrake. “There may be some legal aspects that need to be resolved … I don’t think it’s as simple as strapping a camera on an officer and going out.”

He added that he doesn’t think it’s right to record an interaction with a juvenile suspect or subject.

“Nobody needs to know all of that,” he said. “There needs to be strict policy guidelines of when to turn them on and off.”

Sheriff Wells’ argument is similar to LaBrake’s. They each believe crafting a sound policy would be a big part of implementing the cameras, but the officers should control when they record.

“If law enforcement is willing to enter this next level of police work, officers should have proper training, but that should come after policy development,” he said. “It doesn’t need to be [recording] for the day-to-day … there’s a lot of give and take when the officer would use it.”

Wells said one instance he thinks the cameras would be helpful is on the first officer through a door when executing a search warrant.

Although he says he hasn’t done a lot of research on the issue, Bates also thinks officers should control when they record.

“I’m not sure … without looking into anything,” Bates said. “If they’re in the station doing paperwork, is it necessary to have it on? Any interaction with the public, it should be on.”

The dissenting opinion comes from Canton’s police chief.

“I think it should be on all the time,” McDougal said.

Dashboard cameras

Many police departments in the U.S. for years have been using dashboard-mounted cameras that either record constantly or when the officer turns on the flashing lights.

None of the police departments interviewed for this story use them, nor does the sheriff’s office.

State police use them on a few of their vehicles, but none of the cars are in Troop B, which includes St. Lawrence County.

The Rialto Experiment

The cameras were used in a 2012 experiment where the city of Rialto, Calif. equipped half of their officers showed promising results, according to a New York Times article from August 2013. That story says from when the cameras were introduced in February 2012, “the number of complaints filed against officers fell by 88 percent compared with the previous 12 months. Use of force by officers fell by almost 60 percent over the same period.”