At the end of 2014 Seattle Police department announced they will be conducting a yearlong pilot study to test body cameras worn by officers. A dozen East Precinct officers wear the cameras, and what the study finds could set the standard for camera use.

According to SPD, research has found that departments using body cameras experience a decline in violence against officers, as well as the need for officers to use force. Moreover, footage from the cameras can be used as evidence against suspects, and help monitor the behavior of officers.

“The intent is to capture video of officer interactions. The footage can be used as evidence against suspects, and help monitor the behavior of officers,” stated SPD.

SPD cites a report by the U.S. Department of Justice that found the use of body-worn cameras “document a reduction in citizen complaints against the police and, in some cases, similar reductions in use of force and assaults on officers.”

So what about the cameras?

The twelve officers from the East Precinct will test two camera systems separately for 60 to 90 days. The cameras are battery-powered and worn by police officers either on their uniform at the chest or via eyewear. The cameras are smaller than a GoPro camera or even smaller for the eyewear model. The cameras are made by TASER and by a Seattle-based company called VIEVU. SPD is trying out the same systems being tested by the Los Angeles Police Department and the New York Police Department. Both systems offer cloud-based video storage on secure off-site servers as well as options to store video on existing SPD servers.

Despite recent national unrest sparked by contention surrounding police accountability after the shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson and the tragic death of Erin Garner, SPD says their announcement was not spurred by the incidents.

“SPD has been looking into the use of body-worn cameras for some time and was drafting plans for a pilot test before the Ferguson incident,” states SPD.

The Ballard News-Tribune asked Ballard citizens what they thought of the new cameras and whether they will have an effect in the interaction between officers and citizens. An interesting find was that there were many opinions but of the people interviewed (five), no one wanted to use their own name.

Natalie, a Caucasian, 29-year-old woman lives and works in Ballard and is frustrated with national and local law enforcement. She has little faith that adding cameras to SPD officer uniforms will change their interaction with the public. She said cameras didn’t change the outcome of the Eric Garner incident.

“I think it’s a step in the right the direction…they should do it, but why do it if officers aren’t held accountable? … I think it’s kind of a joke because it seems like they don’t have to follow the law anyway. They can murder someone in cold blood on camera and not be indicted, so how are the cameras supposed to make me feel safe?” said Natalie.

Natalie said she feels unsafe interacting with officers, especially after federal investigations for excessive use force by SPD, and SPD’s reaction to the Justice Department allegations.

“I haven’t seen one single thing nationwide or in Seattle to indicate anything is going to be any different. Our police officers might not be murdering people like Eric Garner but they refuse to comply with federal findings in the lawsuit against them; they refuse to comply and publicly state that they don’t want to follow the law and nothing is happening. I have zero confidence in SPD and zero confidence for a cultural change on a nationwide scale for police officers to stop being above the law.”

However, SPD just announced today that they would be shifting the boundaries of its 51 police beats. SPD says it’s a milestone in their work toward reforming the department with Department of Justice. Changes to the beat have not been made since 2008.

What about citizen consent?

The cameras offer audio recording options and since Washington State has a two party consent law that mandates both parties are aware of being audibly recorded, there are some nuances to the proposed policy.

SPD policy specified that officers need to ask for consent to record while in residences or other private areas not open to the public. The request and any response will be recorded. If the request is denied, officers will stop recording during the time they are in those areas. Furthermore, the policy states that crime in progress and other contexts that allow officers to be legally present without a warrant allows officers to record without consent.

Citizens and officers will know they are being record by an indicator light that turns on when the camera is recording.

Officers are not allowed to record public protests and places with privacy exceptions like public restrooms and hospitals “unless there’s reasonable suspicion a crime is being committed or the recording of the location is material to a criminal investigation,” stated SPD.

The part in the policy that describes recording “unless there’s reasonable suspicion a crime is being committed or the recording of the location is material to a criminal investigation,” makes at least one citizen uneasy. A Ballard man (who also asked to not be named, but for clarity he will be named, Joe) wrote to the Ballard News Tribune, “The vague language like ‘reasonable suspicion’ in the policy opens the door to infinite possibilities in circumstance that justify officers recording an incident, despite them infringing on civil liberties,” wrote Joe.

“This is much like how the Patriot Act opened the door to justify invading citizens’ privacy under the pretense of ‘suspicious’ activity. It’s the Red Scare and vilification of dissenters in the name of ‘security’ all over again. Everyone is a terrorist when they become ‘suspicious.’ Rallies and protests would be fair game to record because activists are being disobedient –- that’s the whole point. …With more eyes watching activists they become easier targets for arrest.”

Still, other citizens have a different sentiment entirely. Some Ballardites think the cameras will prevent violent altercations and use of force; the footage will keep officers and citizens accountable for their actions.

One anonymous man found on Northwest Market Street said, “I want cameras on cops. It's a way to give ethics to those who were not required to have them as a prerequisite for the job. Camera's can be the little angel on the shoulder of those who have become desensitized to violence and domination.”
Indeed, accountability is emphasized in the camera policy and tampering or erasing footage will be difficult. SPD states that hash tags will mark the original footage, and therefore any alterations would be identifiable.

How the cameras affect citizen and police officers interaction remains to be seen.

“We’ve heard a lot of talk and not seen a lot of walk. The Mayor and the new police chief (O’Toole) have reforming the police department and creating a cultural shift in the department in mind, but I haven’t seen that yet,” said Natalie.

For more information about SPD cameras visit http://spdblotter.seattle.gov/2014/12/12/spd-answers-your-questions-on-…