Recently, a proposal has been floating among police departments to attach cameras to the lapels of police officers as they go about their patrols.
And no, that’s not the pitch for a new twist on the Fox TV series “Cops.”
Rather, it’s a movement that’s gained serious steam in the law enforcement world in the last couple years.
Many police cruisers are already equipped with dashboard cameras. Some police departments now have taken the extra step of adding tiny cameras that record the daily duties of officers.
In an effort to increase transparency and put the University of California Police Department on the cusp of law enforcement innovation, the UC should initiate the imperative process of equipping officers with these cameras.
These cameras are the ultimate eyewitnesses, storing and transmitting what they see without bias. Essentially, they act as accountability measures for both policemen and civilians and provide additional evidence for officers to evaluate crime scenes.
Where they’ve been tried, they’ve worked. Adding body-worn cameras to police uniforms halved violent incidents and reduced citizen complaints tenfold at a San Bernardino Police Department, according to a report by the Police Foundation, an organization that partners with universities to study police work through scientific means.
Recently, the issue has hit close to home.
Los Angeles County Superior Judge Court David Cunningham III filed a complaint against the UCPD to the tune of 10 million, alleging that he was the victim of racial profiling and excessive force during a November traffic stop.
While an internal review cleared the officers in question of any wrongdoing, the lawsuit remains. Right now, the only recorded evidence of the situation is the squad car dashboard camera.
Having additional video, such as the lapel camera feed, could help eliminate the he-said-she-said issues that arise in similar situations, and in the right context, could prevent a costly lawsuit before it gets started.
It’s understandable that some police officers may be apprehensive. But these cameras are not meant to suggest that law enforcement is inherently untrustworthy and needs monitoring. There’s little doubt that the job is dangerous, and these people put their lives on the line to keep us safe.
But lapel cameras could mean less time in the court room and more time on duty, which is good for police officers as well as civilians.
Even though the arguments for lapel cameras are evident, the UC Office of the President has not taken the initial step of contacting vendors for price and currently no timeline exists to install cameras on the officers at the police department.
To find a cost precedent, the UCPD need not look farther than downtown Los Angeles.The Los Angeles Police Department has begun a process to equip 600 of its officers with cameras by the summer.
The entire program will take about $1.3 million to set up, but that includes maintenance, usage, storage and upgrades for the next 2.5 years.
For comparison, the UCPD employs about 410 sworn officers statewide – or about 68 percent of the 600-person test group the LAPD maintains. Sixty-two of those officers are members of the UCLA police station.
So assuming a program to equip the University’s police uniforms with cameras would cost a similar amount, that initiative could be accomplished for around a tenth of the amount Cunningham is asking for.
However, there’s an expected, and inherent, distrust of expanding police powers. Equipping authority figures with cameras could give people pause – especially given the recent uproar over privacy rights (thanks, NSA!).
The Police Foundation study did report the potential for civilians to change their behavior when around the police. It didn’t give a conclusive take on this kind of forced honesty, but while the results are still vague, it makes more sense to err on the side of pragmatism by trying it.
There’s always been a need for a balance between privacy and safety, and these cameras have shown tangible benefits for the latter.If there are corrosive psychological effects or tangible results on privacy, then the cameras should be ditched. However, without at least trying it, there’s no way to gather the extra data.
There doesn’t seem to be enough good reasons not to try the cameras right now.They’re cheap, and offer an extra layer of transparency that protects both civilians and officers and can reduce violence and aid in dispute prevention. Not giving the cameras a try could prove an even more costly option for the University.
Email Nelson at rnelson@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to opinion@media.ucla.edu or tweet us @DBOpinion.