Slashdot Mirror
Salt Lake City Police To Wear Camera Glasses
Psychotic_Wrath writes "The Salt Lake Police department will be much more transparent with their law enforcement. A program is being rolled out to require officers wear glasses equipped with a camera to record what they see. Of course, there are several officers opposed to this idea, who will resist the change. One of the biggest shockers to me is that the police chief is in strong support of this measure: 'If Chief Burbank gets his way, these tiny, weightless cameras will soon be on every police officer in the state.' With all the opposition of police officers being recorded by citizens that we are seeing throughout the country, it is quite a surprise that they would make a move like this. The officers would wear them when they are investigating crime scenes, serving warrants, and during patrols. Suddenly Utah isn't looking like such a bad place to be. Now we just need to hope other states and departments would follow suit. It sure will be nice when there is video evidence to show the real story."
Sorry, but this doesn't make SLC seem much more appealing to me (aside from the Mormon thing). I don't think I want police recording me just by virtue of me being near a patrol.
50,000 characters used to live here.
When it comes down to a trial the recording will be lost. Bet on it.
Non bene pro toto libertas venditur auro
If Chief Burbank gets his way, these tiny, weightless cameras...
I assume that you get weightless cameras from the same store that physics professors get their "frictionless inclines" and "massless pulleys" from?
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
"Privacy Advocates" vs "Police Transparency Enthusiasts"
Should be a good battle.
Invaders must die
Much like other police footage, it will be impossible to get a hold of unless the police actually want it publically released. Nothing resembling Rodney King will ever be released to the public because of these glasses.
"It is the stillest words which bring the storm. Thoughts that come with doves' footsteps guide the world."
this doesn't change anything unless the cameras are always on, and the public can see all recordings at will.
if not so, the recordings will only be used when it is favorable for the police, but not the other way around
Have we stopped to consider that this may increase the number of things people get written up for because the officer will be less likely to 'let it slide'? How rampant is police abuse really? Sure, I've seen cops be dicks about things, but I've also had them let me off the hook. If everything they were doing was being recorded, I don't think they would have been as lenient.
The police don't want people making recordings because they can't stop it being used out of context.
They already put cameras in their cars.
In my country a whole police oversight investigation was launched because the media published a photo using the "look I'm holding up the hollywood sign" perspective to make it look like an officer was point his gun at the head of a teenage who was face down on the ground. Turned out the police officer was pointing his gun at the ground 3 metres away while walking in a different direction. The investigation wasted a lot of time and resources because there was no footage from another perspective.
I feel sorry for the guy that has to review the footage of the officers. It would defeat their purpose to install an "I have to pee" pause button.
By the time they are five, most guys have figured out how to do this without looking down. Some of us can even do it in the dark. Just keep practicing.
He's on record in many instances against our freedoms and rights, he's not a fan of privacy or the right to record his officers on duty. And as for SLC, well this is a city that will cite you for idling too long, waiting to pick your kids up on a cold winter day with below freezing temps or a hot summer day with 100+ temps, this is a city that finds every little fine and penalty it can to drive visitors away from it. And this is par for the course. As others have noted it will be nearly impossible for them to "find" the footage if it helps your defense. However if it proves your guilt they'll be sure to have it ready for the prosecution.
And why glasses? Not every officer wears glasses. Yes many with good vision do wear sunglasses during the day but not all and what about at night? Rather if they really want to put camera's on their officers they should look at what other communities in Utah have been doing for a few years now, pin-hole camera's mounted in their ties. Far less burdensome as they already all wear a tie as part of the uniform, now the camera just makes the tie-tack a little larger.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
There is a constant us vs. them mentality with the general public and the police. Even with a motto of "protect and serve", it is often obvious that this is not what the bad cops intend. With video recordings, weeding out the bad cops will be very easy, which will lay groundwork for the good cops to continue to build a relationship with the community.
When the police are a menace to the neighborhood then the neighborhood will not work with them, they will not come forward with evidence and they will not testify. If the police can improve on these relations it is likely people will be more forthcoming with information.
This is a win for everyone involved, however as others have stated I have a feeling that the footage will not be as freely available as we would like.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that everyone in the Salt Lake PD gets a camera.
Now the question becomes: who gets to review the footage and for what reason.
Anyone who has a subpoena from a court, either because they are charged with an offense, or because they have a civil suit against the police. This is exactly how it works with any other evidence collected by the police. Was this supposed to be a hard question?
I don't think the public will or should ever be able to see all the recordings at will. Police officers are often in places and looking at things that the public does not have a valid interest in seeing -- not because of the officers, but because of the rights of the public with whom they're interacting.
I'm sure the defense would be able to subpoena the relevant segments of recordings, though, and the police will have some explaining to do if they're routinely not available.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
I don't know.
Lawyer: "What are we seeing?"
Officer: "Well, we're in a high speed chase with the plaintiff in the stolen car... right about now we perform a pit maneuver, forcing the suspect off the road, he attempts to make a run for it at which point the arresting officer tackled him and brought him to the ground, I run over to assist... and at this point I really needed to use the restroom so I did and the camera cuts out. When the video resumes twenty minutes later (I drank a LOT of coffee), the plaintiff has clearly bashed his head against the ground numerous times until he was comatose. I would have prevented him were I not urinating. For twenty minutes."
So YOU are the guy who keeps missing the toilet in the office! Man, you're almost a legend after all these years...