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."

27 of 307 comments (clear)

  1. And the downside? by Lyrata · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:And the downside? by crakbone · · Score: 4, Interesting

      UHP has already done similar. This girl would routinely leave her mic in her car when doing DUI stops. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865564397/UHP-comes-under-fire-over-internal-memo-questioning-troopers-arrest-practices.html?pg=all

    2. Re:And the downside? by tripleevenfall · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It will start mattering when facial recognition gets integrated into this as a "next logical step for public safety".

    3. Re:And the downside? by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Also, what's to stop a cop from taking them off to do something under the table?

      Well, then you pretty much have to say "any police action which doesn't have the corresponding video will result in disciplinary action".

      You won't be able to stop the outright corrupt cops, but if someone did an arrest and didn't have the glasses on to record what actually happened -- they might get thrown out of court.

      At least, that seems a sane way. We hear far too often about cops deciding they can take/break cameras, delete images, and all sorts of other things they're not really legally allowed to do. Enforcing some level of accountability on them might actually do some good.

      There's an awful lot of police officers who either don't know, or don't care, about what they're legally allowed to do.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:And the downside? by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Still all in all, a better balance would be that the police turn them on when ever they are going to interact with the public and the rest of the time they are off. Good police officers still deserve a measure of privacy and personal respect. Bad police officers who fail to turn them on prior to interacting with the public should be fired.

      Problem with these cameras of course, bad officers will soon learn to strike out of camera view with fist and truncheon to escalate violence, whilst their partner 'looks' the other way and then deny it with 'proof' of video. Much like DNA evidence, better not get too wrapped into what the camera 'sees' unless they go with a fish eye lens and high resolution so they can extract the scene they are after.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  2. Recording avialability by AG+the+other · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When it comes down to a trial the recording will be lost. Bet on it.

    --
    Non bene pro toto libertas venditur auro
    1. Re:Recording avialability by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When it comes down to a trial the recording will be lost. Bet on it.

      And in the absence of otherwise compelling evidence, the jury will see the "lost tape" as evidence that the cops are lying, and they will vote to acquit. Jurors aren't stupid. They know that cops lie all the time, and it is already quite common for cops to be disbelieved.

    2. Re:Recording avialability by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't know the answer but I would guess that more often than not, when its you or I in the courtroom against a cop, the cop will usually be believed. shiny blue uniform, all that crapola.

      juries are stupid. only idiots make it thru voire dire.

      sorry, but our system finds the least thinking of our citizens and hires THEM for jury duty.

      I would not want to be judged by my 'peers', truth be said.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    3. Re:Recording avialability by onkelonkel · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In Canada we used to believe the word of an RCMP officer over the word of a citizen. The we had the Dziekanski case, where the video clearly showed that the cops were lying. Not only did they lie in their initial reports, but they continued to lie at the public inquiry, even though the video evidence clearly showed they were lying. I think if it came to a "he said she said" with the Mounties now, the citizen would be more likely to be believed.

      --
      None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
    4. Re:Recording avialability by garcia · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Minnesota Valley Transit Authority buses are all equipped with multiple cameras both internally and externally. When I have either witnessed issues which could be considered safety hazards to the buses and/or the people riding, I have requested these feeds. Most of the time I am told the camera was not functioning at the time and they'd investigate why: http://www.lazylightning.org/mvtas-multimillion-dollar-bus-2-0-is-a-failure

      When they were in the right they were quick to release the tape: http://www.lazylightning.org/mvta-rider-alleges-racism-over-bus-incident

      This is exactly what will happen here.

    5. Re:Recording avialability by Culture20 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, you are stupid. You're ego just demands

      Priceless.

  3. Weightless cameras? by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 5, Funny

    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?
    1. Re:Weightless cameras? by jkflying · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They have the same mass in space. Their weight is essentially 0.

      --
      Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
  4. Round 1: FIGHT! by sgbett · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Privacy Advocates" vs "Police Transparency Enthusiasts"

    Should be a good battle.

    --
    Invaders must die
  5. Same shit; different technology. by Raelus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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."
    1. Re:Same shit; different technology. by SeaFox · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Plus they will use it as an excuse to prevent people from doing their own recording. "You can turn that camera off now, this incident is already being recorded by our glasses cameras should the record be needed".

  6. and who will be able to see what the cameras see? by darkeye · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

  7. Two way street by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Two way street by cyberchondriac · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't subscribe to this paranoid hivemind stereotyping that *all* cops are violent, corrupt bastards either; like you said, sure, some are asshats, and get into the "biz" for all the wrong reasons (power, authority) and I hate those pricks (I've known a few), but not all cops. There really are good guys out there too. The bad just get the most publicity.
      That said, most cops are given a measure of leniency when exercising their discretion: if they want to give you that speeding ticket, they can; likewise if they're in a good mood and you're not an asshat at them, they can just let you off with a warning (I've had that happen) - even if the RADAR showed you speeding, they're allowed to let you slide if they decide to, so I tend to doubt this would interfere with that side of things, honestly -unless it was a much more serious offense, and in that case, no one should be sliding anyway, really.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    2. Re:Two way street by rsborg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      I'm going to assume you're not black, latino or homeless.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  8. What's the surprise by viperidaenz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  9. Re:As long by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  10. Chief Burbank's support is not a plus to this by dwillden · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  11. Cops and the Community need to co-exist by NinjaTekNeeks · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  12. Re:The devil is in the details by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Informative

    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?

  13. Re:As long by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Funny

    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."

  14. Re:As long by loneDreamer · · Score: 4, Funny

    So YOU are the guy who keeps missing the toilet in the office! Man, you're almost a legend after all these years...