The idea is to hold police accountable for unnecessary violence.
But the history of police body cams reveals that the devices have often had the opposite effect.
On the afternoon of March 1st, a band of Los Angeles Policeshot a homeless man.
How it went down depends on who you ask and, more importantly, on whose video youre watching.
Keunang is thrown to the ground.
Officers struggle to contain him.
Hes resisting but subdued.
Hes not going anywhere, but he hasnt been cuffed.
Then after some yelling, three officers open fire.
From this perspective, the story doesnt look too good for the LAPD.
Sure, Keunang was resisting, but was he such a grave threat that he needed to die?
The answer to that question hinges on what the officers saw.
The LAPD hasnt released police body camera footage captured at the scene because its evidence in an ongoing investigation.
According to the official LAPD line,Keunang attempted to grab a gun from an officerduring the altercation.
So we have two pieces of footage, and two stories.
A civilian saw a gang of cops killing a poor black man on the street.
But police saw a suspect trying to grab their guns.
This is going to be a crucial test case for body camera footage.
Perhaps the most concrete demand of the protesters came straight from the family of Michael Brown.
Or, if as Browns supporters claimed, he had been executed after throwing up his arms in surrender.
On December 1st, President Obamaproposed $75 millionin matching funds to help police departments buy the technology.
Its the largest municipality in the United States to deploy a widespread police body camera program.
And yet many people believe that civilian footage shows police violating the civil rights of people on the ground.
Eric Garners death is the perfect example of this problem.
Body cameras, were told, will change the game.
Connie opened the door for the officers and invited them in.
The officers demanded repeatedly that Berry drop the weapon.
When Berry didnt comply, Officer Davis shot him twice, killing him.
The whole encounter was captured by a camera mounted to the side of Officer Daviss head.
Theres definitely something wrong.
But its also not the kind of solid evidence you might expect.
The case is remarkable because footage from a camera was used to exonerate an officer.
What could have been a complex investigation full of contradictory statements was simplified by the companys new wearable cameras.
Shue, the prosecutor, is prominentlyfeatured in press release, which quotes his report on the shooting.
This new technological tool recorded the entire incident by both audio and video.
Officer Brandon Davis, however, became a poster boy for the technology.
Hes prominently featured in ashort marketing videoabout the Berry shooting, which emphasizes how fast Davis was exonerated.
He was back on the job just 72 hours after the shooting!
The integration with Oakley makes it cool and comfortable.
This is a system officers will want to wear.
The original design called for a head-mounted camera attached to a body-worn pack.
You probably recognize Taser as the company that makes the high-voltage shock weapon thats ubiquitous among police these days.
According to Taser rep Steve Tuttle, body cams actually grew directly from the companys high voltage weapons.
Taser had begun putting cameras in the shockers that would be activated automatically when the weapon was used.
And the AXON body cameras were the next stage in that campaign.
It will help provide revolutionary digital evidence collection, storage and retrieval for law enforcement.
A few sentences later, Smith also claimed that the cameras could be used for police reform.
It could legitimately be used to bust police in the act of doing something wrong.
San Jose did a pilot program, but the city still hasnt fully invested in the technology.
In fact, it would be years before big cities with huge police departments would get started.
Taser rolled out pilot programs in towns where police chiefs expressed interest.
For that reason alone, it was worth the investment.
Under controlled conditions, Farrar studiedhow the presence of police cameras affected the nature of encountersbetween police and civilians.
Even police not wearing cameras saw a reduction in violent encounters in complaints.
The case was widely reported, including severalglowingprofilesof Farrar in the New York Times.
Police networks circulated the findings uncritically, as a kind of tacit endorsement of the cameras.
The study even entered courtroom decisions.
In August 2013, US District Judge Shira ScheindlinorderedNYPD precincts to test the technology.
She cited Rialto as evidence that cameras could be helpful in reducing community tensions and fostering police reform.
Taser rep Steve Tuttle says that the Rialto study marked a major turning point for Tasers sales as well.
The technology really began to take off in the wake of Rialtos success.
Will We Ever Get a Body Cam Conviction?
Whats more, it hasnt been shown that cameras have a lasting effect after their initial rollout.
Will the findings about reduced violence hold after people get used to seeing cameras everywhere?
There are dozens of such videos.
In fact, until recently, body camera footage has never been used to indict an officer.
The whole shooting was captured on body camera.
The officers arrived and told Boyd to pack it up and move it along.
When Boyd refused, the officers called in scores of reinforcements.
Officers repeatedly demanded he drop the knives.
Then, in the heat of the moment, Sandy pulled the trigger.
In fact some contend that Boyd was in the process of surrendering when he was killed.
There was absolutely a potential threatthere almost always isbut there were many options beyond killing Boyd.
Ultimately, the officers were indicted, indicative of how body cameras could help hold police accountable.
It allowed the justice system to pursue punishment for officers that did things that are unquestionably wrong.
Still, theres almost no opposition to the technology from people on all sides of the law enforcement spectrum.
Cops, lawyers, activists, and vendors all support the tech.
Why not have the footage?, argues Tasers Steve Tuttle.
The grouppublished a white paper in 2013outlining policy priorities on the subject.
People expect there to be video, ACLU policy analyst Jay Stanley told me.
Thats the age we live in.
People are surprised when events arent recorded.
These perspectives feel right.
Transparency and evidence are indisputably good things.
The most optimistic reading of the technology Ive heard came from Alex Rosenblat from the Data & Society center.
Its not useful to look at it as a way to punish specific officers, she said.
We should be asking how can we use the experiences recorded on camera to improve training.
Surely some officers deserve conviction?
Its unreasonable to suggest that the police never do anything wrong.
The New Orleans police department, to name a prominent example, has deployed them, with mixed success.
That should be seen as a colossal failure of transparency.
Either officers werent turning cameras on, or the footage was magically disappearing after the fact.
Even when footage does exist, its not necessarily easy for a citizen to get their hands on it.
There is no denying that police body cams are already the future of law enforcement.
If you live in the U.S., they are likely to be coming to your city or town.
Will they prevent the next Michael Brown shooting, or at least get the officers involved indicted?
Can close study of the footage lead to reform?
But we can always hope.
This post has been updated since publication to fix typos and clarify language.
The content is unchanged.
News from the future, delivered to your present.
