Police Camera Training Failure
When I first received training to be a Police Mobile Video Instructor (early 2000s), the cameras were car mounted with VHS cassette tape recorders in the truck. It was one week’s worth of training to learn how to teach a two-day operator class. The first and most important rule was OFFICER SAFETY IS FIRST AND LAST. They pushed that idea the entire week. Never risk officer safety to get a better video. It was trained that you position the camera to best capture what you think will be of evidentiary value and if it ended up being wrong, that is fine as long as the officer was safe.
Another concept they constantly reinforced was that the camera was a tool to augment an officer’s observation, they are not a replacement for what the officer sees. The last portion of this training I want to discuss is narrating to the camera as it records. As an example, consider a traffic stop. When you decide to conduct a traffic stop you activate your camera and make sure it is running. Then state the reason for the stop, number of occupants, and best description of occupants you can get at the time. Now the emergency lights and siren are activated. During this time, note if there are any furtive movements by the occupants or any other observations you make. Then approach saying anything that draws your attention and verbally confirm the driver’s name. This continued to include stating why an arrest was being made, a car was being towed, or searched. In other words, the officer is documenting their observations on the video in real time during the encounter. Later in court, it is obvious what the officer was thinking at that time and why they took the actions they did. It takes a little while, but you do get used to talking to yourself when the camera is on.
Fast forward until around 2014, when the “war on cops” started. There was an outcry for all officers to be outfitted with body cameras to capture all the brutality that was occurring. I sat in a meeting with an ACLU representative who at one meeting wanted officers to have cameras recording all the time when on-duty. The next week, that same ACLU representative wanted to make sure officers would not record protesters exercising their constitutional rights. How can the same person recommend opposite concepts? When I tried to discuss this inconsistency, I was immediately quieted by a command officer. Everyone in the room knew the contradiction, but we were not allowed to point it out. It was obvious that the camera was intended to maximize evidence against cops and minimize evidence against the criminals.
Fast forward a few more years. The camera was not capturing officers behaving badly as much as suspects behaving badly. Then the arguments started about if an officer can see the video of an incident before making a report. Isn’t the goal of a report to make an accurate written record of an incident? Since the cops were not as brutal as they were made out to be the cameras’ focus turned to policy violations. The videos of suspects behaving badly being more often hidden as officer alleged brutality and/or policy violations were repeated throughout the news day.
As bad as that is, it is not the failure this article is about. When training officers how to use cameras, the focus is how to turn it on and off. Then when the policy says it shall be on and when the policy says it shall be off. Next there is the requirement of telling the suspect that they are being recorded. This is so they can act right from the beginning or have longer to plan options during the encounter. When I was first trained, I was told this info was kept secret and brought out if a suspect started acting squirrelly. Then you let them know a camera is involved and hope it keeps them off balance enough for the officer to safely finish their work. Now an officer holding that piece of information as an ace in the hole is a policy violation.
The camera is a great tool, but it can only be as effective as it is trained. I have seen many policies where the intent of the cameras is obviously not to help officers. Can you think of any other tool that officers are required to have, but are not trained in how to best use them for the officer’s benefit? Why do we not have several days’ worth of training for using the camera? The answer is obvious when we see what the intent of these camera has always been.
I will leave you with a training nugget about using your camera to your benefit. For example, consider an officer used force during an arrest and now a supervisor arrives to investigate the use of force and see if it was within policy. Said supervisor turns on their camera and opens the back door to expose the arrested person. Supervisor quickly states their name and that they are investigating the use of force. Now slow down and ask, “can you tell me what happened?” Then let them talk. They always start talking about whatever they were arrested for, maybe admitting guilt, and even identifying how they acted poorly during the encounter. When they stop, then ask your questions to complete your investigation. The arrested person’s statements will usually be admitted in court because the supervisor said they were not investigating the crime and the supervisor did not ask a question about the crime. Miranda not needed. Cameras are great tools, but we must teach officers how to use them to benefit the officers as much as possible. Even if we do it as peer groups or quick roll call training.
Please Stay Safe, Humble, and Willing to Listen.