LAPD body camera policy needs revision

On Monday, 860 Mission Division Los Angeles Police Department police officers went on duty with the addition of body cameras in an effort to create transparency. The new policy was reviewed and approved in April by a police commission with a 3-1 vote. By allowing police officers to pre-review images from their cameras, the policy undermines its effectiveness — though it should not be a precursor to a policy that uses public funding for these body cameras.

This policy rollout falls in line with Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti’s goal of equipping over 7,000 officers in Los Angeles with body-mounted cameras within the next two years. The recently enacted policy was made possible with more than $1.5 million in private fundraising. But whether or not such gear can effectively invoke a sense of accountability is put into question when the rules which govern the usage of the body cameras are seemingly counterintuitive to its main purpose: increasing public transparency.

Any system that encourages accountability for one’s actions will reap positive benefits. However, separate from the gruesome and despicable acts of certain police officers, I believe in trusting and respecting the police force. That being said, there is nothing wrong with body cameras as long as the funding for the equipment derives solely from private funding and stays away from any federal monetary support.

In December of 2014, the Orange County Register’s Editorial Board brought up an important fact about the usage of federal dollars for the expense of body cameras.

“The Posse Comitatus Act was passed in 1878 precisely to prevent the federal government from intervening in state and local police affairs. We have seen how federal strings have diminished local education and welfare programs. We should not endeavor to add policing to that misguided list,” the editorial board said.

In order to safeguard the rights of citizens in our community, I commend the LAPD for making efforts to keep their officers accountable. There is no doubt that an officer on duty would think twice in terms of deciding what to do in any given situation of altercation, whether physical or verbal. But as the American Civil Liberties Union has pointed out, the rules that enforce the body cameras are lacking simply because the footage is barred from the public unless there is a criminal or civil court proceeding which would then present the necessity to release the information.

Back in April when the initial plan was created, Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck explained that the body camera ruling should be considered “slowly and carefully.” In a piece written in April by the Los Angeles Times Editorial Board, the board explained that though the efforts to create accountability were commendable, the rules that enforce the usage of the body cameras are faulty.

“While the proposed rules explain in detail, how and when officers must use the cameras, including outlining the few instances in which the devices can justifiably be switched off, and privacy protections for victims, the document fails to explain the department’s provisions for public access,” the L.A. Times Editorial Board said.

Though this act may transform the way our police force operates and the way in which information can be fairly distributed on the side of both officers and citizens, the policy rules must be altered in order to enact true transparency.

In order to do so, the rules must clearly identify when the body cameras are allowed to justifiably be turned on and off. The discretion of the police officer to manage the body camera must also come with the officer’s full understanding of a case in which the footage would violate the privacy of the citizen involved. Nonetheless, the main focus of the LAPD should be to promptly address the concerns of Angelenos by mending the rules to state that it is a legal violation for the officer to review the footage before it is handed over to investigators. But let me make this clear: It is our duty as citizens to protect the rights of both parties. Creating the space for police officers to testify before they have seen footage from their body cameras allows them to justifiably back up their own claims while also allowing the citizen involved to do so. Body cameras are a good thing if executed in the correct way.

Sarah Dhanaphatana is a junior majoring in political science.  She is also deputy features editor of the Daily Trojan. Her column, “Dhanapolitics,” runs Fridays.