Make the right decision on body-worn cameras

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 19/12/2024 (273 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

As occurs with many government decisions, the choice comes down to whether the potential benefits justify the costs, and whether moving quickly is the prudent course of action.

The Brandon Police Service plans to introduce the use of body-worn cameras in routine policing throughout the city by the fall of next year. The implementation will begin with an initial allocation of $400,000 for the project, but the service is hoping to receive additional funding from the province to accelerate the deployment.

The use of body-worn cameras by BPS officers is expected to follow closely behind the nationwide rollout of the devices by the RCMP over the next 18 months. Here in Manitoba, approximately 500 RCMP officers currently working in 44 detachments will be equipped with the cameras by next April. All other detachments throughout the province will receive cameras by mid-2026.

Brandon police Chief Tyler Bates, a former RCMP officer, supports the use of the cameras. He says that “They’re used to protect police officers. They are also used to protect the public in terms of accountability … They provide an unbiased record of interactions with the public. This will help protect the public in terms of accountability and providing that record, but also to protect officers potentially from false allegations of misconduct.”

The chief’s response is consistent with the findings of several studies, which found that body-worn cameras can help improve police accountability and reduce reports of misconduct, provide an accurate record of events, provide valuable evidence for legal proceedings and potentially deter violence or other illegal activities.

Other studies have found a number of drawbacks arising from the use of the cameras, however. They include significant up-front and ongoing costs, reliability issues, violation of privacy, concerns over surveillance, and the need for a clear, comprehensive and consistently enforced policy relating to the use of the cameras and the recordings they make.

On the issue of cost, Winnipeg police board chair Markus Chambers told reporters last January that it would cost that city almost $7 million to purchase body-camera technology and another $4 million to $5 million each year to fund the full-time positions required to monitor the program. He added that those expenses would be in addition to the “terabytes and terabytes” of space needed to store the footage.

That likely explains why a proposal to purchase police body cameras was rejected by Winnipeg City Council in 2021.

Brandon’s up-front and ongoing costs would likely be somewhat lower due to our city’s smaller police force, but they would still be significant. Some or all that expense would be funded through higher property taxes. At a time when Brandonites are already facing the prospect of large tax increases for the next several years, it is far from clear that they are willing to pay even higher taxes for body-worn cameras and related costs.

Beyond the issue of cost, an analysis earlier this year by professors Christopher Schneider and Erick Laming raised significant concern over misuse of the cameras by police officers, including not activating their body cameras, obstructing the camera lens, muting the audio, and switching cameras off prior to the end of an encounter.

The professors concluded that “the public cannot have the police service auditing themselves with this technology, especially if the public expects transparency and accountability of police actions to come from body cameras.”

On the issue of privacy rights, and the potential for video of people interacting with the police being made public, the requirement for an ambiguous, enforceable policy with respect to the use and retention of the video footage generated by the cameras should be obvious. The City of Brandon was found liable for tens of thousands of dollars not long ago due to the mishandling by senior BPS officers of intimate video footage.

Chief Bates argues that body-worn cameras improve accountability and “protect police officers” from false allegations of misconduct. It is fair to ask, however, if those potential benefits justify the significant up-front and annual costs associated with the cameras, or outweigh legitimate concerns over citizens’ privacy and the potential misuse of recordings.

The RCMP is just beginning to implement its body-worn camera program and the City of Winnipeg has so far declined to approve the purchase of body-worn cameras for Winnipeg Police Service officers, despite a chorus of calls for the city to do so.

Given those facts and legitimate concerns, there is a strong argument in favour of the Brandon Police Service delaying the deployment of body-worn cameras until we have a clearer sense, based upon the RCMP’s experience, of the merits of the devices.

It is often said that “you do things fast or you can do things right, but you can’t do both. The saying may apply in this instance. Let’s take the time to ensure we aren’t making a costly mistake.