A bill sponsored by Baltimore City delegate Frank M. Conaway that would authorize the use of Body-Worn Cameras (BWCs) for law enforcement officers was killed in the Maryland General Assembly 2014 Regular Session.
Maryland Senate’s Judiciary Committee produced an unfavorable report on April 3 after passing through the House with amendments.
Outlined in the bill, “certain law enforcement” officers would be required to use BWCs that record audio and video footage and agencies would be required to keep recordings at least 30 calendar days and create policies for the camera use.
The bill included a very detailed list as to who would be considered a “certain law enforcement officer” outlined in the bill. Those officers range from any state police officer and any county sheriff’s department officer, to members of specific enforcement groups and university campus police squads.
In addition to very specific law enforcement organizations that would be permitted to use the BWCs, the bill included many restrictions outlining what type of law enforcer would not be permitted to use the cameras, including any officer on detective duty or any officer on a probationary period.
Lt. Dwight Sommers of the Frederick City Police Department notes a complication with policy for officers on detective duty. He says that these officers are also on non-detective duty at times; in that sense, ever officer would need a camera even if it were not being used.
Delegate Conaway cited the Laurel County Police Department’s use of the BWCs. The department has experienced great benefits from the program, such as facilitation of writing accurate reports and evidentiary use.
James Brooks, Deputy Chief of Police for the Laurel Police Department, agrees the cameras have had measurable benefits. He says that one of the goals of using cameras is to “build trust with the community.”
With the footage, the department can use it as an education opportunity with the public. When a complaint is filed, the footage can be reviewed with the complainant, which becomes a learning experience about procedure.
Brooks says “in most cases, it’s been a positive [experience].” He says that this has resulted in a reduction in the number of complaints filed against the department because complaints can often be dismissed once the footage is reviewed and explained.
Citizens also use formal complaints as a bargaining chip for getting charges dropped. Brooks says that because of the retained footage, these type of complaints have greatly diminished.
Implementing policies such as the BWCs carries the risk of officers feeling as though “Big Brother” is watching them. Brooks says in the beginning stages of using the cameras, officers were reassured about the policy and goals for using the footage.
The department has a $2,000 three-year budget for each camera to cover costs of the camera and hardware, data storage and data uploading. After officers complete a 10-hour shift, they upload their recordings, which takes approximately 30 minutes.
The new technology is expensive, and the cameras pose financial issues to the law enforcement agencies affected. Sommers says that funding would have to be re-appropriated to purchase the cameras, as it is not a state-funded venture.
The Laurel Police Department currently has half of its 50-officer task force outfitted with cameras. The Frederick City Police, on the other hand, has approximately 300 officers; Sommers notes that generating funds to outfit larger police forces will be much more difficult than for a small force such as Laurel’s.
Sommers says he is not opposed to the cameras, but points out the issues of privacy and what recordings may cross the line. The Maryland Wiretapping Act prohibits any oral communication interception without prior, or two-party, consent.
In the Laurel Police Department, the Fourth Amendment was closely attended to when drafting policies and procedures for the camera use.
In the public domain, where there is not a reasonable expectation of privacy, the camera use is allowed but officers are to advise the citizen of the recording. Conversely, in a situation where a citizen does have a reasonable expectation of privacy, the officer must ask permission to record the interaction; if permission is not granted, the camera must be turned off.
In the House, amendments were added which eliminated the audio component and would authorize, not require, the use of the cameras.
“We might as well not do this if we don’t have audio,” says Deputy Brooks. He notes that without the audio there is little valuable context to the event; one cannot “get the full story without audio,” he adds.
Once in the Senate, the bill made it through its first reading, but did not advance following an unfavorable report by Judicial Proceedings. The bill did not make it through the Senate for Governor O’Malley by the end of the 2014 Regular Session on April 7.
Delegate Conaway was unavailable for comment.
###