Now is the time to think carefully about whether to record police interactions with the public and who would have access to recordings.  The reasons to record seem clear.  Some allegations of serious, even criminal, misconduct on the part of both police and citizens have been clarified by video evidence.  Law enforcement is impaired by mistrust of police.  If cameras reduce the mistrust, then police can be more effective.  The presence of cameras might motivate more respectful behavior by both citizens and police – leading to fewer confrontations.  All of those would be good outcomes.

On the other hand, some people may be reluctant to even talk with police if the conversation is recorded.  Would people have informal conversations with officers about neighborhood gangs and drug dealers if they knew that they were being recorded?

The idea of recordings seems good, but unanswered questions abound.    Which kinds of interactions will be recorded?  How long will they be kept?  Who can see them?  If some recordings won’t be released, what are the criteria for denying release?  These concerns are far from trivial, and if they are not properly addressed then the cameras and recordings could make our situation worse rather than better.

Police response to domestic calls would probably be recorded because the possibility of violence is high.  Words spoken in anger, possibly by someone who is intoxicated and maybe not fully clothed would be recorded.  Would the recording of that unpleasant scenario be public?  Can it be posted on the internet?  Who will decide what can be done with it?  Similar concerns could arise from neighborhood arguments and other police calls.

Will police be subjected to continuous micromanagement of their work, the political correctness of their choice of words, their body language, or tone of voice?  Can they exercise judgment and intuition in their interactions with the public or will they have to robotically standardize their communications to avoid allegations of bias?  Officers could be forgiven having such concerns.

If police have authority to choose which videos are public then mistrust may become worse rather than better.  Just imagine how one of our recent controversies might explode if a recording existed and police refused to release it or erased it.  Mistrust will surely grow if it appears that recordings are used against the public but are withheld when police have misbehaved.

If police can’t decide which videos to release, will it be a matter for courts?  Would that bring an inappropriate disadvantage for people who can’t afford attorneys?  Will the burden be on the police to demonstrate why the recording should be withheld or on the requesting party to demonstrate why it should be released?  What are the criteria for a judge’s decision?

Can police scan body-cam downloads for the presence of specific individuals or use the cameras as surveillance devices – tracking the lives of people that they target?  What does that mean to individuals ?  Does it violate their right to privacy?  Is it an unreasonable search or seizure?    Will police track people for political purposes?  It’s not a hypothetical question.  Even without sophisticated equipment the FBI secretly tracked political, civil rights, and union leaders including Dr Martin Luther King Jr.

Will the use of body cameras be expanded to other public employees whose work is regularly under public scrutiny:  teachers?  coaches?  paramedics?  Would you want their jobs under those circumstances?

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has published two sets of recommendations about use of body cameras.  In 2013 they were in favor of extensive recording.  Their March, 2015 update suggests less recording and raises many of the same concerns that I have mentioned.  These issues should be addressed before passing laws to require recording.  The ACLU recommends strict and extensive  guidelines for use of cameras.  My observation is that the guidelines might be so cumbersome and expensive as to be unaffordable.

Body-cams may be helpful but thoughtful planning and clear public  rules to govern recording are more important than quick implementation.  We should look carefully before we leap into state or federal laws mandating use of body cameras; and we should study the experience of communities that have voluntarily adopted them before requiring all police to use them.