Comment A proposal, with solutions (Score 1) 219
Prolouge: If you are thinking TL;DR, the few really important sentences are in bold.
First, my cynicism warns me this will decrease taser use...and increase firearm use. After all, everyone knows you don't bring a taser to a gunfight, and when was the last time you heard of a cop being attacked by a taser-wielding drug addict?
Second, I am not a police office or member of the "Justice System". I have a criminal record. The cops who arrested me did their job. I do disagree with cops who misuse what I consider overly broad powers. I am against legislation and policies that allow and even encourage a mentality in cops of "Everyone but us cops are just uncaught criminals". Laws and policies that make this a reality are repugnant to me, and to the very idea of any kind of democracy, especially a representative democracy.
Now, my proposal: I see some fairly easy solutions to a lot of the "problems" surrounding police body camera recording. I'm going to point out some fairly easy solutions, using current technology.
I am not affiliated with any company I mention here, in any way that I know of, I'm simply going to use one of the top 5 results from a google search when I need some basic facts. I use camera and recorder interchangeably in this posting.
If anyone wants to use these ideas, I'm giving them away for anyone to use as part of what I consider my civic duty. Of course, an acknowledgement would be nice. I am not going to attempt to patent any of these ideas, if I seem long-winded (TL;DR), I'm also trying to provide prior art so no one else can either. (civic duty, not duty to shareholders)
1. Power.
I suggest resonant charging, in-car, and at selected locations (for cops on foot/bike patrol).
I suggest resonant so that you can charge without removing the camera.
http://www.bodycameras.com/ [bodycameras.com] says their standard camera in continuous mode has 4 hours battery life, 10 with extended power/charger pack. The recharge time for the built in battery is 3 hours on USB via computer, wall, or vehicle. The USB 2.0 standard for a desktop is to supply 5V at 500mA which is 2.5 Watts.
Car patrols could have an in-car charger, and so they would only need the built-in battery and a resonant car charger, assuming these cops spend about half the time in the car and resonant charging can supply 2.5 watts of charging. Even less time in the car is needed if they leave the camera in the car and thus charging during lunch breaks. Less time yet if the camera and charger can handle a 5 or even 10 watts of charge. Foot officers could use the extended pack, or possibly even the built-in battery if enough charging locations are on their patrol route. Businesses on the route might even be willing to pay all or part of a chargers price in return for increased police presence at their location. Some planning is required here to insure enough chargers/charging time on every route.
The camera MUST have an easily viewable and understandable charge indicator.
Then it is the officers responsibility to either keep their camera charged, or immediately report in any failure of the camera/battery/charging system.
If an officer can't handle that small added responsibility, I would question giving them the responsibility of carrying a firearm which requires much more in the way of maintenance.
Bonuses: No need for the police station to have "charging docks", simply charging "shelves" for cameras not in use. No more corroded contacts, busted battery clips, broken dock contacts, and less warranty repairs for the manufacturer. The exact design might be as simple as a shelf system where each shelf holds x number of cameras. It might require some innovation or cooperation in the wireless charging field, such as dual wireless charging, with resonant in the field and inductive in a dock type shelf at the station (think pigeonhole desk with slighty larger holes).
2. Activation/Officer privacy.
This isn't rocket science, y'all. Most interactions between officers and others don't need to be recorded.
I've had occasion to ask a patrol officer to check out extremely suspicious activity by neighbors 4 houses down. When a guy drops a box on his doorstep and spills several pistols and an actual roll of money, I would like to be able to quietly, and relatively anonymously, ask a cop to check things out.
The camera, or a separate, "securely save video until no audio level over X is heard for at least 30 seconds" camera mode is activated by the officer yelling or any other loud enough noise.
The secure save mode could be on the device itself, or could activate a separate video feed to a locked down secondary recorder in a patrol car or on an officers utility belt, or even to other officers cameras within range.
The activated or securely saved video MUST only be reviewable or erasable at a police station or possibly even internal affairs office.
The important issue is that it be provable that no officer on the scene can review or tamper with the secured recording.
Not allowing review or erasure removes any possibility of effective collusion between on-scene officers, and if the public knows that, it increases trust. The camera should have a watchdog function an easily seen and understandable working/nonworking/low recording space indicator. A gunshot or car crash close enough should be a high enough level, but all officers are trained to give warning where feasible before resorting to deadly force. Officers are also trained to use a clear, loud voice when they are in, or suspect they are about to be in, a physical confrontation
Have you ever seen a video of an officer shooting at, or subduing, a suspect where both the officer and the suspect weren't YELLING?
The time of activation or secure savng should be timestamped and MUST be audio level stamped, and MUST be usable as evidence in investigations and courts.
Even if the timestamp was wrong, the audio level compared to the video should still be usable, since the issue is usually not when events occured, but in what order. If the camera activates and the first 10 frames are a suspect 50' feet away yelling, "die pig, die" as he pulls a gun, I'd say the officer was well within his rights to shoot. If the first 10 frames are of the back of a suspect who is running away suddenly developing a bullet hole, well, the audio level and basic audio forensics should be able to tell us whether someone else was shooting or whether we should charge an officer with murder.
If the camera malfunctions, the officer is required to call it in, and/or replace the unit before continuing their patrol.
This is the only place where the timestamp on the recording should matter, and the timestamp accuracy should be verified by SOP maintenance regularly, just as we do for radar guns. The recording timestamp and camera problem report time should, or lack thereof, should also be usable in investigations and courts.
Bonuses: Power savings, less chargers/battery packs needed.
Inability of tampering on-scene increases credibility, both of recording and in the public confidence in the recording.
Still allows normal officer activities and privacy, possibly also allows a suspect who believes they need video evidence to trigger recording.
Possible increased officer health. If an officers camera regularly activates in the restroom, perhaps a healthier diet is in order.
3. Profit!!!
No, really.
The reductions in cost of investigating incidents alone should cover a good part of the cost to purchase the camera system.
Reductions in the cost of prosecution, or in the cost of publicly defending NOT prosecuting should save even more.
Successfully defending against, or using hard evidence to prevent or reduce the length of a single wrongful death, civil rights violation, or police brutality lawsuit saves enough to buy a lot of cameras.
https://www.google.com/#q=aver... [google.com] Las Vegas, "Since 2011, Metro has paid out at least $5 million to settle civil rights..."
New York, "City Shells Out $22 Million to Settle Civil Rights Cases Against NYPD"
Oakland, "Oakland Spent $74 Million Settling 417 Police Brutality ..."
(Adding in Houston to the search terms provided this cynically humorous headline, "Brothers Sue Texas Lawyer Who Got Them $1.7M in False Arrest Case")
Of course, there are ways to game the system. A piece of tape over the microphone? Well, have an internal microphone, if it ever detects an (adjusted for being internal) loud noise the external mic doesn't, go to full record mode and blink the "BAD" status indicator. My idea of body cameras is to re-earn the public trust, save time and money, and remind officers of the responsibility they carry while also supplying a subtle reminder of the consequences if they fail to live up to the oaths they took to become an officer.
First, my cynicism warns me this will decrease taser use...and increase firearm use. After all, everyone knows you don't bring a taser to a gunfight, and when was the last time you heard of a cop being attacked by a taser-wielding drug addict?
Second, I am not a police office or member of the "Justice System". I have a criminal record. The cops who arrested me did their job. I do disagree with cops who misuse what I consider overly broad powers. I am against legislation and policies that allow and even encourage a mentality in cops of "Everyone but us cops are just uncaught criminals". Laws and policies that make this a reality are repugnant to me, and to the very idea of any kind of democracy, especially a representative democracy.
Now, my proposal: I see some fairly easy solutions to a lot of the "problems" surrounding police body camera recording. I'm going to point out some fairly easy solutions, using current technology.
I am not affiliated with any company I mention here, in any way that I know of, I'm simply going to use one of the top 5 results from a google search when I need some basic facts. I use camera and recorder interchangeably in this posting.
If anyone wants to use these ideas, I'm giving them away for anyone to use as part of what I consider my civic duty. Of course, an acknowledgement would be nice. I am not going to attempt to patent any of these ideas, if I seem long-winded (TL;DR), I'm also trying to provide prior art so no one else can either. (civic duty, not duty to shareholders)
1. Power.
I suggest resonant charging, in-car, and at selected locations (for cops on foot/bike patrol).
I suggest resonant so that you can charge without removing the camera.
http://www.bodycameras.com/ [bodycameras.com] says their standard camera in continuous mode has 4 hours battery life, 10 with extended power/charger pack. The recharge time for the built in battery is 3 hours on USB via computer, wall, or vehicle. The USB 2.0 standard for a desktop is to supply 5V at 500mA which is 2.5 Watts.
Car patrols could have an in-car charger, and so they would only need the built-in battery and a resonant car charger, assuming these cops spend about half the time in the car and resonant charging can supply 2.5 watts of charging. Even less time in the car is needed if they leave the camera in the car and thus charging during lunch breaks. Less time yet if the camera and charger can handle a 5 or even 10 watts of charge. Foot officers could use the extended pack, or possibly even the built-in battery if enough charging locations are on their patrol route. Businesses on the route might even be willing to pay all or part of a chargers price in return for increased police presence at their location. Some planning is required here to insure enough chargers/charging time on every route.
The camera MUST have an easily viewable and understandable charge indicator.
Then it is the officers responsibility to either keep their camera charged, or immediately report in any failure of the camera/battery/charging system.
If an officer can't handle that small added responsibility, I would question giving them the responsibility of carrying a firearm which requires much more in the way of maintenance.
Bonuses: No need for the police station to have "charging docks", simply charging "shelves" for cameras not in use. No more corroded contacts, busted battery clips, broken dock contacts, and less warranty repairs for the manufacturer. The exact design might be as simple as a shelf system where each shelf holds x number of cameras. It might require some innovation or cooperation in the wireless charging field, such as dual wireless charging, with resonant in the field and inductive in a dock type shelf at the station (think pigeonhole desk with slighty larger holes).
2. Activation/Officer privacy.
This isn't rocket science, y'all. Most interactions between officers and others don't need to be recorded.
I've had occasion to ask a patrol officer to check out extremely suspicious activity by neighbors 4 houses down. When a guy drops a box on his doorstep and spills several pistols and an actual roll of money, I would like to be able to quietly, and relatively anonymously, ask a cop to check things out.
The camera, or a separate, "securely save video until no audio level over X is heard for at least 30 seconds" camera mode is activated by the officer yelling or any other loud enough noise.
The secure save mode could be on the device itself, or could activate a separate video feed to a locked down secondary recorder in a patrol car or on an officers utility belt, or even to other officers cameras within range.
The activated or securely saved video MUST only be reviewable or erasable at a police station or possibly even internal affairs office.
The important issue is that it be provable that no officer on the scene can review or tamper with the secured recording.
Not allowing review or erasure removes any possibility of effective collusion between on-scene officers, and if the public knows that, it increases trust. The camera should have a watchdog function an easily seen and understandable working/nonworking/low recording space indicator. A gunshot or car crash close enough should be a high enough level, but all officers are trained to give warning where feasible before resorting to deadly force. Officers are also trained to use a clear, loud voice when they are in, or suspect they are about to be in, a physical confrontation
Have you ever seen a video of an officer shooting at, or subduing, a suspect where both the officer and the suspect weren't YELLING?
The time of activation or secure savng should be timestamped and MUST be audio level stamped, and MUST be usable as evidence in investigations and courts.
Even if the timestamp was wrong, the audio level compared to the video should still be usable, since the issue is usually not when events occured, but in what order. If the camera activates and the first 10 frames are a suspect 50' feet away yelling, "die pig, die" as he pulls a gun, I'd say the officer was well within his rights to shoot. If the first 10 frames are of the back of a suspect who is running away suddenly developing a bullet hole, well, the audio level and basic audio forensics should be able to tell us whether someone else was shooting or whether we should charge an officer with murder.
If the camera malfunctions, the officer is required to call it in, and/or replace the unit before continuing their patrol.
This is the only place where the timestamp on the recording should matter, and the timestamp accuracy should be verified by SOP maintenance regularly, just as we do for radar guns. The recording timestamp and camera problem report time should, or lack thereof, should also be usable in investigations and courts.
Bonuses: Power savings, less chargers/battery packs needed.
Inability of tampering on-scene increases credibility, both of recording and in the public confidence in the recording.
Still allows normal officer activities and privacy, possibly also allows a suspect who believes they need video evidence to trigger recording.
Possible increased officer health. If an officers camera regularly activates in the restroom, perhaps a healthier diet is in order.
3. Profit!!!
No, really.
The reductions in cost of investigating incidents alone should cover a good part of the cost to purchase the camera system.
Reductions in the cost of prosecution, or in the cost of publicly defending NOT prosecuting should save even more.
Successfully defending against, or using hard evidence to prevent or reduce the length of a single wrongful death, civil rights violation, or police brutality lawsuit saves enough to buy a lot of cameras.
https://www.google.com/#q=aver... [google.com] Las Vegas, "Since 2011, Metro has paid out at least $5 million to settle civil rights..."
New York, "City Shells Out $22 Million to Settle Civil Rights Cases Against NYPD"
Oakland, "Oakland Spent $74 Million Settling 417 Police Brutality
(Adding in Houston to the search terms provided this cynically humorous headline, "Brothers Sue Texas Lawyer Who Got Them $1.7M in False Arrest Case")
Of course, there are ways to game the system. A piece of tape over the microphone? Well, have an internal microphone, if it ever detects an (adjusted for being internal) loud noise the external mic doesn't, go to full record mode and blink the "BAD" status indicator. My idea of body cameras is to re-earn the public trust, save time and money, and remind officers of the responsibility they carry while also supplying a subtle reminder of the consequences if they fail to live up to the oaths they took to become an officer.
