Why Are DC Police Keeping
Their Body Cameras Off During
Inauguration and the Women’s
March?
JANUARY 17, 2017 | 2:30 PM
A lot of social media activity has come to our attention questioning why the DC police have been instructed NOT to turn their body cameras on during the president’s inauguration and the following day’s “Million Women March.” Many people seem puzzled by this.
“ACLU Demands That Body Cams Are Turned Off During Inauguration While They Intend To Record Police” proclaims the headline of one widely circulated post, on a site called “Law Officer” (and seemingly based upon this local story by the NBC DC affiliate).
It’s not an ACLU “demand,” it’s actually DC law. True, the ACLU of DC supported and encouraged adoption of that law, but the wider District of Columbia community as represented by its city council agreed with us. And that law is not absolute; in its full form it says that:
MPD officers may record First Amendment
assemblies for the purpose of documenting
violations of law and police actions, as an aid to
future coordination and deployment of law
enforcement units, and for training purposes;
provided, that recording First Amendment
assemblies shall not be conducted for the
purpose of identifying and recording the
presence of individual participants who are
not engaged in unlawful conduct.
We supported that law for very good reasons. There is a
long history of law enforcement compiling dossiers on
peaceful activists exercising their First Amendment rights
in public marches and protests, and using cameras to send
an intimidating message to such protesters: “we are
WATCHING YOU and will REMEMBER your presence at
this event.” For a vivid picture of how photography can create
chilling effects, recall the civil rights march from Selma to
Montgomery Alabama in 1965, when Alabama state troopers
viciously attacked and beat peaceful protesters. Then take a
look at this ominous photograph, which was taken after
thousands of federal troops were finally sent to protect the
marchers:
Trooper filming Selma march, 1965. Photo by Alfred M
. Loeb; used by permission.
abusive ways against Americans peacefully agitating for a
better society.
there is no reason for the government to be filming or
otherwise monitoring its citizens absent suspicion of
wrongdoing—but it absolutely is the people’s right to
monitor their government, including police officers, and
how they are doing their jobs. Citizens should be watching
their government—but not vice-versa.
The purpose of body cameras is to serve as a check and
balance on the enormous power that society confers on
police officers, including the power to use brutal or even
deadly force in some circumstances—a power that we all
now know has unfortunately been abused all too often. The
purpose of body cameras is NOT to serve as an intelligence
gathering tool helping police collect information on people
exercising their rights. Even if intel gathering were not the
intent at the time that video was collected, there would
remain the possibility that police at some later date would be
tempted to run face recognition on that footage, or use it for
other, nebulous “intelligence” purposes (a word that in the
police context is directly connected to a long history of
surveillance and other abuses). There are serious concerns
in many communities that, instead of being a tool for much-
needed oversight over police officers, body cameras will
become just another surveillance device.
Such concerns are why the ACLU recommends (including
in our model legislation) that police department adopt a
policy against the taking of video of people who are merely
exercising their First Amendment rights.
Of course, none of this means that the police cannot turn on
their cameras during the inauguration or march if something
goes down. The policy of the DC police, like most, stipulates
that officers are to turn their cameras when engaged in “police
actions” such as calls for service, pursuits, searches, stops, etc.
Thus, if a fight breaks out, or some larger disturbance, the
cameras would go on.
Many of the articles and posts covering this issue point out
that the ACLU also supports and encourages the filming of
police by citizens through our Mobile Justice app, including
the DC version thereof—and suggest this is a contradiction
. A typical post, for example, says, “This one seems a bit
hypocritical to us. The ACLU... are pushing a mobile app
encouraging people to record the police... while not
wanting to be recorded themselves.”
But this isn’t hypocritical at all. As we’ve said many times,there is no reason for the government to be filming or
otherwise monitoring its citizens absent suspicion of
wrongdoing—but it absolutely is the people’s right to
monitor their government, including police officers, and
how they are doing their jobs. Citizens should be watching
their government—but not vice-versa.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for commenting. Your comments are needed for helping to improve the discussion.