Must be 1200 words with intext citation and references. He wants us to use more than 1 reference

1. Using the internet and the text (chapter 13) give a narrative overview of the Kansas City Preventative Patrol Experiment, detailing the findings and analysis of this controversial experiment.

2. Do you agree with the findings of the experiment and why or why not?

3. . If the same study was conducted today do you expect to see the same results? Justify your answer.

4. If you were the Police Chief in Kansas City during the experiment would you make any long lasting changes in preventative patrol verses random patrol? What would they be and why?

Reply to Rachel at least 75 words

Body worn cameras have been a topic of discussion in law enforcement for several years. There are pros and cons to wearing body worn cameras. In my opinion, police executives should support the idea of their officers wearing body worn cameras.

As an administrator, body worn cameras allows you to review your officers interactions with citizens. This review could lead to improved officer safety tactics and improved police conduct (Kaste, 2017). The video evidence will help investigate police misconduct and reduce citizen complaints (Police One Staff, 2015). Unfortunately, body worn cameras are not cheap and the cost of the cameras could be an issue (Estrad, 2016). Once body worn cameras are used, storage of the video evidence will be a problem (Estrad, 2016). Body worn cameras will add more work for the police department in viewing and recording the footage for training, complaints, subpoenas, FOIA’s, and etc.

As an officer, body worn cameras have been proven to be beneficial. Body worn cameras give a clearer picture of what happened during the incident (Estrad, 216). Body worn cameras have proven to lower the citizen complaints made against officers (Police One Staff, 2015). Body worn cameras have proven to assist officers in convicting criminals. Policies on body worn cameras for officers have been confusing. There are privacy concerns for the officers themselves and for the individual’s they come in contact with (Estrad, 2016). One of the biggest complaints I have heard is that the cameras do not record what the officer see’s; it records where it is being pointed.

In regards to the public, body worn cameras improve both the officers and the citizens behaviors when they know they are being recorded (Florida Atlantic University, 2017). Body worn cameras have helped police departments in building the public's trust. If a citizen is mistreated, the body worn camera can help to substantiate the citizens complaint. A disadvantage for the public is privacy (Estrad, 2016). The public may not want their domestic disputes recorded or the inside of their homes recorded without the permission of the homeowner. Another disadvantage is that the public may not know the limitations on what the officers can and cannot record.

There are many more advantages and disadvantages that I have not discussed. The advantages outweigh the disadvantages and I believe that body worn cameras will be worn by most departments in the United States within the next ten years.

Reply to Lisa at least 75 words

Opinions vary on the issue of body worn cameras for police officers depending on who you ask. As with most topics opinions vary and so do the lists of pros and cons. One pro is the use as evidence in court (Macari, 2015). If the event was caught on video it can be pretty compelling. There is also the belief that is will hold the officer accountable for his or her actions. Then there is the issue of complaints against officers. If the interaction with the public is on video it will help to validate or dispel the complaint on a officer. Even at the least it will aid in keeping the officer “straight” since they know that it is recording.

Then there are the cons, or negatives, to body worn cameras. As with many things the initial cost could be a problem for many departments. Then there is maintenance of the equipment and the storage of the videos (Macari, 2015). Then there is the times when officers forget and leave their cameras on and they record embarrassing events, such as restroom breaks. The list goes on these are just a few.

A survey conducted by the Police Executive Research Forum in 2013 indicated that about 75% of police departments did not use body-worn cameras. The Police Executive Research Forum also noted some perceived benefits of body-worn cameras. Some benefits included better evidence documentation and increased accountability and transparency of the department (Office of justice programs, 2017). They also noted things such as privacy issues, officer concerns, community concerns, data retention, and public disclosure policies.

Researchers at Florida Atlantic University and the University of West Florida conducted a study in two Florida counties, Palm Beach County and Escambia County, to get an understanding of the public’s feeling on body-worn cameras. They found out that the vast majority of people indicated that they believed the officer would behave better when wearing a body-worn camera. They also believed, by a vast majority, that the citizen would behave better being recorded (Florida atlantic university, 2017).

Policeone.com conducted a poll concerning the body-worn cameras. The biggest concern, indicated by the poll, was the lack of privacy of the officer wearing the camera. Other concerns were the cost, training, and storage of the videos. Some officers said that they did not like people second guessing their decisions. The debate of body-worn cameras is far from over. There will always be two sides to the debate, no matter how long it goes on. You will have those that do not want their actions monitored and you will have those that do not care who sees them do their job.

I believe that body-worn cameras are a benefit to an agency and it’s “good officers”. I did specify “good officers” for a reason. The agency that I work at has had them for several years (over 10). Not all the officers like them. They say that they are afraid something may happen and it will be used against them. It has aided in many complaints on officers and vindicated the vast majority of them. Our local Assistant D. A.’s office loves the videos that is the first thing they ask for when they get a case file. When a copy is given to the defense council the majority of the time a plea is sought. It does keep officers in check when they deal with the public which also eases complaints against officers. The officers that do not like the body-worn cameras recording them might as well get used to it because most people are now recording officers interactions with the public on their cell phones. At least if the officer has a recording they will know that is has not been tampered with or altered.

Reply to follow up Question

As we have seen too often, the media and purported “experts” play small snips of recorded events involving officers and the public and dissect them in great detail while playing them over and over again.  While it easy to judge an officer’s actions using this process that is not how the incident occurred in real-time.  In a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court Case, the Court held that an officer’s decisions in tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving situations are not to be judged with the “20/20 vision of hindsight” (Graham v. Connor, 1989).  This Court decision seems to have been lost in this discussion.  What do you think about this Court decision as it might relate to officers using body cameras and people second guessing officers’ actions?

Reference:

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)