Spokane7
61°
March 21, 2011 in City
Law agencies see benefit of cameras
But equipment too pricey for some
Post Falls police Officer J.D. Putnam returns to his car after a traffic stop on Friday. The department uses Coban in-car cameras to record every stop officers make.
(Full-size photo)(All photos)
For police agencies, cameras that record officer encounters with the public can help prove suspects are guilty and set the record straight if officers are wrongly accused of misconduct.
“It tells you the facts,” Post Falls police Capt. Pat Knight said. “It keeps us out of trouble.”
Over the years, law enforcement officials in Spokane County have largely dismissed cameras as not worth the cost. But as agencies deal with high-profile cases of alleged misconduct, the cameras are getting a new look.
Spokane police Ombudsman Tim Burns recommended in his annual report to City Council earlier this month that cameras be installed in police cars to provide definitive evidence in cases that otherwise would be mostly the officer’s word against the accuser’s.
“We need to find the money, and we need to make it a priority,” Burns said. “Why would we want to wait any longer?”
Spokane County Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich has requested money the past two years from county commissioners to outfit patrol cars with cameras. He said he believes cameras in most cases would help vindicate deputies accused of violating suspects’ rights. Currently, only a Sheriff’s Office patrol car that enforces overload-truck laws is outfitted with a camera.
“It has great potential to eliminate lawsuits that are filed falsely,” Knezovich said.
The Washington State Patrol has cameras in about 100 patrol cars and is asking the state Legislature for the money to buy them for all 600, WSP spokesman Bob Calkins said.
Knezovich is working with the Spokane Police Department to study how to best bring cameras to their forces. Knezovich said he’s especially interested in exploring the purchase of cameras that officers would wear, in part because they’re cheaper than car-mounted cameras.
Even so, outfitting both departments with cameras worn by officers likely would cost between $600,000 and $1.5 million, Knezovich said.
The Airway Heights Police Department bought cameras about 18 months ago for the department’s dozen officers to wear.
Chief Lee Bennett said officers are supposed to activate the cameras whenever they initiate contact with someone. They also advise those they contact that they are being recorded.
At the end of their shift, officers download the data to a server. Officers can’t erase data and can’t edit it, Bennett said.
Bennett said the department selected on-person cameras over car-mounted cameras because they were cheaper and more flexible.
“We can take them into the crime scene,” Bennett said. “They go where we go.”
David A. Harris, a University of Pittsburgh law professor who studies police accountability, said cameras are an important tool.
“What you find is there is a lot of push-back,” Harris said. At first, officers “feel it’s going to be a way for their Sarge to spy on them.”
But attitudes change quickly, Harris said.
“Within six months, most police officers will not go out in a car without a video system.” Harris said. “It’s a great way to gather evidence that in many ways is indisputable. It will defend them against erroneous complaints.”
Harris said cameras worn by officers, which have been introduced only recently, hold considerable promise because car cameras can miss important happenings. (Since officers wear microphones, however, audio usually is successfully recorded for both kinds of cameras.)
“They give the police officer’s view of everything they see,” Harris said, and are “particularly helpful in domestic violence cases.”
Knight, of the Post Falls department, said video usually vindicates officers’ behavior. But he said there have been encounters on tape that have led to officers being disciplined and made him think, “Wow, we probably should not have treated that person like that.”
In those cases, film can be used in training to help officers learn better ways to deal with confrontations, Knight said.
Kootenai County sheriff’s Capt. Dan Soumas said video footage can also help change the perspective of someone who is complaining about treatment by law enforcement.
Soumas pointed to a lawsuit that was dismissed by a judge in January. A woman accused Kootenai County deputies of breaking her leg during her arrest at a bar. The federal judge, alluding to police recordings of the incident, ruled that the deputies’ response was reasonable given the woman’s behavior and resistance.
The department has cameras in about 90 percent of its patrol cars and recently purchased some on-body cameras.
SPD Assistant Chief Jim Nicks said that if the department decides to introduce cameras, the Spokane Police Guild will have to approve the idea.
Detective Ernie Wuthrich, president of the guild, said there are mixed views among guild members about installing cameras.
“I haven’t seen studies to make me lean one way or another,” Wuthrich said. “My only thoughts are that it’s a working condition so it would need to be bargained.”
Spokane County sheriff’s Detective Dave Skogen, president of the Spokane County Deputy Sheriffs Association, said until a more concrete plan is known it’s too early to say if cameras would need to be approved by the union.
“I don’t see this as a contentious issue at all,” he said.
But with local governments struggling to maintain their current forces, Skogen expects cameras likely will “take a backseat” because of a lack of money.
Spokane Mayor Mary Verner said she supports the use of cameras, but called them “prohibitively expensive.” The price of cameras kept them from being purchased the last time the city studied the idea, she said.
“That was the obstacle a couple years ago, and that will be the obstacle this time around, as well,” Verner said.
Breean Beggs, a civil rights attorney and former director of Spokane’s Center for Justice, said as long as departments use video consistently it would help keep officers more accountable and could cut departments’ legal bills.
“My sense is it would save a lot of money on civil rights claims,” Beggs said.
That’s because, he said, if a video indicated a claim was legitimate, a department would more likely settle the case quickly instead of spending resources fighting it. If a video indicated a claim was false, it would be dropped sooner or never filed.
“When there’s video evidence, that tends to help vindicate civil rights,” Beggs said.
MAC faces angry crowd 
Albert on March 21 at 6:33 a.m.
Who’s Tim Burns??? Never hear of him, what is he paid to do anyway??
I find it very interesting that ole Ernie says that the storm troopers have “mixed reviews” on insuring a small degree of accountability. Here we are, We The People, who pay the salaries, receive the abuse, and now must bow to the storm troopers once again. Justice? Where in Spokane is justice to be found???
I wonder if Otto would still be with us if the storm troopers had body cameras when he was beaten to death?
AnalyzeThat on March 21 at 6:43 a.m.
After all the incidents that have occurred the past six months, most of which have conflicting stories, I totally agree that all of our LE agencies need cameras!
berrybestfarm on March 21 at 7:23 a.m.
I’ll bet the citizens of Spokane would support a bond to pay for the cameras so no excuses about money. I’d be happy to make a donation if anyone wants to start a fund raiser.
Dennis Patterson—Deer Park
fishinjay on March 21 at 7:30 a.m.
Considering the usual comments about law enforcement (see “stormtroopers” comment above) I’d love to equip the police with cameras.
The cameras do two things: they help police defend themselves when wrongly accused, and they encourage better behavior from police who know that their cameras will show their every mistake.
detroitdude on March 21 at 7:51 a.m.
I’m all for it. As a private citizen you can pretty much rest assured that any time you go out in public you are consenting to be on camera, whether it’s in a store, or if someone is recording in a public place, there are even cameras to catch you for traffic violations. I don’t think monitoring everyone is the best answer, but if we have to deal with it the cops should too.
TheRoyLarsen on March 21 at 7:57 a.m.
Yep. It serves to guard the officer against “frivolous” claims. Believe it or not, some people don’t believe there are such things.
Bullshapitsca on March 21 at 8:02 a.m.
“SPD Assistant Chief Jim Nicks said that if the department decides to introduce cameras, the Spokane Police Guild will have to approve the idea.”
If this is still the case the next time a contract is signed with the Spokane Police Guild, the people of Spokane deserve the complete disregard for accountability that the SPD demonstrates on a daily basis.
How can one have anything but contempt for a law enforcement agency that does not have to answer to the people it “serves”.
Orphan on March 21 at 8:39 a.m.
I would also make a donation to help pay for body cameras.
The Police Guild and Spokane County Deputy Sheriffs Association should have no say in this. This is one good example of why folks are showing public employee unions the door.
Well said Bullshapitsca.
de3 on March 21 at 8:55 a.m.
All of us need to be carrying our own cameras at all times.
Unfortunately, in the state of Washington you are violating the law anytime your camera records someone elses voice without their permission. Even on a public street. Using your camcorder to record your kids playing in the park is, if it picks up others’ voices, and they do, violating State law.
The State needs to make it legal for all of us to carry cameras to protect our own legal rights.
DickAdams on March 21 at 8:58 a.m.
Let me see. Jim Nicks, a questionable guy with a forked tongue, gives one excuse that the police guild has the say. Mayor Verner, issues another excuse talking about exorbitant costs, yet she had no problem with the purchase of a building we could not afford, spending money like crazy for bicycle lanes all over town, and in the core where there were 2 lanes, and in some cases its now one lane for cars and the other for bikes. At certain times of the day, the car lane is backed up. Another observation, I`ve noticed the bicyclists violate the rules of the road and obviously think they are immune to traffic tickets. I`d wager if records were checked, bikers have not received any traffic violation tickets. And as far as forked tongued is concerned, remember poor OTTO.
Orphan on March 21 at 9:04 a.m.
de3 It is not unlawfull to record someone in a public place. Only private conversations are off limits. If you go off to the side say in a public park to seek privacy then it would be unlawfull, if you are at the park and someone is talking loud enough for you to hear say at the playground it is perfectly legal to record them. No one has has an expectation of privacy in a public place including the police. If it were unlawfull there would be a lot of soccer moms being cited/.sued for recording a soccer game.
I carry a recorder every where and record often.
You may record any public official while they are on the job. Please see Flora vs State for one.
SpokaneLiberal on March 21 at 9:22 a.m.
Orphan is correct. It is legally about the expectation of privacy. You can record officials in the performance of their official duties.
bszottlinger on March 21 at 9:26 a.m.
I have real difficulty understanding how the requirement to wear and activate a body camera or vehicle camera represents a change in working conditions which would require negotiation with the police unions. The officers are all required to carry and maintain various pieces of equipment including weapons, radios, cell phones, etc. As I see it the cameras are nothing more then an evidence collection tool that not only provides protection for the officer but also the public. Just think of the good evidence that would be available during a DUI arrest, or some type of public confrontation between an officer and a citizen. The only real problem I can see from an admissible evidence perspective is the recording of a contact in a private residence where it MIGHT be necessary to warn the parties involved that they are being recorded (RCW 9.73). So what is the big deal about requiring officers to use an evidence gathering tool that is used throughout the State and Country? If Chief Nicks is speaking for the position of the Spokane Police Department and the City of Spokane it sure makes one wonder why they are so fearful of the union. If that truly is the position of the City and the unions do control the government to the point that government is fearful to make any move toward accountability without jumping through union hoops then I’d say Spokane is in trouble.
liberal_in_right_wing_land on March 21 at 9:29 a.m.
I have only been pulled over once, but when I did, i turned on the camera on my phone on and told the officer when he walked up to my car I was recorded him and this encounter….amazing how nice he was after that.
This is something that need to be done, no matter the costs.
bszottlinger on March 21 at 9:44 a.m.
SpokaneLiberal:
As I read the statue and the case law, the issue is whether or not the conversation was private, not necessarily a public official in the performance of their duties. The conversation in a park scenario where the conversation was CLEARLY intended to be private, in my opinion, could not be legally recorded. My understanding of the statue in Washington Sate is that ALL parties must agree to the intercept and recording of a private conversation with a few very limited exceptions. It is a very restrictive state law.
Ed Byrnes on March 21 at 9:46 a.m.
Transparency and accountability are frequent words I use when writing about LLE. The SP Guild resisting transparency and accountability is historically consistent for them and as Brad says, it is a stretch to call cameras a change in working conditions. As for funding we have two funding mechanisms. LLE can request funding for cameras as a line item in a Byrne Memorial Grant application to the USDOJ Bureau of Justice Assistance. As an alternative some of the “slush fund” from asset forfeiture in drug cases could be applied to purchasing cameras and a server. Us citizens and LLE officers and deputies all deserve this enhancement to transparency and accountability.
Ed
bszottlinger on March 21 at 9:51 a.m.
LibinRWland:
There is Washington State Supreme Court case law that allows for the surreptitious recording of a traffic stop by a citizen. The court held that traffic stops are public and therefore not subject to RCW 9.73. So you didn’t have to tell the officer.
Bruce (aka thatoneguy) on March 21 at 10:10 a.m.
Considering the money they could save in lawsuits/investigations/suspensions (i.e. if something goes wrong there will be evidence, and they might stop some cop from deciding this is his Rambo moment), these cameras should pay for themselves within a year.
Spokane_PI on March 21 at 10:16 a.m.
The “we cant afford it” is code for we cant afford to pay when our officers conduct is caught on camera. Spokane Police and Sheriffs also do not record statements that they take…. Just their written reports. I wonder why? I attend interviews with the prosecutors office frequently and I am not allowed to record. Other counties where I have worked record interviews routinely (Grant County).
lewis8457 on March 21 at 11:36 a.m.
It will be entertainment for the officers, after Tucker said the incident was justified the officers could sit around and watch the video over and over drink swear and be their normal fun loving selves.
Why do we need cameras according to Ozzie and Kirkpatrick’s detectives every incident is the victims fault any way? I don’t even know why they bother to investigate police misconduct the results are always the same.
It costs us more money to keep a person who’s whole job is honesty, to be honest because we cant believe anything they say. While we pay them kings ransoms wages.
I vote we fire every one of then and all start packing six shooters again. Frankly I would feel a lot safer.
lewis8457 on March 21 at 11:44 a.m.
Albert Tim Burns is the 100 grand a year puppet the city hired to make the citizens think they have a voice with the police. It is just another empty position like………er…police chief.
they want us to feel safe as the police kill at will and golly gee it is always justified, boy I feel safe don’t you.
One good thing is we brought another Californian up here to take the job of a born and raised Spokanite. At least the city is consistent in its madness.
lewis8457 on March 21 at 12:09 p.m.
Yes the police union runs this town until we disband them we don’t have a chance in hell.
How long has it been since 7 of our finest murdered Otto Zehm? How many more have died? Do any of us see any thing changing for the better? No
The guild president said in a SR article last fall that he knew of no issues the public had with the SPD. Not more them 10 months ago when they were killing someone every 3 weeks! He knew of no issues.
We want out city back? Disband the guild. Other wise get used to it or move.
Orphan on March 21 at 1:18 p.m.
Bszottlinger, I am glad to see someone else has a handle on RCW 9.73.030. Most Law Enforcement Officers are badly in need of training on this subject.
The only thing I would correct is that you only have to notify someone during a private conversation that you are recording and record the notification, you do not to get their consent..
(3) Where consent by all parties is needed pursuant to this chapter, consent shall be considered obtained whenever one party has announced to all other parties engaged in the communication or conversation, in any reasonably effective manner, that such communication or conversation is about to be recorded or transmitted: PROVIDED, That if the conversation is to be recorded that said announcement shall also be recorded.
Ed Byrnes on March 21 at 4:54 p.m.
If the RCW allows us citizens to record public police behavior I say those of who have the equipment might as well go ahead and do for our community what the Guild says can’t be done. Brad, is there anything in the RCW that prohibits a clean and sober citizen who is following all of the traffic laws from following a SPD car?
bszottlinger on March 21 at 5:29 p.m.
Orphan:
I think you may be looking at the media exception, something I’ve been looking at for a while. If the interception device is in plane view at it is obvious the intent is to record, and no objection takes place then it’s okay as far as I can see.
What I have found interesting is (There is a lot of legislative history and other history regarding interceptions in Washington) at the time the law was enacted (1976) there was considerable discussion about legislative corruption as well as local corruption. Back then an individual named “Frank Colacurico” pretty much owned the legislature, the governors office, and the Seattle government including the police department. There was a little less influence on the east side of Washington but a lot less opportunity for money. Everyone knew what was going on and the influence in Eastern Washington came and went peaking during EXPO 74. Mr. Colacurico recently was convicted of Federal RICO charges, something government had been trying to do for decades.
Basically what happened in 1976 was the Washington State Legislature( because of a lot of media stuff in NY, similar to what was going on in Seattle, etc.) out of fear of everyone getting kicked out, enacted an all party consent law to make it look like they did something.
Some of the police officers who testified during the hearings regarding the Washington State wire tap laws were so upset that despite their objections to the all party consent law being enacted they went ahead and tape recorded civic leaders conversations with some pretty interesting folks, you ought to hear some of the tapes it would make a man cry or laugh
By the way in Washington State an individual who improperly records a private conversation is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. Because I would never want to be accused of being gross, nor would I want to do the 4 hour jail booking time and subsequent fine, I wouldn’t do it. Even if the publisher agreed to pay whatever civil costs might come from it.
bszottlinger on March 21 at 5:47 p.m.
Orphan:
I think based on a strict reading of the code you are correct. If the intercept device was obvious and the intent to record was clearly expressed on the recording, and no one clearly expressed an objection, then have at it and let it play out.
bszottlinger on March 21 at 5:51 p.m.
Ed:
I don’t think so but give me and the girls some time to look for best position. It has been done in other areas, and they have been the subjects of some harassment.
bszottlinger on March 21 at 6:07 p.m.
Orphan:
I forgot, besides Flora, look at Lewis et al it is even better then Flora and more recent. Even though that facts deal with admissibility of dash camera evidence in favor of law enforcement, the decision makes it great for the public.
Elkay on March 21 at 6:21 p.m.
LibinRWland,
I also was pulled over about 2 years ago, and wish the SPD officer had taped the encounter. I was clearly wrong (not aware of what I had ‘done’), was ready to receive a ticket, and yet I was treated with the utmost respect by the officer.
He gave me a pass, and I most certainly learned my lesson (hands trembling after the encounter!). Sometimes, attitude plays a big role.
I wholeheartedly endorse body cameras; and if a bond came up for them, I’d vote yes. They might help to get rid of the bad apples in certain agencies, and show the public how the majority in LE truly “serves and protects”.
Unlike the annoying Les Schwab commercial on here that drapes itself over my screen if I come within 1/32” of it. grrrrrrrr.
bszottlinger on March 21 at 6:28 p.m.
If one were to really take a good look at the Washington State interception laws they would go back and look at an old case where a corrupt Seattle Cop arranged to meet a guy in an alley who was going to give evidence against the cop and others. Once the guy got the call for the meet he knew something was up so he recorded the whole meeting, including the shots that killed him. I won’t mention how the recording was handled by the courts but the whole case sounds like one of the new movies.
Elkay on March 21 at 6:35 p.m.
@ Brad,
Gasp!!!
bszottlinger on March 21 at 6:53 p.m.
BTW:
Regarding “Lewis” et al, it is a different “Lewis”. Sorry Lewis I should have clarified!
eagleproducer on March 21 at 6:56 p.m.
Haven’t we all seen the advertisements on T.V. for the Bell and Howell Mini Cam? They are about the size of a flash drive, hold up to an 8 gb card that can record up to four hours of high definition video and cost under 70 bucks. I bought two for my business and use them for POV shots during weddings, etc. I’m highly impressed with both the quality and compatibility with various video editing platforms.
Do the math: 100 cops, 70 bucks per camera… sounds like about a seven thousand dollar investment, not 600,000 to 1.5 million. The force wouldn’t even need to buy 100 because there are never that many cops on duty at the same time in Spokane.
Orphan on March 21 at 8:31 p.m.
Bszottlinger I did not cite Lewis because it seems to confuse people because its from the law enforcement side of things. I agree with you lewis would work both ways. Dang I am impressed. Recording Officers actions would be very good for the honest Cops, hate to see good Officers drug through the muck of false accusations about as much as I hate bad Officers violating their oaths.
Bullshapitsca on March 21 at 8:47 p.m.
eagleproducer,
There is quite a bit more to a police dash or body cam than just a camera. The software that handles the imaging needs to be secured in such a fashion that it can stand up in court, chain of custody, time stamping and that sort of thing. There are legal minds in this discusion that know far more than I do about that. There is installation, training, maintenance, the hardware itself, and lot more that considers into the cost of such a system. And last but not least, the whole thing will be aquired by a bureaucracy that has no regard for the peoples money. The actual camera doing the image acquisition might very well be a Bell & Howell mini cam as they are good cameras.
eagleproducer on March 22 at 6:51 a.m.
bull: Keep it simple. All digital images have a time/date stamp, whether it show in a print or onscreen or not. I can’t think of any software issues that would preclude the use of the Bell and Howells. As for training, how much money does it take to show an officer how to load a memory card and turn the darn thing on?
bszottlinger on March 22 at 8:22 a.m.
Bullshapistca:
I would have no idea of costs involved, but because the recordings are evidence it would be necessary for any system to have documentation, storage, and retrieval systems consistent with the rules of evidence.
Spokane_PI:
It is interesting that practices regarding recording and documenting defense interviews in Spokane County are different from other counties. I noticed that during some cases in Spokane County the law enforcement investigations do include recorded statements, as evidenced by Zehm and Creach, However it appears this is only done in major cases perhaps because it is time consuming and not all cases justify the time spent. In the Zehm case I don’t believe the two girls who called 911 were ever asked to provide a recorded statement. As important as they were to the investigation I would think that should have been done. As it turns out once the girls were contacted by federal agents they told the agents that the statements attributed to them in the police report were not accurate. Another thing I found interesting in the Zehm case was when the AUSA requested notes from the investigators the investigators told him the notes had been destroyed. At that time the destruction of those notes would have been in violation of the Washington State Records Retention Act. I would assume during the Thompson trial the AUSA will point that out to the jury. Last year after lobbying from law enforcement the law was changed regarding the retention of law enforcement notes, and the law no longer requires case notes be maintained until the final disposition of the case. I view this as just another effort to duck accountability, and to an extent I blame the defense bar which, at least in Spokane County, did not as a matter of course demand officers notes prior to trial. There is a long history of exculpatory evidence emanating from officers notes, the reverse is also true. The Spokane County Prosecuting Attorney has an obligation to provide the defense with any exculpatory information not only in his/her possession but also in the possession of the police agency. In my view, in the interest of justice, the SCPA should require police agencies to provide their notes when submitting a case. I know it won’t happen, and a lot of things that should happen in Spokane just don’t.
My point is quite simple, as far as accountability goes in Spokane County, law enforcement for some reason has the upper hand.
Ebyrnes:
There is nothing we can find that would prohibit what you suggest, as long as nothing was done that could even remotely be construed as obstructing the officers, or putting the individuals doing the recording in a position where law enforcement could make a case that they represent a danger to the officer or themselves.
bszottlinger on March 22 at 8:24 a.m.
Eagleproducer:
It depends on the age of the officer. If it were me you are looking at a good month.
Spokane_PI on March 22 at 9:21 a.m.
bszottlinger
I cannot figure out why Spokane does not record all interviews. It is simple to record interviews on a $50 digital recorder and you could easily store all of the statements in a case on one CD. Transcripts of the statements can be provided and they are a heck of a lot more accurate than someones written notes. Plus you can go back and listen to the voice inflections. If someone changes their mind in court or they become unavailable in court the recording may be used.
The only conclusion I have come up with is that LE does not want anyone to hear their “interrogation” methods because they know their methods may not hold up under scrutiny. ie false confessions after 12 hours of interrogation. Then later the defendant is cleared by DNA evidence….
I believe that police officers should wear cameras and should be accountable for the recording of each contact. They should be fired the first time they “forget” to turn on the recorder. Or, the recorder should automatically start if they turn on their emergency lights or get out of their vehicle. The only exception would be if they are out of service. The video should also include gps information on it.
nslopeofw on March 22 at 10:33 p.m.
Keep in mind that there was video of Otto being murdered, yet the police still claimed the coke bottle was a deadly weapon. They held on to the evidence until they were forced to show it, and still claim they did nothing wrong.
I’m all for these camera’s, but i still think the good-ole-boys will find ways to blame the civilians, and protect their buddies.
nslopeofw on March 22 at 10:45 p.m.
One thing is for sure. If a government agency is purchasing the camera’s, the price will be double what it normally would be.
Another thing, if the Bell mini cam’s were bought by someone other than the government, they would get a deal on volume, and probably pay a lot less.
Either way, count on the camera’s (if ever bought) being high dollar, and probably something more like what our solders use. Very durable, reliable, and damn expensive.
DemoDriver on March 24 at 3:49 p.m.
Cameras on LEO’s, both body and car seem like a GOOD idea.
Let’s also outfit all cruisers with GPS and make it mandatory that such information be given up during discovery during any legitimate claim of inaction—that way, if the nearest potential respondent was sitting in front of Dick’s, we’d know about it.
Turning on a tape recorder during a traffic stop (I’ve done this) generally illicits a minimum of talking on the part of the LEO who stopped you.
When asked to turn it off you have the right to refuse—same as when asked to consent to a search.
It’s a relatively inexpensive piece of kit that has the potential to save hundreds- if not thousands- in increased insurance premiums when properly used to defend oneself in civil court.