As part of the Oakland, Calif., police department’s court-ordered reform to reduce the number of police abuse claims, almost all of the department’s police officers have been required to wear a personal data recording device, or a vest camera, since 2003.
But as independent monitor Robert Warshaw, a former police chief in Rochester, N.Y., documented in his recently released 16th quarterly report, which examined the department’s progress from July to September 2013, many Oakland officers are failing to abide by this rule.
Of the department’s 460 patrol officers, all have been issued vest cameras, and the department’s Interim Police Chief Sean Whent says the department has about 70 cameras in its reserve supply. The department’s current policy requires every officer who has been issued a vest camera to use it, but as Warshaw documented, many of the officers have failed to comply with this requirement.
In his report, Warshaw documented that while some officers failed to activate their cameras during critical times, such as when they were interacting with subjects who were being arrested and times when force was used, others didn’t have a camera at all, and said they had sent their camera out to be repaired weeks earlier.
Warshaw’s report was alarming to many, as it seemed to suggest that there was little oversight within the Oakland Police Department to ensure that the cameras were used. Although the cameras have the ability to catch an officer acting poorly, Whent said “They have been extremely helpful in shedding light on disputed reports.
“They’re great evidence,” he said. “There’s no debate on that.”
So then why doesn’t Whent use a camera vest himself?
Cause for concern
The report’s findings have been concerning not just for those who advocate for law enforcement reform, but for many Oakland residents as well, since the city’s taxpayers have to foot the bill for police-abuse claims, which cost tens of millions of dollars in the past decade alone.
“…Vest cameras are the best defense the city has against false claims of police abuse,” wrote San Francisco Chronicle columnist Chip Johnson, who believes every officer who interacts with the public should be required to wear one. “The cameras are essential and especially so in Oakland, a city where the integrity of the police department has been challenged in the courts and is the subject of an ongoing public debate.”
In response to the public backlash that ensued after Warshaw’s report was released, Sgt. Barry Donelan, president of the Oakland Police Officers Association, said that Warshaw’s report was outdated and pointed to the department’s ever-growing collection of video footage as evidence the cameras were being used.
“I think (the report is) a picture in time, and subsequent reports will show it has been used more than it was then; and like any tool, it will be used more in time,” Donelan said.
He added that while officers largely support use of the cameras, the union wants to have a “sit-down discussion with department officials” to discuss their use, since there is currently “no contractual language defining their use.”
While Johnson says he understands the importance for the unions to have a collective bargaining process, he says vest cameras are not a labor issue.
“The use of private-security cameras has exploded in Oakland, and city officials are now planning and building a citywide surveillance network,” he said. “ Oakland police also use audio-detection equipment to pinpoint gunfire.
“It’s incumbent on city government to provide its workers with the latest, most-effective tools available to do the job, and it’s the job of city employees to use those tools properly. This is a simple problem without controversy that helps remove controversy and conflicting claims and can help bring clarity to contested encounters with police officers.”