Kaitlyn A.

Williams
Professor Cuddy
ENG 101-14
13 November 2016
Affording Civilian Trust:
The government finding money to gain the publics trust in police officers

How much will it cost to earn the trust of the public? Since the year 2014 citizens of the
U.S have questioned the police forces morality and accountability due to the unethical and
sometimes tragic end of civil arrest such as murder of the civilian during the arrest. Police
acquiring body cameras has sparked a national discussion and now there seems to be a debate
between the public and the police departments/government on whether all police should have
them. On one hand people feel that having the police monitored will help bring down unfit police
officers while others believe they will find a way to continue what they have been doing: finding
a way out of jail for murdering a civilian without actual cause. Though both sides of the debate
are factors in the possibility of police officers having cameras, the biggest issue is affording
them. America has just come out of the biggest economic recessions since the stock market crash
in 1929. Yes, having cameras will make a difference, but trying to supply every officer within the
U.S a body camera is potentially economic suicide for the U.S citizens.
The fatal shooting of Michael Brown, an unarmed teenager, in Ferguson was the initial
birth of the body camera debate in 2014. Shortly after this shooting companies such as Safety
Visions and Digital Ally donated several body cameras to the Ferguson police officers
(Hollinshed). The first run of these cameras was during the protest of Brown and his wrongful
death (Hollinshed). Since then more unarmed citizens have been killed during an arrest. With
more cameras being in use the more police could see how helpful it was for them to catch

citizens being unruly than them simply saying so. From there on out other states began to adopt
the idea of body cameras.
New York was also one of the first states to adopt the idea of the body cameras.
According to the New York Times, they first started off as a pilot program within the NYPD in
2014. However, a year before that a federal judge ordered the police department to test the
cameras for a year judging how effective they were in reducing unconstitutional arrest
(Goodman). They also wanted to show that some citizens are unruly and do not follow the orders
of some police officers. In able to truly test the effectiveness of the program they placed officers
with the cameras in high crime cities such as Harlem, Brooklyn, and Jamaica Queens
(Goodman). When the studies came out they were more towards how the police officers should
handle the equipment then how arrest occurred.
The public makes their point extremely clear about wanting these cameras to stop police
brutality or at least have surveillance of people who are supposed to be enforcing the law. In a
way, the public sees these cameras as a solution for all police mishaps, but that is not always
the case. As Jennifer Tucker, professor of history at Wesleyan University, said about the finding
of sash quack or paranormal activity, photos and videos can be interpreted differently (qtd. In
TIME). For example, Eric Garner jerking as he was being choked to death was interpreted as
resisting authority (Vertsi). The entire situation was recorded, but the video helped the police
officer get a slap on the wrist instead of punishing him for performing an illegal arrest which
resulted in death.

Media has portrayed everyones views on police body cameras except for the actual
police. Florida Atlantic University did a study in Sunshine County, Florida on 27 local law
enforcement agencies taken on the leaders within the department such as chiefs, deputies, and so
on. These same studies have shown that policemen are somewhat neutral to the idea of body
cameras. 21% agree body cameras will affect their behavior while on duty, but more than 58%
felt neutral on whether their attitude changing if not at all (Feeney). 60% feel as if the cameras
are there to embarrass them on media, undermining their capabilities to protect and serve
(Feeney). Based off most of the information police do not hate the cameras, but they certainly are
not fans of having to be questioned on if they are doing their job correctly. With the numerous
unconstitutional arrests, they have no real choice as to what they can do, for they are defenders
of the public here to serve and protect. Since their judgment has been questioned 2/3rds of the
department feel as if the only reason they must wear the cameras is because the public no longer
trust them (Feeney).
Not only do the citizens need to trust the police to use the camera during arrests, but they
also need to trust the quality of the camera itself. The quality of the camera depends on the
company they are provided from. For example, the two main companies dominating police body
cameras are Taser and Vievu. Taser, usually known for their stun guns, control 80% of the police
won body cameras; however, the NYPD does not make up that 80% (Ng). Alfred Ng reported
that they chose the startup company Vievu due to the deal of $6.4 million, which is half of what
Taser was asking for (Ng). The NYPD said their reason for choosing Vievu over Taser was more
of a financial move because Taser is more high definition and contains more storage space, hence
the reason why their deal was so high. Vievu gave officers basic camera functions, the quality

was low and they had numerous loading issues when the time came to show the video. Taser
argued that the NYPD should not settle for cheap cameras because the civilians deserve more for
their tax dollar, but these same taxpayers would suffer if Taser was chosen due to their high
prices (Ng). One of the leading officers stated how they did not need the bells and whistles of the
camera, just enough to get actual footage of what happens.
The most important factor of having the body cameras in use is finding the money to pay
for them. Cameras can price from $500 to $800 dollars per camera. Per the International
Business Time, the LAPD still do not have the funds to equip their officers with body cameras
due to $57.6 million dollars it would cost them over the span of 5 years (Markowitz). The real
reason as to why these cameras are extremely expensive is because the amount of storage they
need yearly. Once the storage is full, which will happen often, they have to buy more and
regardless of the camera quality the price of storage will always surpass the price of the actual
camera. Counties in several states have come up with ways on how to afford these cameras.
Federal grants alleviating the costs, raising taxes, and trying to surcharge fines of DUI drivers are
the most popular ways the government has tried to find money to fund these cameras (Niesse).

The money for these cameras are going to come out of every Americans pocket one way
or another, but will that truly help the nation move forward over all? Many argue that the
cameras are an investment and over time theyll save the police money from being sued in court
for wrongful deaths and unethical arrests. Seeing how much debt the nation is already in there is
now way to genuinely see how this will help the country grow financially. The most common
way to afford these cameras are off taxes, but the people we are trying to protect [low income

civilians] are the same ones well be hurting financially. Since the police department is calling
for state money to help, state lawmakers must step in and take charge (Grovum).
The thought of having transparency with the police force is a forward-thinking
movement, but no one knows if body cameras could truly save the nation from police brutality
and corruption. Even if so data has proven that trying to afford this privilege is going to cost
America more than they thought. With body cameras on the rise, the taxes will do the same
hitting the nation in a spot they have not yet recovered from. The only step in the right direction
for America is to slowly get cameras within each state and test the stability of that states
economy with the tax increase for body cameras. If it is a success then they should continue the
spread of body cameras, but if it does not work out then they should wait for the economy to heal
and try again. Though they do deserve the right to enforce an eye to be on the police for every
arrest, these same citizens do not understand how they must be paid for. America is ready to
enter a new age of policing, but the reality is they cannot afford it.

Works Cited
Feeney, Matthew. What Do Police Think About Body Cameras? 16 December 2015. 16
November 2016. <https://www.cato.org/blog/what-do-police-think-about-body-cameras>.
Goodman, J. David. The New York Times. 5 September 2014. Newsletter. 13 November 2016.
<https://global.factiva.com/ga/default.aspx>.
Grovum, Jake. States Struggle to Pay For Police Body Cameras. 1 May 2015. 12 November
2016. <http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-andanalysis/blogs/stateline/2015/5/01/states-struggle-to-pay-for-police-body-cameras>.
Hollinshed, Denise. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. 2 September 2014. Newsletter . 11 November
2016. <https://global.factiva.com/ga/default.aspx>.
Markowitz, Eric. Police Departments Face A Crucial Question: How To Pay For Body
Cameras? 12 May 2016. Newsletter . 15 November 2016.
<http://www.ibtimes.com/police-departments-face-crucial-question-how-pay-bodycameras-2366968>.
Ng, Alfred. How police body cameras became a budget battelfield. 25 October 2016. 11
November 2016. <https://www.cnet.com/news/nypd-body-camera-police-justice-vievutaser/>.
Niesse, Mark. Dekalb County budget approved: Property tax and police body cameras key items.
22 July 2015. Newsletter. 9 November 2016.
<https://global.factiva.com/ga/default.aspx>.

Vertsi, Janet. The Problem With Police Body Cameras. 4 May 2015. Newsletter. 13 November
2016. <http://time.com/3843157/the-problem-with-police-body-cameras/>.