Skip to Main Content View Text-Only

Police Bureau

Sworn to protect. Dedicated to serve.

Phone: 503-823-0000

Fax: 503-823-0342

Non-Emergency: 503-823-3333

1111 S.W. 2nd Avenue, Portland, OR 97204

Feedback: On-Body Cameras

469 Comments

The Portland Police Bureau would like to hear your thoughts about on-body cameras.

The Portland Police Bureau is currently researching on-body cameras for police officers and would like to hear from the community about this important topic. The Bureau believes that the use of on-body cameras by police officers can improve community relationships, build trust and enhance officer accountability.

There are many steps in this process before the Bureau can move toward implementation on the street:

Legislative

The Oregon Legislature is addressing several legal questions surrounding police use of on-body camera systems, including, but not limited to, consent and public records. Through July 2015, the City of Portland will be involved in the legislative process and begin developing a budget.

Policy

Once the legislative process is complete and the legal hurdles have been addressed, the City will address equipment acquisition, discuss relevant bargaining issues, create policy around the use of on-body cameras, develop training for the use of on-body cameras, and eventually implement the use of on-body cameras by police officers on the street.

With this realistic timeline, the Bureau does not expect to begin implementation of on-body cameras until sometime in 2016.

We Need Your Feedback

The Portland Police Bureau would like to hear your thoughts about on-body cameras as a tool to enhance community relationships, build trust and enhance officer accountability.

Please provide feedback using the form below. Questions to consider include:

  • Privacy issues that concern you.
  • How to use the technology during sensitive investigations: domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse, response to care for someone needing mental health assistance?
  • Should footage be available to anyone who asks (this could include victim interviews, interior of homes, children, uninvolved community members, etc.)?
  • Once footage is released, should there be any restrictions on sharing and posting that video?
  • Other thoughts, suggestions or concerns you may have.

 

Thank you for your interest in this important discussion.

469 Comments

Add a Comment

3

Beverly Tobias

March 17, 2015 at 9:13 AM

I think on-body cameras would be a great idea in order to protect Police officers from the horrific accusations they face for doing their jobs. I can't believe that people side with criminals over police in every altercation. I guess certain people think that the only time police are doing the right thing is when they are protecting them personally. It's not the Police that are the problem! It's the way people are raising children to be angry, resentful, suspicious thugs. I can't believe the simple requests Police make that are met with defiance, rage and resistance. Watch YouTube and you'll find mother's demonstrating dangerous and defiant behaviors in front of their children, children pushing Police beyond limits of any human expectation and people purposely taunting Police in order to trigger a response. It's insane. Why should our Police who are there to "protect and serve" have to face the insanity of the populous alone.

4

michael sprague

March 17, 2015 at 9:14 AM

I'm all for it as long as there are not a lot of technical issues with the cameras suddenly don't work for a few minutes.

5

Phil Fleury

March 17, 2015 at 9:15 AM

As a retired Portland Police Reserve Officer, I support the use of body cameras. I believe that they provide an unbiased documentation of the facts of encounters with citizens, and that will benefit both police officers and citizens alike.

6

Carol Young

March 17, 2015 at 9:15 AM

I think the use of body cams is a good protection for the police and am in favor of it.

8

Susan Troup

March 17, 2015 at 9:16 AM

I am very concerned about privacy issues with this. I can imagine "leaked" videos appearing all over the net, showing bystanders, private home contents, gore, nudity, etc.

I think knowing that police have cameras would aid in dealing with violence or mental paranoia on the part of the person of interest, in that it might soften/inhibit their reaction to being approached.

Videos should only be used if there is suspected inappropriate police behavior, either by the people they are dealing with or their superiors. It should be treated like any other evidence, undergoing a chain of custody, and definitely not released to anyone not involved in the case.

9

Doretta Schrock

March 17, 2015 at 9:18 AM

I believe body camera will enhance trust, improve officer accountability, and protect officers from false accusations. There may be some privacy issues to deal with but, if implemented with care, the benefits of body cameras should easily outweigh any problems.

10

Felida

March 17, 2015 at 9:21 AM

Too early. There are still to many legal and tech issues with body cameras. I think body cameras are the knee-jerk reaction du jur to a perceived problem. Social media and entertainment orientated news organizations are fanning the flames of a false premise and causing cities like Portland to react unecessaily to appear proactive to the noisy minority. Let's save our money, let the technology develop and mature.

11

Damon Eisenach

March 17, 2015 at 9:22 AM

I think its a great long overdue idea. with the way things go today police need evidence of actions more and more.
unless someone whips out a phone and starts recording video any group of people can make up things that contradict the officers report and the media makes it so it seems the officers credibility is in question. that is wrong and if the only way to prove the officers credibility is body cameras to fight bad reputations and media coverage that doesn't have the facts then yes we need body cameras for all officers. for their safety for public transparency for the benefit of court room evidence. I am for it. a few bad apples have brought it to this but this can show the good apples.

12

Phil Anthony

March 17, 2015 at 9:23 AM

My family and I FULLY SUPPORT the use of the proposed body cameras. It is our belief that the images captured by them is indisputable evidence and will protect both law enforcement and those being filmed during the encounter.

14

Connie

March 17, 2015 at 9:36 AM

Personally, I think spending money on more equipment won't change or solve the problem. The issues run deeper than a body cam can solve. Body cameras are like the Emperor's new clothes.

I would prefer to see a program for debriefing, anger management, assertiveness vs aggressiveness, and spending time getting to the core of the hatred and anger that is driving the anger and brutality on both sides.

Until we can get to the sources of the prejudices and anger all of the equipment in the world won't stop the problems facing us. This goes for both sides in the issues.

We have seen in the last week or so that racial tensions, prejudices and bullying start early and are prevalent in our schools. Where is the mayor and school board in addressing these issues loudly and materially? I do think we need to have police/law enforcement resources in the schools, not to show force but to answer questions, initiate discussions and to teach.

Going back to a police presence in the communities, budgeting money for more staff and supportive services instead of more militarization would go a long way to helping the citizens as well as the officers. It is not uncommon for domestic abuse, unethical behavior, alcohol and drug abuse to also be issues within the police force, there needs to be staff and resources spent on addressing these issues. The community won't be served by pretending that officers are victims at the hands of "others" or that "others" are victims of the police without doing something other than taking pictures.

Cameras are just another expense to allow the police and community to ignore the root causes of the problems.

15

Lynn Russell

March 17, 2015 at 9:43 AM

I can see the benefits of body cameras but I also believe that less government is better. There are too many laws and more everyday. I feel like my freedom is being compromised.

That being said, I would like to see every meth or other addict in treatment before any jail time.

16

Bryan Tierney

March 17, 2015 at 9:55 AM

Hi,

I believe we should outfit officers and command staff with cameras. This would help out not leaving the fate of actions taken by a trained professional up to interpretation of a judge or the spin a lawyer can put on a case because there is no photo evidence. Protect the police from the citizens please!

17

Vicki G.

March 17, 2015 at 9:56 AM

Privacy is a major concern and frankly should be decided by citizens not politicians or police officers. The citizens have valid concerns with misuse of technology and how that impacts each and every one of us in different scenarios. I think we also should understand and have reassurance that the cameras will not be tampered with by an officer or conicidently destroyed surrounding incidents of misconduct. There are many questions to be answered, many concerns to be addressed. Also, who will review this footage and under what circumstances? Is this only for grievances of police misconduct? If there is a concern of police misconduct who will independently review the footage without somehow being bias? Can citizens request footage, will it be accessible to them upon request, what will that process be? What if police enter a home and there is a concern of privacy, will there be protections in place so the public does not have open access to footage? Under what circumstances can this footage be obtained? How will this technology assure the citizens that more accountability will be on the officers in lieu of their own privacy?

18

Anonymous User

March 17, 2015 at 9:58 AM

I am in favor of body cameras for the protection of both the police officer and the person/s presumed to be guilty. It will provide concrete, unbiased documentation of the actual events of each encounter. This should assist in rebuilding the integrity of law enforcement and rebuilding the trust within the community which is needed to both protect and serve.

20

Janet Robinson

March 17, 2015 at 10:14 AM

I support the use of on-body cameras overall.I believe on-body cameras will provide a true account of events and dialogue exchanged between law enforcent personnel and individuals. I believe on-body cameras would help to ensure the appropriate person(s) will be held accountable as needed. As a citizen of Portland, OR, I would expect strict rules and protocols be put in place to ensure these devises are used only in a law enforcement capacity and with consideration for the privacy and safety of our citizens for which you are sworn to protect and dedicated to serve.

21

Nancy Westrell

March 17, 2015 at 10:14 AM

It is good protection for both the officers and the public, and seems like it could be evidence in court for some crimes (like assault of an officer). I don't think the videos should be available to just anyone not connected to a specific incident that was taped. So probably videos should not be "released" as in put on news feeds or YouTube. However, some of the videos could be really good for training officers, for example dealing humanely with seriously mentally ill people.

22

Kim Koyle

March 17, 2015 at 10:23 AM

YES to body cameras. No, the public at large should not have access to all videos taken (anyone involved in an incident where they were used should be allowed to view them though). Many of our citizens have trust issues and don't understand the chain of custody for the evidence. Some make assumptions about videos being destroyed etc. but they don't understand that it can't be tampered with. This is the real challenge. Also, civilians need to understand how the videos protect law enforcement AND citizens and save the department hundreds of thousands of dollars in frivolous cases of 'he said she said'. Every citizen has video on their phone…every LE officer should be equipped the same way.

23

Todd Scofield

March 17, 2015 at 10:23 AM

do it, it fosters a culture of greater accountability, not just with police officers but with the community they serve as well.

28

L. Brown

March 17, 2015 at 10:33 AM

I think body cameras are a good tool, however, I also believe that they should not continually record during an entire shift. A) The amount of data storage would be a burden to the Bureau and be cost prohibitive; B) Recording during meal times, casual conversations between fellow officers and other employees, casual contacts throughout the day, bathroom breaks, etc, is a matter of privacy; C) There needs to be clear and defined rules for releasing information from the cameras.

31

Zack Salzwedel

March 17, 2015 at 10:42 AM

I am 100% in favor of body cams on the Portland Police

How to use the technology during sensitive investigations: domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse, response to care for someone needing mental health assistance?

How-ever the footage is used, I feel that the camera's need to remain active (capturing video and saving it) any time the officer wearing it is doing anything 'on the clock'. Whether it be paperwork, or sensitive cases. The people who get paid by our tax dollars need to be accountable for every single moment of their time that we, the citizens, are paying them for.

Should footage be available to anyone who asks (this could include victim interviews, interior of homes, children, uninvolved community members, etc.)?

I feel that the footage should only be available to the people that the officer directly interacted with as part of their duties and the courts (or representatives there-of). If the officer wasn't talking with someone then I see no reason for them to access the footage.

Once footage is released, should there be any restrictions on sharing and posting that video?

I feel that this footage does need to have some special restrictions on who can distribute it. I feel that this footage should only be made available in a public or semi-public(facebook, twitter, etc.) manner only with the full knowledge and consent of all citizens in the footage. The officer's opinion on sharing the footage would not be considered as all officer actions taken while on the public's dime should be subject to the public's scrutiny.

32

Michael Choe

March 17, 2015 at 10:42 AM

I would support the cameras, but it depends on the quality of footage vs how much it would actually cost to implement. Greater than 90% of of people have a phone that will do this for free.

33

Nancy

March 17, 2015 at 10:45 AM

The use of on body cameras should serve to protect the community thru better serveillance of known perpetrators, protect the police inasmuch as criminals will know they're being taped, and even the accused themselves as any police intervention will be available to courts to help determine the presence (or lack thereof) of police brutality.

The information should be available on a need to know basis. The extended public do NOT need to have this info. It should not be made available on line except in those cases where the police specifically want the public's assistance in locating a suspect.

34

walt nichols

March 17, 2015 at 10:45 AM

I have been in favor of the idea for years. It should be required equipment for every police officer. Yes some interactive contact should have restrictions. But that should be limited. ( with a review before it is release to protect victims and persons willing to put their safety at risk to provide information to the police )I am in favor of the voice activated system. Not the manual turn on and off. It should be a system that is returned for recharge and down load at the end of every shift. I fully understand the millions in expense the system will cost. But this puts everyone on notice that behavior matters even the General public.

35

Frank T. Conn

March 17, 2015 at 10:47 AM

The important thing is, how do the majority of the Police feel about these devices? I'm a firm believer in the philosophy of "Let those who ride decide." If you all feel this is a good idea, then I'm all for them.

36

KrisZ.

March 17, 2015 at 10:49 AM

Yes to body cameras. They will provide irrefutable evidence for both sides, and raise accountability. They may even act as a deterrent. However, it seems that people are concerned about data release and manipulation, so I think the recording should be wireless to a central location, and reviewed by a responsible (maybe a third) party. Then data should only be released if absolutely necessary to protect innocent bystanders as someone stated. Perhaps a reduction in lawsuits against the city will make the implementation pay for itself.

37

Skye Whitaker

March 17, 2015 at 10:49 AM

I believe that it's a good idea; it protect good cops from untrue allegations, and preserves citizen's rights. Totally worth the cost, given everything that's happened with accusations of misuse of power/force in the country.

38

Ofc. Meier

March 17, 2015 at 10:51 AM

Body cameras are a waste of money. How many officers could you employ instead? Body cameras for the entire bureau would be hundreds of thousands of dollars. Our officers are good officers and know what they are doing. Private citizens already film everything with their cell phones. One of the reasons a lot of departments in Washington are getting rid of body cams is because too many officer videos were ending up on YouTube.

Body cams will not help keep officers accountable. They will only hurt the police bureau.

39

lee

March 17, 2015 at 11:02 AM

Thumbs up for body cams. I believe it will protect the officer, their department and ultimately the taxpayers money from frivolous law suits.

I think it is sad that we have come to this, but with the distrust of the police due to a few bad eggs, I believe that cameras would go a long way to keep the bad guys honest and the good guys on the right track.

Careful legislation on the use of the video would need to be drafted to ensure privacy. Can video evidence from a body camera be used against a suspect who hasn't had their Miranda rights read to them?

40

Danny D

March 17, 2015 at 11:03 AM

I am in favor of body cameras. Spend less money on military grade equipment if you need to find money to spend on the cameras.

42

Anonymous User

March 17, 2015 at 11:14 AM

  1. Privacy issues that concern you.

1)re:CAMERA FOOTAGE IN OR ON PRIVATE PROPERTY!
JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE RESPONDING TO AN ISSUE IN A PRIVATE SETTING DON'T GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO VIOLATE THE PRIVACY AND SANCTUARY OF OUR HOMES OR PRIVATE SPACE!
NOT FREELY AVAILABLE

  1. How to use the technology during sensitive investigations: domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse, response to care for someone needing mental health assistance?

2)re: SPARINGLY WITH NOTIFICATION AND RIGHT TO SAY NO VIDEO!!! NOT FREELY AVAILABLE

3)Should footage be available to anyone who asks (this could include victim interviews, interior of homes, children, uninvolved community members, etc.)?

3)re:NOT FREELY AVAILABLE PERIOD!!! CAMERAS SHOULD NOT BE RUNNING (photographing) PRIVATE SPACES, PROPERTY OR SITUATIONS.
Maybe POSSIBLY AUDIO ONLY! IN SOME INSTANCES WITH NOTIFICATION of recording AND RIGHT TO say NO!

4)Once footage is released, should there be any restrictions on sharing and posting that video?

4)re: FOOTAGE SHOULD NOT BE FREELY AVAILABLE TO ANY Tom, Dick, or Harry.

5)Other thoughts, suggestions or concerns you may have.
VIDEO SHOULD HAVE a LIMITED RETENTION PERIOD! AN EXPIRATION, NOT ARCHIVED FOREVER. LESS THAN 6 MONTHS.

43

Owen

March 17, 2015 at 11:15 AM

I would oppose the implementation of on-body cameras. If officer accountability is in question I believe a more direct and hands on approach should be taken. With the dollar amount proposed to be spent on hardware, infrastructure, training and support staff, a proper management or supervisor staff could be hired in its place. I don’t believe the answer to every problem is more technology. “Integrity is doing the right thing, even when no one is watching.” If we cannot trust our constabulary to do the right thing I would suggest a review process looking into the next level up.
The statement of on-body cameras can improve community relationships is far too vague a statement to comment on.
Privacy would be a large concern in my eyes as I would believe all footage should be available on public record. As a result of this I would find myself far less willing to become involved in assisting officers in community cases.

44

Patrick Roberson

March 17, 2015 at 11:15 AM

I think it's a great idea as long as:

  1. The Police use them all of the time and are unable to turn them off if things turn ugly.
  2. The public also has the right to video officers without threat of having their cellphone taken away.
45

Linda

March 17, 2015 at 11:16 AM

Definitely think they are a good idea. If you are involved in illegal activities, you should lose your right to privacy concerns involving the video. It will protect the officer's rights by recording the altercation. It should be made only on a need to know basis.

46

Steve Chretien

March 17, 2015 at 11:16 AM

I think this is LONG overdue and am happy to see it implemented. Police have been getting a bad rap for a while, while other Officers have been getting away with stuff for a while. This will bring everyone under the same fold/umbrella and hold all parties responsible for their behavior.
Congratulations you guys, I suspect police complaints and accusations against officers will drop dramatically. :ThumbsUp

47

JimStevens

March 17, 2015 at 11:18 AM

For everyone's safety and for accurate recording I am very much in favor of body cams with sound.

my biggest concern for my area is speeding, we seem to be the Daytona beach speedway for those Washington residents who work in the Beaverton area, and go over the hill to commute.

48

Jane

March 17, 2015 at 11:19 AM

GREAT IDEA- we need to protect the POLICE- as much or more than the public- and it will also protect the actually innocent- If you are worried about being filmed- then WHY?? What are you up too?

49

Violet Pascoe

March 17, 2015 at 11:19 AM

In the society we have, where every incident turns into a lawsuit, I believe that the cameras are required.

51

Jeff shaw

March 17, 2015 at 11:25 AM

if you're going to do it. Do it all the way. The cameras must be on at all times the officer is on duty. I find it difficult that trust will be built if the camera can be turned off and on at the officers will.

52

Kori Basquez

March 17, 2015 at 11:29 AM

Body cameras are a common sense solution to promote accountability of citizens and law enforcement. So yes! Please enact a policy requiring body cameras be worn by all law enforcement serving in the community.

Sincerely,

Kori Basquez, MS
Mental Health Clinician

53

JoAnne N

March 17, 2015 at 11:34 AM

I am in total favor of body cams! I think it will be a benefit for the officers and the citizens.

54

Vicente San Martin Jr

March 17, 2015 at 11:34 AM

I do not trust the Officers at all if they can control when the body camera is on or off i would like to know it is on all the time with every run in they have and every stop they make Gresham Police are just as bad as Portland they are no better Gresham Police violate people's rights and they do it all the time and get away with it and one other thing on March 5th 2015 a Gresham Officer engage into a talk with me on the shootings of Ferguson and New York of the 2 officers that got shot and i said good how dose it make you feel he got upset and then he said if i was to jaywalk he would write me a ticket and he also said if i did not give him my info he would take me to Jail i do not carry my ID with me this was done right between 181st and 188th max stops so the officer retaliation on me for saying how dose it feel

55

Jed Black

March 17, 2015 at 11:34 AM

I support the use of police body cameras. It helps to ensure safety and accountability for all parties involved.

58

Veronica

March 17, 2015 at 11:49 AM

The video cameras should be for traffic encounters and general public street patrol use only. They should not be allowed to be used, video taping the inside of somebodies
home or intimate areas. They should not put a victim at risk of greater harm of any sort. The footage should only be available to people involved in a situation and only be kept for a short bit of time otherwise.

59

Susan Skoubo

March 17, 2015 at 11:50 AM

I believe they should wear them. Maybe like for what happened to me. I'm not a harden criminal, but I had a police officer cuss me out late one night, yelled at me and put me in danger. In traffic. Maybe they wouldn't act so power crazy.

60

Roberto Lovato

March 17, 2015 at 11:50 AM

I am guilty of mentioning police body cameras to Federal Judge Michael H. Simon at the public hearings on the Portland & USDOJ Settlement agreement in his courtroom. I thought at the time that this was a good idea, but now I have reservations about this matter. JoAnn & Roger Hardesty think that police body cameras are a bad idea because they can be used negatively against the public. I now agree with them. The Portland Police Bureau, the PPA & the City of Portland in the historical record have shown that they will turn programs around and use them on the people and not for the people. So, now we should be careful how the use of these Police body cameras are implemented and used. Be vocal to you City representatives on this issue. Roberto Lovato AKA EL Chicano

61

T G

March 17, 2015 at 11:52 AM

I am conflicted about body cameras. Yes, I want unbiased accountability, but I am concerned about privacy issues AND the tendency to focus on something that might be useful after the fact of an officer killing or beating a citizen rather than focusing more time and money into better training. Prevention is more important to me because, as we have seen in cases around the country, seeing a video of an officer killing someone still allows them to get away with murder in the courts. We need cops to be trained in de-escalation, how to not be intimidating, not relying on lethal or brutal force as a first instinct, and sensitivity training to not see people of color as an immediate threat. They need to be taught that civilian lives are not less valuable than their own.
There is also a very real possibility that an officer can shut off a camera, block it, or "accidentally" break it when they are about to do something they don't want recorded. Prevention is more important than the clean-up. We need our police officers to actually serve the community, not act as a harrowing military presence.

62

Carolyn

March 17, 2015 at 11:53 AM

I fully support the use of body cameras for Portland Police. It's an imperfect system but other cities have shown that citizen complaints against the police drop once cameras are being worn. I think all parties will behave better and if anyone behaves poorly...well it's all recorded!

64

Byron Kinnaman

March 17, 2015 at 11:57 AM

Any video recording of police actions is of NO VALUE. This evidenced in the Chicago choking death of a black man. Video evidence clearly showed an unnecessary killing by a police officer then officer went free.
Accountability and corrupt police agencies, unions, and district attorneys need to fixed before body cams will do any good.

65

Concerned Citizen

March 17, 2015 at 12:15 PM

Im all for body cameras to protect officers from liars and for those few that are innocent protect them from a few bad officers. Officers don't kill people for sport and its time we set the record straight with camera footage. Im tired of hearing how certain groups of people are always victims. Then again if you are one of those creepy thug officers your time will be up. Unfortunately this wont work for police managers will it?

66

Kristen Seaton

March 17, 2015 at 12:18 PM

I think the cameras are a good idea. They would protect our police officers as they serve and protect us.

67

naomi

March 17, 2015 at 12:22 PM

I'm in favor of the body cameras. Other cities that have used them has seen a drop in claims against the police officers. So yes, to help keep the officers safe, citizens honest and the one offs honest as well.

68

Jim M

March 17, 2015 at 12:24 PM

The way things are going now days, it's too bad body cams have to be used in the first place. I do believe that by using them, the police will have video evidence each time there is interaction with citizens. It will eliminate false accusations by the public as well as protecting citizens from being thumped on when simple direction would suffice. If both police and citizenry have nothing to hide, I don't see a problem using body cams. I think Portland should adopt them after written policies in their use have been established.

70

Lamont wolverton

March 17, 2015 at 12:44 PM

Totally in favor, let's get the truth as to what transpired during routine patrols to protect the rights of all.
My opinion is that the officer usually is always in the right under difficult conditions.
Let's hope if cameras were worn during the Gurule scuffle, Judge Steward would have made a better decision!
Thanks for a voice!

73

Troy C.

March 17, 2015 at 12:54 PM

Wait and see what happens around the nation.

Spokane City Council approved a $733,000.00 contract with Taser International for 220 body cameras. How many officers are in PDX? Do the math.

http://www.policeone.com/police-products/body-cameras/articles/6955826-Wash-chief-weighs-pros-and-cons-of-body-cameras/

74

dustin mcsherry

March 17, 2015 at 1:02 PM

They are a great idea. So long as the police themselves do bout have the ability to turn them off, it delete what's been recorded.

75

Travis Beehler

March 17, 2015 at 1:03 PM

I think the MOST important thing about all this is that officers can not ever have the ability to turn the camera's off. They are turned on by a shift supervisor at the beginning of the shift, and they aren't able to be turned off by anyone but a supervisor at the end of the shift.

If an officer is shown to have turned off or tried to turn off the camera, then it's an automatic firing, and charges of tampering with evidence.

Now, I don't think the public has a right to know all of the videos, such as personal information from a victim of a crime, but if an officer is involved in a shooting, that should be readily available for the press and the public.

This will likely save millions in lawsuits that won't happen because of people falsely accusing officers of wrongdoing.

76

J G

March 17, 2015 at 1:03 PM

I am not currently in favor of body cameras. As a rape victim, I would have been less likely to report what had happened if I were on camera. I would also be less likely to interact with the police if it meant that I was being recorded.

It is a privacy concern not only for the officers who would have to wear them (bathroom breaks, emergency phone calls from family, lunch time, etc.), but for the public. I am a law-abiding citizen, but do not want to be filmed. Especially during the aftermath of victimization by a criminal.

77

Tara

March 17, 2015 at 1:06 PM

I'm cool with body cameras, and I think it will protect officers as much as anyone else. Heck, the cops do so much good that it'd be nice if some of those videos were released with identities hidden. Privacy-wise, I think it's fine to keep the camera rolling for those conversations and interior shooting, but I don't think anything that doesn't come with a legal release should be made available. No "Freedom of Information Act" or anything like that should get footage that includes people who don't want to be seen.

Naturally, some of these videos will end up being used in court cases, which I think is fine, but it should be just like the VCR and/or DVD video, which obviously (or usually) hasn't been on the internet. It should be played in court and not released online, even as a matter of public record, just like evidence presented in courts is obviously not available for the public/press to handle, and sometimes not even photograph. We don't need to know or see everything. We really don't.

Now, let's say a person on film wants to have the footage. That does seem reasonable to me, and it would be nice if there was a way for someone to sign something saying it had been released to them (in case it leaks and they try to blame the police for that) and you aren't liable for it's public release--but also aren't allowed to share it without a different kind of release. For example, suppose I fell and hurt myself during an encounter with the police. It might be nice to see that to see for myself what happened without it going out on the interwebs or being released to the press. I watch, I see I'm an idiot, I apologize if necessary, and no one else needs to know.

I do think some different levels of release would be good. Court only; police and on-camera citizens only; press/public release. That sort of thing. And if the police do release it (with on-camera citizen permission), it would certainly be best to blur people or things that would help identify a location, or a person who hasn't signed a release. Some of that could get weird. If I lived in a hoard house, I sure wouldn't want anyone to see that. But I don't, so it's cool.

78

PJ

March 17, 2015 at 1:07 PM

The cameras themselves are fairly inexpensive. Who is going to pay for the storage of the information from the cameras? More than likely there will be policy stating that the camera has to be on for all contacts and that information can not be deleted. That is a lot of data space that is not cheap!

80

jason deemie

March 17, 2015 at 1:07 PM

I beleive it wold be a great idea. but one thing about the privicy clause would be to have the person requesting video of someones home/person to also get the individule on the tapes permision also.

81

Quency

March 17, 2015 at 1:09 PM

I'm in favor of body cameras but only if the video is treated as public record and released with filling out a form; otherwise it would be a waste of everyone's time and money. That said it could be very powerful to back-up timelines and stories of events quickly with great clarity. But if it is not released quickly and easily it could be damaging and make it look like things are being covered up.

82

Angel True

March 17, 2015 at 1:18 PM

I think body cameras are an excellent idea. I am highly in favor.

Regarding privacy: Video needs to be available to all involved parties including police, suspects, attorneys for both sides, property owners related to the incident, insurance companies processing claims, and anyone else deemed relevant to the issue or have a specific need or purpose related to the incident other than public disclosure.

Public release or use of released footage must be treated on a case-by-case basis with the "allowed use" determined at the time of information release. Use can be restricted for sensitive circumstances but over ridden for public interest.

However, the public does NOT have a need to view footage unless there is a specific concern, complaint, or there is value in letting the public see the footage.

Careful guidelines need to be crafted for pre-defining the acceptable use after release under each circumstance.

This will put Portland ahead of the curve and is well worth the investment in supporting the police and rebuilding trust with the public.

83

Kristina

March 17, 2015 at 1:24 PM

Individual officers should not have access to turn the cameras on or off. Not having a camera turned on, or attemps to block the camera during an interaction should receive disciplinary action. The footage should not be accessible to the media, but should be kept as evidence, and fall under the same regulations as police reports.

Individuals who have been recorded should have a right to view the evidence/video. The cameras should be dispersed equally throughout the city, not just in certain areas.

84

James H

March 17, 2015 at 1:35 PM

I strongly support the use of body worn cameras. As a resident of Portland, I have no interaction with law enforcement as most citizens do not. I think the facts are police activity is recorded by iPhones and cameras but it would be good to have the interaction between police and individuals who do have interaction with law enforcement as it tells the Officers perspective.

86

Chuck Coleman

March 17, 2015 at 1:37 PM

I am all for it. The bonuses are significant.

  • It would help weed out bad cops that do nothing but bring shame to the force. We do not need bad cops and they need to be removed from the force sooner than later.
  • It will reduce citizen complaints as the camera will give an unbiased view of the incident and many complaints are not valid. Once the video is reviewed the complainant will more than likely drop the complaint.
  • It will be the public looking over the shoulder of the police and marginal cops will have to be on their best behavior because the camera is always watching.
  • It will give the DA more evidence for them to convict. Video evidence is hard to dispute.

PLEASE spend the extra money to get wide angle (140º at least) image stabilization (IS) and HD devices. All of those will help give clearer images.

87

CC

March 17, 2015 at 1:37 PM

it sure doesn't sound like Pres. Daryl Turner wants cameras of any kind. Body cams will keep both sides honest.

89

Jess E. Hadden

March 17, 2015 at 1:38 PM

I don't see what good it will do. Police commit murder in broad daylight in front of cameras. We all watch the videos in horror, share them on Facebook, and then wonder why there are so many such videos. Without DAs who are willing to prosecute cops, the police will continue to do the things that they're doing to the people of this city. So long as the city's armed force has Daryl Turner & the police union to protect its own criminal element from justice, body cams will only serve to "rub it in."

90

Bud Feuless

March 17, 2015 at 1:41 PM

First and foremost, if body cameras are to be at all useful, policy must be adjusted to ensure their use. Policies must be put in place to ensure that:

  1. They are always on when police patrol or incident response is underway and that guidelines are very strict on when they can be turned off, with bias toward keeping them on if there is any question.
  2. The above be linked to policies governing behavior and discipline, including consequences for failure to abide by policy.

As far as privacy is concerned, there must be a balance between the individual right to privacy and requirements that the state share information regarding public activity of its police with the People. As such, I recommend a waiting period prior to release of any video that is in or of a place that might legitimately be considered private, including living spaces or parts of the body or clothing generally considered private. Please notify and allow the subjects of same to request privacy, if they so choose. All other video should be made immediately public and such video where privacy is requested, should a request for that video from the public be received, should require administrative review to determine the valid need for release of that video in the public interest vs. the degree to which it might invade the individual's privacy and/or consitutional rights. I would suggest you consult DoJ on this, as any misstep would likely lead to their investigation, so we might as well start off with their standards and remain consistent.

91

Raynette Grant

March 17, 2015 at 1:46 PM

I think this is a great way to protect the police and the people from the police that may get to rough! DO IT!!

92

Sarah

March 17, 2015 at 1:46 PM

I think it's a good idea. With more information about an incident, accusations and bad feelings from all "sides" should be reduced.

93

Jean Harris

March 17, 2015 at 1:49 PM

Don't believe you are even asking. Body camera would protect the police officer, have evidence of wrong doing or right doing, have the ability to id criminals and victims. Would make the police officer more responsible in their actions.
While I generally do not approve of cameras recording people with what is going on now days the police and citizens need to be protected.
Police will be need to be more responsible for their actions and other police.
Criminals might not take the chance of breaking the law if there are cameras are on.
Questions: Will the cameras transmit data right away or downloaded later. If later, the police might be in danger.
Will the citizens be able to see those pictures? So my vote is yes as long as the citizens are not spied on. This is still a free America.

94

Ryan M

March 17, 2015 at 1:49 PM

I am in support of the use of body cameras. I would like to see stiff penalties in the situation where an officer turns off his recording device, and is then involved in an application for force.

Make the footage readily available to those with a legitimate request. Transparency is what are after.

97

John B.

March 17, 2015 at 2:08 PM

I think body Cameras would show all the garbage Law enforcement has to put up with on a daily basis.

I think they should start a video library of those that are more frequent "Customers".

98

Mike S

March 17, 2015 at 2:12 PM

The body cams are probably one of the best ideas yet there are too many lying criminals that talk so much crap about police and try to say that cops wrong them in some way when they are caught this way there is 100% proof the cops are doing their jobs how they are supposed to and criminals can just shut up.. In other words I would love to see body cams and a portland police videos show like cops where it shows these idiot criminals being busted. 😉

100

Marsha Anderson

March 17, 2015 at 2:26 PM

sounds like a good idea.....what should also be considered is the recorded events be relayed to other organizations, such as Cop Watch, Independent Review Committee, neutral lawyer assigned to this task. Most officers welcome this, if the surveillance, like anyone knowing there are cameras prevent just one officer to not go over what he has been trained to do, and react inappropriately...then it will be worth it. Oh, maybe this isn't the right forum for this suggestion, but maybe in all officer involved shootings, the officer should be drug tested.

101

Kathy Brawley

March 17, 2015 at 2:29 PM

totally in favor of the use of body camers. Nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide. Too bad it has come to this but officers need to protect themselves. Gor for it Portland.

104

Ian R.

March 17, 2015 at 2:37 PM

I support the use of body cameras to protect both parties involved. However, there have been instances in the past (in other states) where footage from officers or their cars "disappears". This leaves the citizens feeling cheated and abused. I would advocate for a policy that all footage is controlled by another government entity other than the police. To help not only prevent blame on the officers for broken cameras or faulty equipment, but also as a way to prevent the public from feeling cheated or abused. Checks and Balances!

106

J A Bixel

March 17, 2015 at 2:42 PM

I would welcome anything, That would help those that protect & serve our beautiful City !
The information that it would provide would be amazing.

107

Nicole

March 17, 2015 at 2:42 PM

I would like to see the police use body cameras to document their interaction with the public.

Privacy issues that concern you.
I think that privacy should be used in the same manner that it is handled now. I think video footage should be available to lawyers upon request and only those involved.

How to use the technology during sensitive investigations: domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse, response to care for someone needing mental health assistance?
I think the footage should be considered under the same rules as video dash cameras.

Should footage be available to anyone who asks (this could include victim interviews, interior of homes, children, uninvolved community members, etc.)?
The footage should only be available to those involved as well as their lawyers.

Once footage is released, should there be any restrictions on sharing and posting that video?

Videos should not be shared or posted on social media just like a dash camera.

108

Brian

March 17, 2015 at 2:47 PM

You can start with only using them in public spaces. Turn them off before entering a place where privacy could be expected (e.g., a house). Perhaps, leave the mic running, but turn the camera off -- let the person know you're still mic'd.

Later, could expand usage later to more private areas. Baby steps.

Handle footage the same way you handle any request from media outlets.

109

bill ward

March 17, 2015 at 2:48 PM

I hope cops want these cameras because I think a lot of people will be shocked to see what our men and women in blue have to put up with on a daily basis. I support it and look forward to seeing more objective feedback on occurrences that take place daily. I think a lot of folks forget that a lot of bad things happen out there and we train people to deal with bad things. that means by default violence. I thank you for everything you do, if this helps the dept, go for it.

110

Dave Stefonek

March 17, 2015 at 2:50 PM

I am in favor of body cams. I live in Corbett rather than Portland, but do spend significant time in Portland. Body cams would protect both the police and the people they encounter. I am willing to trade a little privacy for the additional integrity offered by the cams.

111

Ben

March 17, 2015 at 2:50 PM

I support our officers wearing on-body cameras. This will increase accountability for all parties. All police interactions should be recorded and archived indefinitely.

Records should be available for review by police department administration and any elected or government appointed oversight groups. Records should only be released or used in court by judicial order on a case by case basis. Records should be made available to the public only on judicial order. Judges should determine who's custody the records are released to and hold those parties accountable for any use of the records.

113

Candy

March 17, 2015 at 3:03 PM

yes the police should wear the personal cameras but only if they are not turned off at the convenience of the officer. The pictures should only be used as evidence & never sold or used in any other way. Also, the public should be able to use their own personal cameras to film the police as long as there is no interference.

114

Candy

March 17, 2015 at 3:04 PM

yes the police should wear the personal cameras but only if they are not turned off at the convenience of the officer. The pictures should only be used as evidence & never sold or used in any other way. Also, the public should be able to use their own personal cameras to film the police as long as there is no interference

117

Mike

March 17, 2015 at 3:27 PM

I'm all for body cams as long as the footage is treated like evidence and is not available without a court order.

120

Janis Nowell

March 17, 2015 at 3:51 PM

Yes! Get the cameras and be protected from the people who think they are above the law! I could say allot more but not here. I appreciate the police completely! God bless you!

121

John Stalions

March 17, 2015 at 3:53 PM

I absolutely believe that Portland Police should use body cameras. I think there is ample evidence that they can have a huge impact in protecting both police and the public. I think most recordings should be restricted to law enforcement and appropriate investigative bodies. The media should be able to make requests for specific recording in limited circumstances where it is deemed appropriate and guidelines should be made for these instances ahead of time. Also there should be very clear expectations for officers to have there cameras on and recording at all times when they are on duty to avoid shenanigans, as well as strict archiving of all recording for at least 3 years. Thank you for allowing public comment, and I hope this process moves forward quickly.

122

Todd Fulkerson

March 17, 2015 at 3:57 PM

Any time an officer is engaging with anyone, that camera needs to be turned on or the officer should face REAL repercussions for failing to turn it on.

123

Susan

March 17, 2015 at 4:07 PM

An overwhelming YES! Body cameras are a win-win situation! The decision should be an easy YES!

128

Citizen

March 17, 2015 at 4:33 PM

Fully in favor of the idea that every move the police make be recorded for accountability.

For privacy protection (both of the police and the public) recordings should only be available during court proceedings pertaining to an arrest or investigations of police conduct.

Release of videos should be controlled in a similar fashion to other materials pertaining to police investigation reports.

130

Gail Rask

March 17, 2015 at 4:47 PM

If you want the public to side with the actions of the police, body cameras could help the public understand actions of the police. If I was a police officer, I would want to be able to show how I acted in situations involving police response.

131

kathy smith

March 17, 2015 at 4:48 PM

Hi Portland Police, March 17, 2015 Yes I think it is a good idea for you to wear body cameras, as soon as possible.And you should make sure that the officers have their cameras on during any interactions with the public, so that they and the public will more likely behave better and more fairly. That should include all the police officers who interact with the public, including the ones answering the telephones. It is very important to have trust between the police and the community , and accountability.

132

DOUG ADAMS

March 17, 2015 at 4:50 PM

BODY CAMS HAVE MULTIPLE GOOD RESULTS AND FEW IF ANY BAD.
I AM 100% IN FAVOR. THE PROTECTION OF THE OFFICER AND
THE VIDEO VALIDATION FOR THE USE OF FORCE ALONE ARE
REASONS ENOUGH. PROTECT THE BLUE!!

133

Carole Barkley

March 17, 2015 at 4:51 PM

I would rather see financial resources put into hiring more officers for foot patrols.

134

Judith Lienhard

March 17, 2015 at 4:59 PM

I am against body cameras for many reasons.
First of all, I want to see the discussion about whether or not we should use them. and the community needs to be able to give input.
I am very worried that this is quick techno fix when deep reforms are needed.And who would profit from this? what are the connections between corporations and police chiefs, etc?
I am worried about privacy issues and control of cameras. there many instances when body cameras were turned off by police before they committed violence against citizens. or they "malfunctioned". we have seen in the case of Eric Garner where everything was on camera and yet, no indictment resulted.
who would control the cameras? when would they be on? who would have possession of the data after an incident? is it possible to alter the data? i have no trust towards the police. we have more and more surveillance and spying on citizens. we do need to film incidents, we need to film the police and i want that done by citizens not cops.
since cops want these cameras, makes me think, it will protect them more than us.
once again, I am absolutely against body cameras.

135

Kathleen McGuire

March 17, 2015 at 5:00 PM

I favor the wearing of body cameras by Police Officers for their protection as well as the protection of others.

136

Carol Weigel

March 17, 2015 at 5:10 PM

If you are not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing
to worry about. And maybe it might help.
I do believe we have some over zelous people and that might
help that also.
Carol Weigel

137

Diane Rios

March 17, 2015 at 5:10 PM

Thank you for asking! I am in favor of body cams, but only if they are used appropriately and without bias in favor of the police. I think the idea of having an IMPARTIAL witness is a crucial step for justice to be served. I am not worried about privacy issues if they are used appropriately. If the cams are messed with, edited, or otherwise tampered with before the film is viewed by a jury or a judge, then I am not in favor.

Bottom line: as long as they are filming everything, without censoring any material, I am in favor of body cams.

thank you!

138

Lisa Voogd

March 17, 2015 at 5:26 PM

I believe that body cameras would be of great use in the current climate of distrust between citizens and law enforcement. They could provide crucial evidence in cases of alleged misconduct, and if used consistently, could help mitigate the impact of conflicting witness statements. Internal review of the videos would provide endless opportunities for training and improvement in the areas of public contact, de-escalation techniques, and standard protocol. That said, handling of the recordings would require special care due to privacy concerns. They should NOT be open to general public records requests, and should be available only to law enforcement, courts of law, and the individuals involved in a recorded encounter. It would be inappropriate and potentially damaging for the media or citizens to be able to make blanket requests for the recordings under freedom of information or public records requests. This could allow dangerous misuse, for example, employers requesting any recordings related to a potential hire, etc. Privacy and anonymity for children and crime victims must also be considered. Special legislation may be necessary to protect privacy and prevent abuse of the records.

139

Helen Bibelheimer

March 17, 2015 at 5:30 PM

I am in favor of police wearing camera's. Cameras are everywhere and must be a great idea. So with that in mind I say YES to body cameras.

140

James Lopez Ericksen

March 17, 2015 at 5:36 PM

Police body cameras have always been around. Post cards were sold across the nation showing lynchings and proud white faces. Illustrations before let everyone see slave auctions. Presidents watched as slaves were marched out of Washington DC as the capitol was built. Eric Garner's murder, all filmed with audio, is a modern day lynching.

Body cameras or the witness to injustices has never been a determining factor to justice. Through trauma, we all require a moment of resolution and even solitude. With hundreds of years of trauma, repetitive assaults against black folk from police and vigilantes, there has been little to no time to mourn. Without convictions the black community is shown yet again they are the ones left to clean up a mess. Without resolution there is no opportunity for peace.

Power and resources need to go into a community oversight committee. This committee needs to be run by and for the community holding our police accountable to the kinds of actions which move away from serve and protect to diesculates and engage.

Visual evidence is and has not be shown to help in the conviction of white folks or police who assault people of color. Without a judicial system to convict those who assault, folks can not effectively mourn and there is no peace.

No Justice. No Peace

141

Mary Bryant

March 17, 2015 at 5:36 PM

Body cameras protect the public and police officers. They are not infallible but are the best we can do to prevent abuse in both directions.

142

Marianne

March 17, 2015 at 5:37 PM

Yes, sadly, i agree, our police officers need to wear body cams to "protect them" from the people who hired them to protect us. Sad days for America

143

Chris Herring

March 17, 2015 at 5:38 PM

It's a fantastic idea to add cameras. With all the money saved by not arresting and jailing citizens for minor drug offenses they should have plenty extra money floating around in the budget.

145

Gary Pyburn

March 17, 2015 at 5:49 PM

Body cams should not be worn unless bodycams are on suspects. Let the police do their jobs! BTW who is gonna pay for the cameras? Let's start a camera store and make a fotune as a carpetbagging camera salesman.

147

Jacqui Duhon

March 17, 2015 at 6:02 PM

I am in favor of whatever it takes to keep both the police officers and the citizens safe. Sounds like an awesome idea to me.

148

Karin Forkner

March 17, 2015 at 6:21 PM

I think it's a wonderful idea. It would not only protect the citizen from any thing that can be misconstrued about any sort of dealings with the police, it has the potential to protect an officer from allegations of wrong-doing that may not be true. It's the same concept as police dash cams and I think that it needs to be implemented as soon as possible. I do think though, that there need to be rules regarding the misuse or sudden "loss" of videotaped content. If the officer suddenly loses the footage, or anything along those lines, the burden of proof for any arrest or incident that a citizen is to be charged with, needs to fall on the department. I think this would keep the department and the officers a little more honest.

149

mike

March 17, 2015 at 6:26 PM

I'm on the fence about this. I want to see ppb bad cops weeded out using this system. and I want ppb to stopped being sued over stuff that didn't happen. but as I've read about other city's use of body cams, it seems to me that cops are still above the law and the fact that there's body cams capturing video of things going wrong, nothing happens to these cops. I don't see why as a tax payer I should have to pay for an expensive system that does no real good....

as far as privacy, if I tell a cop I don't want to be recorded. will he/she have to stop?

150

Judith Lienhard

March 17, 2015 at 6:27 PM

http://thegrio.com/2015/03/17/mentally-ill-man-video-screwdiver-police-killed/

151

Tracy

March 17, 2015 at 6:42 PM

This is great. It's a win for everyone. It keeps people from making false claims, and it keeps the police honest as well.

152

lyn kirby

March 17, 2015 at 6:44 PM

I love the idea of body cams. It will build trust with the public as long as the cameras are not turned off midway through a situation like we have been hearing about in other cities.

153

John Buss

March 17, 2015 at 6:44 PM

Absolutely in favor! These will weed out the few problems, and instill confidence that the Police truly want to do what's right by the public they serve....Problem citizens with false complaints will quickly be taken care of as well, it's a win win.

154

Douglas Steele

March 17, 2015 at 6:57 PM

Although body cams are a step in the right direction I would think that cams on glasses or protective eyewear would better show what the officer see's and why they react the way they do. The body doesn't always turn when the head does.

155

Edward Norton

March 17, 2015 at 6:59 PM

Yes, anything that promotes Police Accountability in Portland is an absolute necessity. The Consent Decree forced on the PPB by the Department of Justice has accomplished wonders for reducing the body count by Portland Police.

The PPB and Police Union has a well recorded 40 year history of obfuscation and obstruction of every attempt to increase Police Accountability. Over that period; Citizen Review Committees have publicly resigned in disgust and Grand Juries have written scathing letters identifying the systemic institutionalized "problems" of the PPB and after 15 years of PARC review and the claims by the PPB that they were taking positive action to resolve clearly defined institutionalize corruption policing in Portland continued to degrade until the DOJ started watching....but that is noting but a finger in the dyke holding back the ocean of PPB scandal and abuse.

The worst that Portland could do is to return to the days when the Police Union was running the PPB and organizing to hold the City Council and public at bay while the body count and citizen complaints and wrongful death lawsuits and civil suit settlements climb....all at tax payer expense.

Too much smoke for there to be no fire. The time is long past for Police Accountability in Portland.

156

leo campbell

March 17, 2015 at 7:29 PM

Police should have to keep a body camera "on" during the complete shift, no exceptions. Should not have an "On-Off" button that the officer "accidentally" or deliberately can control the camera function.

157

Michael Ortiz

March 17, 2015 at 7:33 PM

i am in favor of body cameras

no secrets means no lies...worse problem is when a police officer drifts off the grid somewhere doing something shouldn't be doing because off where no one knows where {they} are.

158

Jessica Hutchinson

March 17, 2015 at 7:57 PM

I think body cameras should be required for reasons of accountability for both police officers AND the public they interact with. I think it should be considered a major red flag if a controversial event occurs and the evidence that is suppose to be caught on camera is either tampered with, deleted or the camera shut off or never started in the first place! In fact the rules should be so strict on this that unless eye witnesses from the public step forward to give synchronized accounts of what occurred then any charges pressed against an individual claiming innocence or brutality or corruption ought to be automatically dropped as a result of there being no untampered camera evidence!

160

Hyung

March 17, 2015 at 8:33 PM

I am opposed to body cameras. This is a diversion from the real issue about lack of accountability. It is telling that many police chiefs have a special relationship with the corrections industry, like Taser Corporation. What good are cameras when neither the police union or city councilmembers are making any changes to really hold cops accountable with firing, suspension without pay, criminal prosecution, etc. The cameras will still allow cops to use their own discretion on unaccountable behavior to turn off them off or use cameras selectively to spy on and record evidence against the public. We already know there are issues with PPB’s 48 hour rule and other cities have had problems in public access to video footage. Stop the diversion and start with making a commitment to change policy and hold cops accountable.

161

Robert Rubenstein

March 17, 2015 at 8:38 PM

I support the use of police body cameras. The cameras should be tamper proof so they can't be turned off or erased by the officer. Recordings should be retained as potential evidence. The recordings should only be available to parties in criminal or civil cases. They should never be released into the public domain.

165

Dale Mead

March 17, 2015 at 8:54 PM

I think who ever would have a problem with any police department having their officer's wearing body cameras. Maybe the ones that need to be watched a little closer.

166

me

March 17, 2015 at 9:27 PM

I want to respectfully disagree with Connie. When individuals learn that their behavior is being recorded, and they wont be able to make up accusations and the police can show that there actions were not only lawful but reasonable. There will be no Emperors clothing.

The problem isn't about prejudice, thats the excuse. The problem is about what behavior we allow. Dont give anyone an excuse to play a victim. Hold indaviduals accountable for there actions, dont make excuses for them.

These cameras will let the truth be known.

167

joe

March 17, 2015 at 9:33 PM

Please add body cameras asap. There should be a city ordinance to make clear to the police and public how all aspects of the camera program works. The ordinance should be updated annually to improve over time and adapt. At a bare minimum it must restrict who has the ability to request footage. All stakeholders should have input. Police union. Homeless. Mentally ill. Media. Lawyers for both sides. We should be a model for the democratic world.

169

J. McCarl

March 17, 2015 at 9:44 PM

I do have privacy concerns for victims of domestic violence and children and look for consideration of this as policy is made for use of cameras. However, cameras can provide clarity which could help protect both police and citizens and I believe police should wear body cameras.

170

Rick Zucker

March 17, 2015 at 9:53 PM

First, I think body cameras are good. It gives citizen greater confidence in the police, and police will feel more confident about their interactions. I think the video needs to be available, but only on a limited basis. It should only be available to those in the interaction, reviewing the interaction for appropriateness (internal affairs), evidence of criminal activity, or someone with legal standing, like the parents of a teen who had a police interaction. These people should not be allowed to release the video to the public without the permission of all in the video. Another issue to resolve is how long should the video be kept, as there will be a lot of data. Maybe regular video is deleted after a month unless there is an interaction that is being reviewed, charge brought, etc.

172

B. Beebe

March 17, 2015 at 10:05 PM

yes, with evidentiary protocols available to both parties should solve lots of the current ambiguities.

173

Susan T.

March 17, 2015 at 10:29 PM

I am strongly in favor of body cameras as part of policies relating to police accountability.

174

Ye Feng

March 17, 2015 at 11:20 PM

I am in favor of the body camera. In tense situations where multiple activities/engagements are happening at the same time, it is sometimes beyond human ability to track the events clearly. The he-said-this and I-said-that post-mortem analysis is very hard to conduct in the cases of children's altercations, let alone between adults. The enhanced transparency brought by body camera offers the protection of both sides. Another point is when language difference is involved, can anyone repeat what a victim said in a language he is not familiar with? What if that is material evidence?

175

Not now

March 17, 2015 at 11:28 PM

This site displays the name and email address of the most recent commenter to the next poster.

ATTN: Site Admin

176

b beller

March 17, 2015 at 11:28 PM

I'm all for the use of body cameras, it will help keep police accountable for human life and help as a teaching aid for other police. It will also allow the law abiding public to feel comfortable around police knowing that there will be a third party involved.
Use of the technology during sensitive investigations should be used in accordance to the advice of those who have an every day experience with those types of abuse or illnesses; psychologists, social workers, counselors, aid workers.
The footage should be available to anyone who is involved in the case; lawyers, judge, parents of children unless they're the perpetrators.
Once footage is released, there should be restrictions on sharing and posting videos just as minors identities are not shown in the media there should be a list of restrictions on videos being released to the media especially before the court case is closed.

Most of the problems I have with the cameras have to do with using the cameras as propaganda tools and paparazzi fodder rather than assisting and protecting the public as well as holding police accountable to treating all Portlanders with respect for human life and community whether the color or their skin or mental illness. We as Portlanders need to learn to not repeat history by learning from it rather than repeating our mistakes again and again.

177

Barbara Allen

March 17, 2015 at 11:33 PM

Please instate body cameras for all law enforcement officers who have direct contact with members of the public. Please do not allow the option for said officers to disable or otherwise turn off the cameras while on shift. Please fully disclose both initial cost of each camera and annual cost of each camera, specifically as it pertains to taxpayers.

178

Hobie

March 17, 2015 at 11:40 PM

The police must begin to wear these things in every encounter with citizens - whom they are sworn to SERVE and PROTECT. Failure to use these devices as indicated should result in severe punishments with no excuses. Unpaid weeks off should be a minimum for a first offense.

We are your bosses, and it's clear that you need us to monitor you a bit more closely.

179

Tanner Hoskins

March 18, 2015 at 12:06 AM

I am all for the use of Body Worn Cameras, I understand that there is a privacy concern, but the use of the cameras will allow Officer's to be able to have video evidence of what took place on their watch. With people claiming Racism, and Police Brutality right and left, I feel these would save Officer's, as well as the Department Money in the long run from false accusations.

180

Lisa Reed Guarnero

March 18, 2015 at 5:15 AM

Yes to body cams, as long as they are required for EVERY interaction with the public. '

Proper maintenance of the cams should be a high priority so there will be no excuse for why the camera wasn't used. There should also be some way to hold the officer accountable if it wasn't used, or if it was used illegally or unethically by the officer.

182

Sue

March 18, 2015 at 6:41 AM

Yes, I'm in favor of body cameras and dashboard cameras. Protects both officers and the possible criminal. The facts are in the pictures. Eliminates the guessing though I know it won't show every little thing. And the videos should be shown in court sessions.

183

Kyna Eaton

March 18, 2015 at 6:52 AM

I am for the cameras, it can help to protect everyone. There should be nothing to hide on all sides!

185

Carole J Schumacher

March 18, 2015 at 7:22 AM

This would protect the officer in the event of court issue's, reports, etc.

186

Jason Simmons

March 18, 2015 at 7:35 AM

while I am strongly in favor of wearing the cameras, I feel the information should be public and avaible through a freedom of information act. Additionally I feel that why the cameras are here to provide a video record of all the officers day's events who are wearing these cameras, the ability to turn them off and on should not be made possible by the officer wearing the camera. I strongly believe that the cameras should record the full shift without the ability to arbitrarily decide what and when the cameras should be filming. This would make all units wearing the camera equally accountable.

187

Kyle

March 18, 2015 at 7:42 AM

Here's my question, what's the point? If a police officer can just turn off the camera before they do something wrong, or if they are caught doing something wrong and nothing happens to them, what's the point? I don't see this being in any way helpful except that police officers can use them to help their cases. Unfortunately that's all I've seen across the country. Either the officer just happens to not have them on at the perfect time or if they do something wrong there are no repercussions to the officer. What's the point?

188

Dan Cain

March 18, 2015 at 7:51 AM

I support this idea, with one HUGE caveat.

There absolutely MUST be serious penalties if police disable or tamper with the cameras.

If police are able to "lose" or "accidentally delete" videos, then the whole policy stinks.

I really wouldn't mind if a subpena was required to access the footage. I don't want you guys buried in FOIA requests.

189

Michael Condon

March 18, 2015 at 8:01 AM

First and foremost, for there to be any sense of trust, cameras must be reliable. In departments where cameras have been previously deployed, there's been a rash of "missing footage" when a controversial event happens. Officers in LA were found to be removing the antennas on their wireless mics. That cannot happen here.

If cameras are implemented, police command has to be behind them 100%, and has to ensure officers treat them with due respect. That includes disciplining officers who attempt to subvert the cameras.

Footage must be public. I understand there are situations where footage may have compromising personal details - domestic violence, welfare checks, situations involving minors, etc. If the PPB has sole control over which footage is released, however, it quickly loses public trust.

I see two possible solutions. The first is a citizen's review board, who reviews any footage the PPB would like to keep unreleased. They would have the final say in footage release.

The second, and my preference, would be an internal review. Either at the request of the officer, or at the request of any party involved in the incident, a tape can be held from release for a fixed period (I'll propose 60 days) during which the recording of the incident can be reviewed for personal details. Identifying info such as faces, names, addresses and license plates can be blurred for the publicly released copy of the recording, in much the same way as is done on TV shows.

The key, however, is transparency. Without transparency there can be no public trust. Without public trust, police cannot operate effectively.

190

Andy Suffion

March 18, 2015 at 8:18 AM

I am in favor of police officers wearing on-body cameras and long as individual officers aren't allowed to decide when and where to use them. The videos should be secured, and only used for administrative and evidentiary purposes (no publication or news release without protection of individual privacy).

191

Dick

March 18, 2015 at 8:31 AM

Cameras help, but without recordings, the pictures can be deceptive. Much of what police have to deal with is verbal abuse.

192

Byron Harmon

March 18, 2015 at 8:34 AM

Police body cameras absolutely should be implemented. When used properly they protect the public from the police. Last year between 450 and 1000 people (no database is maintained of this data, the public has to piece it together through media reports) whereas only 23 officers were killed by civilians. This means in an encounter with the police a civilian is 20 to 40 times more likely to end up dead than the officer. Where such cameras have been implemented police violence and complaints against officers both plummet.

Cameras should be on at all times. And outages that coincide with police violence or the death of a civilian should be diligently prosecuted.

Perhaps a policy that the cameras should be turned off if asked by the civilian in question or if consent to search is denied and there is no warrant or sufficient reason to normally warrant a search.

The footage should either be made readily available to the public, or there should be some sort of review board with no ties or conflicts of interest with the police force. It would undermine public trust if the department used its discretion regarding which footage to release. Perhaps people should be able to request footage of themselves, and barring it's use in an ongoing investigation or court proceedings be in charge of deciding whether it is released.

195

Brian Ellis

March 18, 2015 at 9:00 AM

I think body cameras should be worn to protect the officers as well as the citizens. I think citizen should be able to request that the cameras be turned, but said request itself must be filmed. I think the image of those filmed should be the intellectual property of those filmed, and citizen should be able to request that their images be destroyed after a certain period after any incident. Outages that coincide with the death of a civilian should be diligently prosecuted. In the case of mentally ill citizen experiencing a violent emotional episode, the cameras should not be turned off no matter what.

196

Tami Wright

March 18, 2015 at 9:01 AM

I think this is a great idea and I am a small business owner and the majority of my clients think so too... Tami

197

Kate

March 18, 2015 at 9:02 AM

I am in favor of body cameras, both for the protection of the public and the officers. Good cops should be in favor of them, and maybe it will make bad cops think twice about continuing their unprofessional ways.

198

Frances

March 18, 2015 at 9:02 AM

Body cams are a great idea. Mostly, I believe, to protect officers from false accusations and highly inaccurate witness statements such as we've seen in the news over the last nine months or so. People can't, however, have it both ways. They want officers' behavior made public, well your behavior is made public as well. I could be wrong, but it's my understanding that police reports are public, and video will just be part of the report. When police respond to your home on a domestic violence call, and your children are found to be living in filth, that video can be used against you in your DHS hearing. When you're pulled over for a duii, your video can be used against you in court and with the dmv when your license gets revoked. I'm guessing it could save a whole lot of money in court costs, if people know their behavior was recorded on video, they may understand it's just not worth challenging. Police also shouldn't have to take the time to notify people that they are being recorded and gain consent. It should just be the public's understanding that, if interacting with an officer, you are being recorded - should make all interactions a lot more cordial. Current laws regarding the identity of sexual assault victims and juveniles can be maintained by obscuring their appearance. I've done several ride alongs, and people's behavior always stuns me. I get that people don't like being told they can't do something, but it's amazing how fast "your just doing this cause I'm (young, old, race, in a sports car, etc)'' or "don't you have real criminals to find" comes out. It's just embarrassing.

200

Frances

March 18, 2015 at 9:21 AM

For all you folks who think the officer should have no discretion about when the cameras are on or off, would you want a camera on while you're taking a s*** at work? Can you hold it for ten hours? Good lord, use your brains. Cameras are a useful tool, for sure, but they will never show everything. Cameras have no peripheral vision, and there can be no subtitles containing all the officers' thoughts, real time. They will never provide all the answers, and I worry people are being set up with unattainable expectations.

201

GJB

March 18, 2015 at 9:21 AM

Yes please. I've heard too many cases of officer abuse, and consistent use of such cameras could really help settle matters: vindicate or verify.

If recorded video is subject to privacy concerns, then a neutral should be brought in to review footage and allowed to document (in writing) the nature of any specific sensitive footage, while also authorizing a very specific and limited "black out" of said footage.

Please also consider related scientific studies, such as http://www.policefoundation.org/content/body-worn-cameras-police-use-force

202

Daizee

March 18, 2015 at 9:26 AM

Yes to body cams! Footage should be accessible to those involved and their legal counsel. Release of footage to the public must be approved by those involved or their faces blurred out. All privacy rights should be considered, however body cams will protect both the police and the public they serve.

203

David

March 18, 2015 at 9:27 AM

Yes, please use body cams. There needs to be better accountability for police since we aren't seeing any coming out of either police mgmt or the grand jury system. Body cams will help to protect both citizens and good cops. The scammers and bad apples will be filmed. And if the police want to help the situation even more, rescind the current 2-day gag order for officers involved in incidents. This delay has always raised suspicions with the public. Finally, increase public involvement for officers. People tend to fear the unfamiliar. Thanks.

204

Tristan Bailey

March 18, 2015 at 10:57 AM

Absolutely. The Portland Police need this technology. The residents of the greater Portland area need the Police to wear body camera technology too. This technology could have legitimate use in Portland as long as there is any level of distrust of Portland's Police Department in the community, and there is a great deal of distrust here that goes back to long before Rocky Balada. HOWEVER, there must be no control of the camera on the police officer's part and data collection/storage must not be left to the individual officers. Individual police officers must not be allowed to turn the device on or off at their pleasure. Any gap in the day's video which becomes evidence of any sort MUST be considered as evidence in OPPOSITION to the officer's testimony or the legitimacy of the purpose for the camera will have been nearly nullified. This technology must be utilized as the POV of a disinterested third party, and not as a means of supporting bias in favor of defendant or officer.

205

Logan

March 18, 2015 at 11:20 AM

I am very much in favor of body cameras.

Video should be stored for a designated amount of time, available upon request to anyone involved in a stop or arrest.

207

Laurel Redner

March 18, 2015 at 12:06 PM

I think it is a good idea, even though the film may not be helpful in some occasions: protects both the officer and the public.

208

Portland Copwatch

March 18, 2015 at 12:20 PM

We at Portland Copwatch decided after long discussion and research to neither publicly applaud nor oppose the introduction of such cameras in Portland. We do feel that if the cameras are pursued, the community needs more input into
the policies guiding them than can be provided by this website.

We have and will continue to raise concerns that the use of the cameras violates Oregon Revised Statute 181.575 that prohibits collecting and maintaining information on people's political, social or religious affiliations with no suspicion of criminal conduct. The use of body cams can pose serious civil liberty infringements and must be carefully regulated.

We will likely have more input soon, but encourage people to read these three articles in the meantime:

> http://www.portlandcopwatch.org/PPR64/CopCams64.html

> http://wecopwatch.org/police-cameras-quick-fix-for-police-misconduct-or-counter-surveillance-tool/

> http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2014/03/25/study-contrasts-rialto-police-albuquerque-police-regards-body-mounted-cameras/

dan handelman and other members of
portland copwatch

209

Pam Allee

March 18, 2015 at 12:33 PM

Seems like a good idea - unless we're going to start hearing that an officer "forgot" to either turn his device on, or "forgot" to check the battery before doing so. Or whatever excuse will be found...

Maybe you'd only have top do this until real citizen review and oversight becomes the norm. (Like only for a hundred more years or so?)

210

Liz

March 18, 2015 at 12:35 PM

I am NOT in favor of body cameras. I would rather see my tax dollars invested in training and increased accountability about racial bias and profiling. The recent "I am Darren Wilson" posts on Facebook by PPB members demonstrates that there is a lot of racism in the organization. There have been enough cases in other states of "camera malfunction" to support the argument that taping someone doesn't guarantee moral behavior.

212

Anita_B

March 18, 2015 at 12:52 PM

Great idea. I'm all for body cameras and believe they are long overdue. A camera protects both officers and the people they interact with, by providing an unbiased record of what occurred. Memory is notoriously flawed--especially in emotional encounters. A video doesn't rely on human memory or error. Solid thumbs up. Get them.

213

Timothy Hurita

March 18, 2015 at 1:09 PM

I am in favor of 3G\4G enabled body cams. Cameras capable of automatically uploading recordings to a secure server accessible only to trusted members of the judicial system or higher ranking officials. This would address both privacy concerns and minimize tampering.

Footage should not be available to anyone that asks, it should only be made available through a court order with proper justification. Once the footage is released, it may or may not be posted publicly depending on the circumstances to be determined by a judge in good standing.

I think that with proper implementation and oversight, body cams would benefit both citizens and the police.

214

hedda lee

March 18, 2015 at 1:15 PM

Portland police can't be trusted with guns or tasers. Why would we trust them to use body-cams in a way that achieves real safety for Portlanders from police aggression and violence?

215

Peter McGovern

March 18, 2015 at 1:21 PM

I am also in favor of body cameras. More people are more likely to be on their best behavior if everything is being recorded.

Also..their data must be available to an independent review board and/or the public in the case of problems.

The police should not be able to police themselves due to "the Blue Code of Silence".

216

J U

March 18, 2015 at 1:28 PM

As far as I'm concerned, the biggest obstacle is cost. Would we contract with a third party vendor to supply the cameras, software, and storage solution? This would be a huge burden to an already limited budget.

Access and control of the cameras should probably live with a third party, not the PPB. However, even if it was up to the officer's discretion to use the camera, I would still be in favor. More information is better than none.

217

Noel Nicole

March 18, 2015 at 1:30 PM

I believe police must wear body cameras in order to improve community relations as well as protect police from unfounded attitudes from the public and media. Most people do not need unfettered access to this information. The Portland police department, is, in my opinion, an excellent role model for other police departments in both the US and Canada.

218

Brian Davis

March 18, 2015 at 1:42 PM

While I am certainly of the opinion that we as a city need to do everything in our power to ensure that our police bureau faithfully represents our values as a city, I do not believe body cameras are the best way to accomplish this. Indeed, I think compelling armed agents of the state to record everything they see might have a whole bevy of unforeseen consequences.

I would much rather see the bureau focus on community policing, which I consider a more holistic solution to the problems body cameras are meant to address. Let's get police out of their cars and walking beats, so that they become familiar faces in the communities they are supposed to be protecting and serving. I also think the bureau should make every effort to diversify, specifically at leadership positions, to bring the demographic profile of the police department more in line with that of the city. There should also be a requirement that a Portland officer must live within the city of Portland, and the officer should live in the neighborhood he or she serves wherever possible.

Body cameras are a band-aid. The solution is to completely overhaul how we do policing.

220

Kimberly Frank

March 18, 2015 at 2:09 PM

I am in support of body cameras. I think together the people and police of Portland can team up and show the rest of the world what a good relationship between police and community looks like.

221

Kate H

March 18, 2015 at 2:10 PM

I'm a paramedic, and I vote for body cameras. I know first hand the kind of things that go on when all parties on scene know that they're not being recorded. The way that law enforcement behaves on camera is often different from how they behave off camera -- which isn't to say that they're all bad all the time. The fact is that the nature of the job attracts some bad apples, and there needs to be a way to remove them.

With great power comes great responsibility. Let's start holding them to that.

222

Leslie

March 18, 2015 at 2:35 PM

I believe police officers should wear them. How would it hurt to have them on? In light of all these instances of police brutality all over the country, it only seems fitting for officers to wear the cameras to gain back the public's trust/ to ensure fewer instances of death by cop occurs.

It will cost a lot more than quietly (and literally) burying the mistakes of the bureaus officers but I'm willing to pay it.

Even if we opt out of the cameras, I know I will personally be filming every police stop I witness.

223

shyra wade

March 18, 2015 at 2:48 PM

As long as the police can't turn them off at will I think this will be good for both citizens and cops cause we have faulty ass citizens and faulty ass cops but we also have innocent victims (citizens) and good cops

224

Steven Robinson

March 18, 2015 at 2:49 PM

It's actually a win win for law enforcement and civilians. There is no question police fabricate probable cause in many cases.

For an example:

I was driving and an officer pulled me over and claimed I was speeding at 3am. I knew I wasn't speeding and said so. All he had to support his claim was that he tracked me manually (conveniently didn't have radar) for 5 blocks and I went around a semi truck more than once. I was driving (allegedly 60 mph in a 35) if you do the math it was mathematically impossible to properly time me at that distance
It was my word against his... And the burden of proof should have been on him (pun intended).. To name a few incidents.

225

Meredith Barrioz

March 18, 2015 at 4:22 PM

Police and the public should be filming interactions with law enforcement. The public must have full access to all law enforcement video, audio, and written forms of documentation. Unedited video and audio access. Written documentation should be on a case by case basis so as not to compromise the integrity of an ongoing investigation/prosecution. Transparency is a must. Not every officer is suited for the job. The videos are a valuable tool in weeding out bad cops and vindicating good ones.

226

Sonia

March 18, 2015 at 4:25 PM

I think cameras would be a good start. Hopefully the bureau has studied what has and hasn't worked with body/car cameras in other cities. One example I can think of is when officers didn't turn their cameras on saying they forgot (whether it was intentional or not, I don't know but it is something to consider). I also think officers should be held accountable in some way when their camera is not turned on.

228

Eric Matchett

March 18, 2015 at 4:37 PM

Under no circumstance should the officer wearing the body camera be able to turn it off. Access to that footage should be controlled by an independent agency based on citizen privacy concerns. When a patrol officer is on duty the camera is on. No exceptions.

229

Bob Haskins

March 18, 2015 at 4:37 PM

Has anyone considered self incrimination? The camera just recorded your actions, your testimony if you will. This is all prior to you being notified of your right not to self incriminate. Just saying...

230

Red Hamilton

March 18, 2015 at 4:40 PM

I think if they show the true nature of the stop, violence or situation than I support it. But as it stands now, Police are killing people with the all so convenient "He was reaching for my gun" or "He was resisting arrest. We have to think about the racial profiling that goes on daily- especially in Portland. We have to think about the people behind the badge, and why they harass and follow black men and people in their day to day jobs. That's the REAL problem. Internally we have to teach police that it's not ok to hate, discriminate and harass everyone that doesn't look like them. We should take the millions of dollars being spent on body cameras and spend it on diversity and racial sensitivity training, training for officers and community building.Honestly the camera's can be turned off or not even turned on because we know that police have to lie to justify their unlawful aggressions and the law will always believe them. I vote no cameras.

232

daniele holloway

March 18, 2015 at 4:59 PM

I believe body cams are a good idea to protect citizens (mentally ill and people of color especially) from the police. The number of unlawful actions and excessive force incidents involving police is rising at an alarming rate. PPB has paid out millions of dollars in settlements or loss of trials. The deaths of James Chasse, Aaron Campbell, Kendra James and Keaton Otis (to name a few) could have been prevented if officers were wearing body cams,HOWEVER, I do not think they are the answer. In numerous cities across the country officers have been caught tampering with and turning off cams during incidents that may escalate into a use of force situation. Police accountability will be the ONLY thing that will protect officers and citizens. Hopefully, the DOJ agreement makes some changes, doubtful but hopefully.

233

Elizabeth Gibbeson

March 18, 2015 at 5:00 PM

I believe body cams can be an important tool for the police force. It can provide needed protection for officers in cases where questions come up later. It helps create trust with the community by providing transparency. I don't believe they need to be worn by every officer, but for those working on patrol. During investigations that are sensitive, I don't believe they should be worn. There are things I wouldn't want to talk about on camera and people may not be as open as they could be. Also, I just can't see a valid reason to wear one when interviewing minors or victims. When dealing with mentally ill folks, cameras could be a good tool for the officer. I do not think the videos should be released. They should be made available to attorneys or whoever has a need, but I think they are police property and should remain in police custody. If someone wants a video of their interaction with the police they should get their own camera.

234

Kurtis Engle

March 18, 2015 at 5:00 PM

Thanks for asking for input, instead of doing silly stuff like Seattle, and ignoring the complaints. Taking your queries one by one:

*Privacy issues that concern you.

Privacy is important, but should be handled when the information is released to the public, and not before. Until it is given to the News, it is evidence and should not be tampered with. You might remove something important that may ruin or exonerate a suspect, inappropriately. After release, it's News, and that is different in important ways.

*How to use the technology during sensitive investigations: domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse, response to care for someone needing mental health assistance?

The camera should be on all day long. There should be no way to turn it off except attaching it to the charger. That way, the camera will ALWAYS be on.

*Should footage be available to anyone who asks (this could include victim interviews, interior of homes, children, uninvolved community members, etc.)?

Footage should be available when there is a need to know; to the Department, to law enforcement generally, to the attorneys in any case relating to the specific video, whether it be a criminal matter or a complaint of officer conduct, and audio/video of interest to the general public should be available to and through the press AFTER bystanders identities are obscured by fuzzying their faces but not their hands. (the bystanders, not the officers or the people of interest) If the press passes that video on, that is what they were supposed to do with it. If anyone else passes the UNREDACTED video on, that would be a policy violation, potentially actionable.

*Once footage is released, should there be any restrictions on sharing and posting that video?

For the PRESS version, no. For the UNREDACTED version, yes.

*Other thoughts, suggestions or concerns you may have.

Like everything, this technology is a two edged sword. It will make very clear to everyone what misconduct is and who is responsible for it. On the other hand, prosecutions will in many cases be made much easier also. One could with justification remark, "Everyone wins". And perhaps that should be said. Change is something that causes change. And no one likes that. Because old habits die hard. And that is what this is about.

Thank you.

235

Jim D

March 18, 2015 at 5:10 PM

Will the officer notify me that I'm being filmed before filming starts? Do I have the right to deny being filmed if I am not under arrest? If either of these questions are "no" I do not support this practice. I currently have the privacy right to deny search or seizure without probable cause - I would assume I have the same privacy rights when it comes to being filmed and you should ensure they are as part of this new practice. You need to be very clear with citizens when it is appropriate/legal for officers to film us without our knowledge or permission. To be clear - my comments only apply to "body" cameras. I am in full support of vehicle mounted cameras.

236

john jolliff

March 18, 2015 at 5:33 PM

I think the Portland Police department is the best in the nation. I truly trust their judgment. If they want these cameras, I am for it. It is too bad they do not get more appreciation for the difficult job they have volunteered to do.

237

Charles Wiley

March 18, 2015 at 5:34 PM

I am in favor of body cameras for officers. No more questions about actions of the officers or the public.

238

Darlene Bensin

March 18, 2015 at 6:36 PM

I am in favor of all Police Officers being equipped with body cameras. Mostly, for the safety of, and allowing our officers to do their job, without the fear of being charged with a crime when what they are doing is trying to prevent crime and protect our Citizens. As far as privacy concerns go, I would assume that there will be restrictions as to whom, and under what circumstances that the filming would be shown. If it was used in a court case it should be used for only the jury, judge, and lawyers, not the media. I trust the City to make the right decisions when it comes to privacy for all Citizens and Police personnel.

239

Joshua Vierra

March 18, 2015 at 6:56 PM

If you are going to spend taxpayer money on body cameras, make it so the officer is not allowed to turn it off or remove it while on duty, undercover or not. If it malfunctions, there should be a backup and the officer would have to answer for any amount of time not recorded and if there is no explainable cause, they should be put under investigation and be put on unpaid leave if the unexplained malfunction resulted in an interaction not being recorded. Also, if the officer is found by a non-police/D.A. (group of citizens, kind of like a jury) entity to be guilty of turning off their cameras, or being negligent in charging their camera, they should be automatically fired, and jailed for destroying evidence. Also, certain situations the officer should have to turn off the camera, such as during strip searches, in which case the time the camera is turned on and off is recorded. Audio would still be recorded at all times. Oh, and an officer, before they say anything else to a person they approach, should be required to announce that they are recording video/audio.

240

Cousin it

March 18, 2015 at 7:14 PM

I think body cameras are absolutely worth a try for various reasons. To protect the public and also protect our valuable officers. It's sad it's come to this, but something has to be done to protect everyone involved. Too many false accusations and now people threatening to harm our officers. These things can only be resolved with proof so yes, it's time for this. Maybe the use of the cameras will be reason enough for people to behave. If I obey the law and have nothing to hide I should have no reason to be filmed in the first place.
I too believe the videos should be used for legal reasons only. Somehow they need to be held under lock and key with another camera in the storage room so they never end up on you-tube.

242

Matt S

March 18, 2015 at 8:15 PM

Accountability is tantamount in my workplace, and I would expect the same for the PPD/OSP/all other LEOs. The legal costs will plummet as video evidence will often exonerate the innocent and convict the guilty with much less lengthy trials. The only concern is finding new hires for when the corrupt are cut so easily and quickly. There is no moral downside, this will help to heal tensions across racial and socioeconomic lines, it will simplify officer involved incidents to allow LEOs to miss less work during investigations, and will ultimately change relations between citizens and LEOs, a relationship that has been strained as of late. The question is not whether to do it, the question is how soon can we implement it.

243

Greg Crowe

March 18, 2015 at 9:14 PM

The evidence behind law enforcement's use of body cameras is clear. Police who wear body cameras have reduced use of force incidents and reduced complaints against officers. From the perspective of the public and the perspective of police departments, this seems a clear win-win.

244

Anthony

March 19, 2015 at 8:00 AM

I am in favor of body cameras. Recording the truth is beneficial to citizens and officers.

Face blur should be added to publicly released footage of those individuals not relevant to a particular case (background people, not the officer or the citizen they are interacting with), with unblurred footage available for courts if it becomes relevant later. There are software programs that can do this automatically.

Yes, the footage should be available to the public. The truth does no good if it is hidden.

245

Citizen2

March 19, 2015 at 8:55 AM

Portland Police have still not respected the privacy of the public by fixing the glitch pointed out to them yesterday. The glitch allows the public to see the name and email address of any commentator on this thread.

Just another example of why the public doesn't trust the police.

246

Jack Inglis

March 19, 2015 at 9:06 AM

Portland's police have a long way to go before many in our community will feel there is trust and accountability. Body cameras are a very important step towards that goal- but only if there are very strict rules in place that prevent officers from manipulating when they are on or off. There can be no trust if officers can choose when they are on.

Please make this happen.

247

Timothy

March 19, 2015 at 9:08 AM

Head mounted cameras on the bill of a cap facing where the cop looks is crucial. As is continuos recording not reliant on the cop pressing record, live upload, and complete public access to the saved videos with passcode provided withinin hours, if not minutes, by public access request. This whole project should be administered by a new citizens cop watch department not affiliated with the police. These public interest folks will help the current stupidly high cost estimates to come back to reality to buy and operate cameras with server storage. And it will help ensure police don't accidentally fail to record as this new cop watch department will have the authority to suspend without pay any officer not transparently recording their interactions with the public.

I $750 iPhone with free iCloud photos could meet these needs. Surely an independent civic minded group of folks could find a better cost for this project, not only to make it more useful. But to simultaneously highlight the disgusting nature of how bloated this program has become.

248

Betty

March 19, 2015 at 9:08 AM

I am in favor of body cameras. Who has access to the tapes is a separate issue. I should think administration, court staff, lawyers, etc. should have free access, but I don't think the rest of us would relish seeing our own traffic stop on the 5:00 news.

249

Michael Stevens

March 19, 2015 at 9:29 AM

I'm in favor of body cams because it gives department a chance to see if any employees are above who they are, because yes 98% of cops are good, buts it's the 2% that make law enforcement get the bad wrap in the end. I'm in favor, and we get a second point of view on scene with the officer because a dash cam isn't the full view in the scene.

250

Wendy

March 19, 2015 at 10:50 AM

I am in favor of body camera. It is visual documentation of what occurred during the situation.

251

Zerdath

March 19, 2015 at 11:42 AM

I am in favor of body cameras, to protect and verify the story of both sides in an altercation. The cameras should record the entire time the officers are on duty. Not every incident gives them enough time to turn on the camera. And there should be suitable punishments for tampering with the cameras. And suitable protections of the recordings to be used for legal purposes only.

252

Ian stewart

March 19, 2015 at 11:47 AM

There is absolutely no reason why a police officer should decline having a body camera if they have nothing to hide. And likewise any individual on the receiving end of police attention should have no reason to fear being recorded unless they have something to hide as well.

Any possible downside to this is trivial, or selfish compared to what it offers that is positive.

253

Concerned Portland Gentleman

March 19, 2015 at 12:38 PM

Do it. Accountability seems to lead to more positive outcomes.

http://www.policefoundation.org/content/body-worn-cameras-police-use-force

254

Mark Birdsall

March 19, 2015 at 1:36 PM

I want to know what it will cost and if the public will be allowed access to the information. It sounds like a good idea, but without details it is hard to judge.

255

Beth

March 19, 2015 at 2:22 PM

In general, I think on body cameras are a good step, but I do not think they are only way to improve relations between police and the public. As we saw with the choking death of Eric Garner in New York, police abuse caught on camera does not necessarily change the outcome of police prosecutions. An additional step must be taken to provide further training and opportunities for the community and the police to build trust. Cameras alone will not improve community relations.

256

Jason flores

March 19, 2015 at 6:55 PM

I am very much in favor of on body cameras.
As a student in cognitive psychology
I know that memory is fallible and eyewitness testimony is notoriously error prone.
Cameras keep everyone honest and accountable
Both police and suspects.

257

roy

March 19, 2015 at 7:34 PM

Since Portland police has a history of police brutality, absolutely the cameras should be required,along with tasers. Too many people in this country are being murdered by cops with itchy trigger fingers.Once a cops shift starts they shouldn't be able to be shut off either.

259

Matt

March 19, 2015 at 9:49 PM

Footage taken by body cameras should be made available as soon as possible to any person accused of a crime or pressing charges against individual officers, or their legal representation, in an easily accessible video format (e.g. MP4, WMV), and it should be up to their sole discretion as to whether said footage is made available publicly. All footage should also be archived for a long period of time, several years at least, regardless of relevance to any legal cases.

260

Jymmi Sparkz

March 20, 2015 at 6:04 AM

Body cameras seem to be a good idea, my concern is avoiding expensive problems in the storage of the data on them.
Cudos to all the Officers for their bravery in service and their excellence at fairness in the community. Be safe.

261

Dane Lepsey

March 20, 2015 at 9:44 AM

We as a family strongly agree with body cameras for the safety of officers. It would clear up many questionable situation and hopefully restore the trust in the people that our officers work hard to do what is right while keeping their selves safe.

262

Dawn Luethe

March 20, 2015 at 10:22 AM

I am 100% for body camera's. I think they will protect our police force from most of the complaints they receive, and be able to help the public in the rare cases the police act more aggressively than they should have. They would be a great training tool for the officers to use after the call. I have two concerns. The first one is how they are shown to the public. I think there should be a privacy policy similar to the HIPA policy that is used in medical situations. I do not think they should be available to the public, but shown to a review board to make any determination needed. If there is a lawsuit, then they should be available to the public after it is completed. My other concern would be jury trials. Most of the public that would be on the jury are not trained to see the same things the police are trained to see in regards to how a person is acting suspiciously, and to have an idea that they are going to react badly before they do. I would want to make sure they have expert witness to explain some of this to the jury.

263

Gloria Bouchor Luzader

March 20, 2015 at 1:06 PM

I am in favor of the police wearing and using body cameras. This is a safety issue for the police and the public. I feel horridly violated being "on-film" by the abundance of smart phones from unknown persons.

265

John Schoonover

March 20, 2015 at 8:07 PM

  1. Cameras should be on at all times. The only exceptions are when the officers are on a bathroom break which should be logged in with the dispatcher. The excuse of I forgot to turn it on will come with an immediate 30 day suspension without pay.
  2. A camera that is turned in as malfunctioning will be turned in to an authorized technician to be certified as being in working condition. A camera with three certified instances of malfunctioning in a one year period will be permanently removed from service.
  3. Cameras should be “point of view” of what the officer is SEEING. The cameras should be either worn as glasses, or like a Bluetooth device, or mounted on a hat. They should ALWAYS point to where the officer is looking. Body cameras do no good if the officer is turned due north but a sudden noise or action is due south.
  4. The camera device should have a red light (or some indication) that the device is on and recording which is indicated to the officer and to the general public.
  5. The recordings should be held for a length of time commensurate with the commonly held statute of limitations with crimes which occurred during that shift. If the officer was involved in a riot situation or murder that recording should probably held in perpetuity. If it was an everyday shift of general interactions and traffic stops it would seem that five years should be long enough.
  6. The recordings should be available to the officer to defend himself against accusations from the general public, and they should also be available to the person involved in an interaction with the officer to prove their side of an interaction.
  7. The recordings should be made available to media IF they show through a COURT ORDER that the recordings are needed to show/prove accusations against an officer in a particular situation or to prove the ongoing actions of the officer or department are detrimental to the general public in an ongoing manner.
  8. If the victim or officer feel they need to release the recording to the general public to prove their point, they should be able to. But the general public should not have “open book” rights to anything that they wish to see. IF A COIURT feels there are legitimate reasons to release the recordings in public, then they must be released.

It should be noted that the camera works in the officers behalf in more instances than not, and they should be encouraged to use them at all times. Personally I see something in the realm of Google Glass devices as being the perfect type of device. If built in a durable condition the officer can also be given “heads up display” type information that will aid in his everyday work and interactions.

Several departments have shown that citizen complaints against officers have dropped by up to 80% or more, due to changes in officers behavior while wearing cameras and the public’s acknowledgement that the officers have something to fall back on to disprove their allegations.

266

vicki ezell

March 21, 2015 at 8:09 AM

Accountability for the police and citizens with the use of on body cameras. Everyone wins. Totally for on body camera use.

267

Trevor Shepard

March 21, 2015 at 11:15 AM

I think that body cameras will serve to protect both officers and the public by bringing transparency to the police/citizen interactions. For privacy reasons, I think video of said cameras should not be public, but having them as a reservoir of reliable evidence is great!

268

Aubre Gilbert

March 21, 2015 at 11:27 AM

Part of me is concerned that cyber crime will present obstacles in keeping the information private. However, I think that a tool to increase accountability will go far to prepare the broken relationship between citizens and police. I am in favor of body cameras.

269

Tammy Ryan

March 21, 2015 at 8:51 PM

100% in favor of body cameras for all PPB officers. Anyone involved in criminal activity have by choice given up their right to privacy, victims do deserve privacy but I am unsure how to protect them other than blurring their image. Release the video to anyone, in a reasonable time frame for a fee to cover costs of producing the video clip, and labor hours for responding to the requests.

270

Neil Wagner

March 22, 2015 at 9:27 AM

I'm in favor of the cameras I don't want our police to hesitate when trying to protect me.

271

Robert Voss

March 22, 2015 at 9:31 AM

Yes to body cameras.
Yes to changing allocation of car cam money to body cams.
Yes to (as some cities have already done) switching burden of proof onto police personnel who develop a technical problem with body cams during a confrontation with the public.

273

Gary Rosteck

March 22, 2015 at 10:02 AM

Yes for body cameras. would like the tapes available to public/police review board, unedited.

274

Anonymous

March 22, 2015 at 11:38 AM

I support police officers wearing body cameras. I believe it will assist both the PPB and those involved in an incident. However, I am deeply concerned with the policies that may be established by the PPB regarding when and under what circumstances officers can turn off the body cameras. I have viewed numerous OSP body camera videos where the officers either turned off the audio or video. Just leaves the perception, whether true or not, that the police are doing something "sketchy". If the bureau is that worried about what officers might say our divulge while responding to an incident, I would suggest the entire video and audio be preserved and edited, if necessary, after it has been scrutinized by both the prosecutor, defense and the bureau. It lends itself to trust that is built through the transparency of the process.

275

RICHARD SILVA

March 22, 2015 at 4:05 PM

Officers on duty are public employees and personal body cameras should be part of their normal equipment just as much as a badge and uniform. Their recent actions and protestations of innocence have brought them to the point of being distrusted and disbelieved in the communities they serve. (See the Oregonian editorial about POA Daryl Turner, 3/22/15.) Cameras might help repair their reputation and demonstrate that they are not gun-happy cowboys. If they are to regain my respect they need to demonstrate cooperation, not obstruction of the Independent Police Review Board. I strongly support mandatory use of personal cameras by uniformed officers as soon as possible. Obstruction by the POA should be replaced with eager and enthusiastic adoption. It will protect the officer as well as the public. I am a white male conservative 75 years old. Enough of this.

276

Marissa

March 24, 2015 at 9:44 AM

Body cameras are a great resource, but they're expensive. The real investment here should be in education. Racism is one aspect of our society that is impossible to ignore or separate from ourselves. The existence of racism doesn't mean that people are bad, it means that people are made up of the stuff around them, and racism is one of those things. Racism, of course, is very bad. We know that whiteness is preferred and implicitly associated with goodness. Alternatively, blackness is associated with badness. (See Harvard Project Implicit and many, many studies on the matter)

Police officers have an incredible opportunity to be guardians of our communities, but a tremendous responsibility to act justly. I believe that time and resources need to be spent in educating officers on cultural training. They need to understand a bit of the historical trauma experienced by communities of color. They need need to know about racism, and begin to accept that- while not necessarily racists- racism does indeed affect them. Police officers need to be trained to have more of an awareness of the complexity that is race in America.

278

Kim Degutis

March 24, 2015 at 10:41 AM

I am all for body cameras on law enforcement officers. It protects officers from claims of brutality, protects citizens if officers are too violent, and would confirm actions by officers in questionable cases (think Ferguson if officer Wilson had one, varying witness accounts would not have gummed up the investigation).

Protect our officers, get the body cameras.

279

Roger

March 24, 2015 at 11:48 AM

Body cameras are a simple way to increase transparency in police actions. They are just a piece in the puzzle, though. Without a working system for addressing citizen complaints and reprimanding or prosecuting officers that violate the law, the cameras have no utility. It's an important prong in an approach to ensuring proper policing - but implementing body cameras should be more than a concession to concerns, a bargaining chip. Reform is needed in more areas.

282

Luann Hopkins

March 24, 2015 at 12:43 PM

I feel the on body cameras protect both the police officers and the public. I feel there will need to be some privacy boundaries as far as releasing videos. Children, domestic violence victims, and other sensitive situations would preclude release to general public or news agencies.; but, of course, should be used in incident reviews in-house or in court.

283

Portland Copwatch

March 24, 2015 at 1:03 PM

To the Portland Police Bureau:

As we mentioned in our previous post, Portland Copwatch has taken a neutral position on the issue of body cameras, but we have numerous concerns which need to be addressed if the Bureau decides to adopt them. One of our more serious concerns, that cameras will be used far more frequently to support the prosecution of community members than to hold officers accountable, is not addressed at all in the questions raised by the Bureau. In an era where the Bureau (and the City) is focused on Equity, getting a tool that will likely lead to more people of color going to jail should definitely be part of the consideration of the "yes" or "no" to body cams question. (For example, a recent story on Oregon City's adoption of video cameras only talks about the uptick in prosecutions and says nothing about officer misconduct: <http://portlandtribune.com/pt/9-news/245113-111707-ocpd-testing-body-cameras-on-officers-while-theyre-on-duty>.)

With regard to the Oregon Revised Statute we referenced earlier, ORS 181.575 which prohibits law enforcement from collecting OR maintaining information on people's social, political or religious affiliations, we've long disagreed with the City Attorney who says collecting that information is happening "inadvertently and not deliberately." The statute does not differentiate motive; it was created to stop police from spying on the community.*

As a group that tapes and trains and encourages people to tape the police, we're all for community members holding the cops accountable, but not the state (/law enforcement) gathering info on us. When community members tape the police, the camera is pointed to show what the police are doing. When the police tape, the camera is facing away from the officers.

More detailed examples might be the recent footage released of officers rescuing an infant in a submerged car: <http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/14/us/utah-baby-submerged-car/> where the scene feels very dramatic but it is actually very difficult to tell what is going on. Imagine such chaotic footage from officer cameras in the case of Jason Cox, whose lawyers secured a major jury verdict when Portland officers beat him on a third-party security camera. <http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2014/09/portlandjury_awards_to_manbe.html>
The body cameras attached to the police at best would look like a flurry of arms and clothing, but probably would not show the body blows or even the Taser use against Mr. Cox.

We were very cautious when the Bureau brought Tasers to Portland in 2004 as a response to the Jose Mejia Poot and Kendra James shootings. Amnesty International had already put out alerts as to the dangers of the weapons. (And the very mature, multi-millionaire CEO of Taser called them "Amnesty Irrational" in an email to us.) It wasn't until about 7 years later and 300 more deaths that Taser finally admitted the weapons yeah, maybe, might be able to cause death. (And Portland Police started by using them 300 times a year, now use them about 100 times a year, but only shoot people 4 times a year... in other words, Tasers were not a replacement for deadly force, but a new kind of weapon that's being over-used.) At least one person, Timothy Grant, died in Portland after being hit by a Taser.

It's not a coincidence, we think, that Taser is one of the manufacturers of the cop cams. Or that they were the ones who paid for the one study that keeps being cited over and over again, in Rialto, making it seem like an accountability "magic bullet." As we wrote about this study in our newsletter (<http://www.portlandcopwatch.org/PPR64/CopCams64.html>), "Using a test and a control group, this study found camera use led to a 59% reduction in use of force incidents and a 87.5% reduction in complaints. However, these reductions are based on the difference from one year to the next, not the difference between the control and test groups."

An article published on March 18 about San Diego's camera program talks about the drop in force and the drop in complaints the same way-- comparing one year to the next but not comparing the officers with cameras to those without.
<http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-body-cameras-20150318-story.html>
The article also ascribes the drop in complaints to people knowing their complaints were false, which is not provable without asking all people who had encounters if they thought they were mistreated and if so, why they didn't file a complaint. It could, of course, also be the result of the officers modifying their behavior because of the cameras.

A meta-study that gathers information from other studies says there is not enough information to know whether the cameras affect police behavior-- it also shows that the Rialto study was not peer-reviewed.
<https://ojpdiagnosticcenter.org/sites/default/files/spotlight/download/Police%20Officer%20Body-Worn%20Cameras.pdf>

Getting back to the issue of the cameras leading to more convictions, we believe that for every
one officer who acts better knowing he/she is being recorded, there will be twenty people (and in Portland, at least 4 of them will probably be African American, over-represented by 3x) who will be convicted for some minor offense that happens to be caught on the camera. And for every cop that gets held accountable for misconduct there will be several dozen people convicted because they didn't know their Miranda right to remain silent.

These are rhetorical statistics, not based on any of the research, just to make the point that these cameras have as much of a downside as potential. As an organization, we certainly don't want to be on record praising the wonders of police cameras only to find that the main purpose of them is to convict more community members, to gather intelligence on people's political activity, or to collect information on politicians or others that can be used to coerce their behavior.

We at PCW aren't actively working to oppose body cams, but we also can't actively support them unless we have a chance to give "your rights" trainings to all 1 million people in the metropolitan area first so they don't say something incriminating on the cameras. That is because, as people know from the Miranda warning, "anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law."

A September 2014 Oregonian article on body cameras quoted the US Dept of Justice expressing concerns about privacy and Miranda rights.
<http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2014/09/mayorcharlie_hales_pushingfo.html>

And while the ACLU of Oregon, which authored ORS 181.575, is more comfortable with body cameras than other kinds of government surveillance, the ACLU's national policy states:

For the ACLU, the challenge of on-officer cameras is the tension
between their potential to invade privacy and their strong benefit in
promoting police accountability. Overall, we think they can be a
win-win--but only if they are deployed within a framework of strong
policies to ensure they protect the public without becoming yet
another system for routine surveillance of the public, and maintain
public confidence in the integrity of those privacy protections.
Without such a framework, their accountability benefits would not
exceed their privacy risks.

<https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/police-body-mounted-cameras-right-policies-place-win-all>

The National ACLU also notes, as we have, that most dashboard cams are activated when police car overhead lights are turned on, which presumably means the officer is investigating some kind of criminal activity. If these cameras are on all the time it becomes a surveillance tool. In an analysis about this issue, members of "We Copwatch," a Bay-Area-centered but national Copwatch group, wrote:

Across the country, body cameras are being purchased by police
departments in the name of transparency. According to a widely
publicized study, Rialto, California, boasted an 88% drop in
complaints in the first year after the cameras were introduced there,
along with a 60% drop in police use of force. Rialto is a small city
with only 66 cops, and its Police Chief, Tony Farrar, collaborated with
Taser International, Inc., in the study. The Taser corporation has
gained record profits by marketing body cameras to hundreds of cities,
along with a cloud-based backup and search service called Evidence.com,
which was used to collect the data for the Rialto study that led to
many of these sales.

Even the study's authors acknowledged that their methodology was
flawed, because no evidence was collected from the members of the
public who were also being videotaped by the wearable cameras to see
how that influenced their behavior in relation to the police and their
willingness to make complaints. Tasers involvement should be a red
flag to anyone who thinks these cameras are an easy tech fix for
police accountability, as should the publics inability to access the
body cam video recordings.

<http://wecopwatch.org/police-cameras-quick-fix-for-police-misconduct-or-counter-surveillance-tool/>

A videographer who's faced off with police and created the site "Photography is Not a Crime" addresses the claim that body cameras will decrease use of force, noting:

That logic falls apart if we take a look at the Albuquerque
Police Department which introduced body-mounted cameras in 2010 -- one
of the first departments in the country to do so -- only to continue
to see an unsettling number of violent incidents against citizens.

They killed so many citizens since introducing the cameras that the
United States Department of Justice launched an investigation in late
2012, citing an unusually high number of incidents resulting in
"excessive force, including use of unreasonable deadly force, in their
encounters with civilians."

But even the USDOJ investigation, launched around the time the Rialto
Police Department issued cameras to its officers, did nothing to curb
the aggressiveness because cops continued killing citizens, not in the
least bit swayed by the pending investigation.

<http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2014/03/25/study-contrasts-rialto-police-albuquerque-police-regards-body-mounted-cameras/>

Again, if the City decides to go ahead with this program, which it has been noted elsewhere will be incredibly expensive to maintain, we strongly urge the Bureau to look at the restrictions proposed in legislation that was introduced by Rep. Jennifer Williamson, HR 2757:
<https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB2757/Introduced>
Not only does this bill require limiting storage to one year unless there's misconduct (or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity), but it prohibits use of the video if those conditions don't exist (except for law enforcement training, which is of concern). It requires the storage be done by a third party who is not the vendor of the camera. (We hope this means the Bureau can't use Taser's spin-off corporation that manages data for its cameras.) The bill also wisely addresses the release of footage by requiring all the civilians who are on the footage to give permission for it to be released.

Please feel free to contact us at <copwatch@portlandcopwatch.org> or 503-236-3065 if you have any questions.

--dan handelman
--Portland Copwatch
copwatch@portlandcopwatch.org

  • Our organization has been spied on at least twice by the PPB for fully lawful 1st Amendment activities, once in 1992 (when the file created was titled "Civilian Police Review Board") and once in 1998 (which noted that Dan Handelman is an organizer of demonstrations around US policy in Iraq, but made no allegation of criminal conduct).

<http://www.aracnet.com/~copwatch/spycase2005.html>

285

Bob Haskins

March 24, 2015 at 3:13 PM

No cameras period. If you do not trust the police, when you are in trouble, do not call them. Obey the laws and there is no reason to fear. If you really are in fear of the police, fire them and start over, but if you do, what changes?

287

Philip C

March 24, 2015 at 4:58 PM

I'm not sure why the public should have to pay for more equipment to police the police, if that's really what the body cameras are for. If we don't trust the officers perhaps there needs to be more pressure from the courts and power given to the oversight committees to fire dishonorable officers and charge them with crimes such as lying, assault, etc.

In the recent case of Thai Gurule, the judge ruled in favor of Gurule against the police testimony because of three private videos recording the events. Yet, Daryl Turner, president of the Portland Police Union made a statement: "The officers' reasonable perceptions count, not video footage." "In this case, the cell phone video footage does not capture the physical struggle from the officers' perspective, nor does it capture the officers' reasonable, split-second decision-making and thought processes in tense circumstances." If this is the attitude of the police union president, disregarding video footage from three different angles, does he speak for the rest of the police force?

If the police do have body cameras will they do everything they can to make them as ineffective as possible when it comes to police accountability? Next will they be removing the transmitting antennas like the LAPD or purposely making the video shaky or angling the camera so you can't see what they're doing? There's so many ways to avoid accountability with the cameras. Perhaps a year long test would make sense to allow the civilian review committee to evaluate the effectiveness of the cameras. Or only having the cameras on officers who have had multiple complaints filed against them.

288

Kenny Housman

March 24, 2015 at 7:16 PM

Provides for officers safety (eyes are on you making it difficult to get away with assaulting an officee. Should cut down on court cost. Court should make choice on when where and what is shown.
Loud verbal warning you are being recorded.
All this should do the trick.
PS penalties for not turning on or tampering with recordings.

289

Brendan Wright

March 24, 2015 at 8:19 PM

I support them. They've done great things in other places for increasing accountability, and decreasing litigation. It's like call recording in financial institution call centers-- it protects everyone involved, because you can establish a clear picture of what went on, and who said and did what.

291

Rick M

March 24, 2015 at 9:33 PM

Big yes for body cameras. Anything that encourages officers to use less force AND encourages civilians to behave better is worth the effort.

292

Tim Clouse

March 24, 2015 at 9:59 PM

i am in favor of police wearing body cameras. Personally I believe it would reduce or eliminate the constant spurious attempts by people to falsely accuse offices of wrong doing as well as give a "police eye view" of what was happening. Cameras are everywhere. Police are going to have video of them taken. I think it's in thier favor to have a complete unedited officer view point to present right at the start vs. having to piece things together or worst case scenario, just thier word against a picture.

293

JP

March 24, 2015 at 10:07 PM

I am in favor of all local departments officers wear body cams. I was leaving a store tonight after purchasing some energy drinks for the morning. I saw a car prowler (white male, 50's, smoking marijuana publicly, and looking through cars on a BMX bike with a flashlight.). Knowing my home town I knew an officer would be close by. I managed to flag one down but in the process was humiliated and scolded. I think having the body cameras would give officers accountability and not allow them to abuse their authority. I have also learned just to mind my own business and move on. I will never again reach out to an officer for help. They do more harm than good these days. And that's a sad feeling to have. And it's like that everywhere. Just watch the evening news.

296

Hannah

March 24, 2015 at 10:17 PM

Yes, a thousand times yes, body cameras should be required every where not just in Portland. There is no downside,but so many benefits. The best one being with body cameras the chances of a police officer misbehaving or using his authority wrongly will go down. We will now be able to see if a police officer who shot someone 2x is justified. Of course this isn't a huge issue in Portland, but that's why I stated earlier that is should be required everywhere.

297

Cary Danielson

March 24, 2015 at 10:36 PM

I am torn about this question. On the one hand, yes to protect those who potentialy may get abused. On the other, to protect those who are in the worst moment of their lives....humm? If we could only trust the pd! In a perfect world......

299

clinton kruse

March 24, 2015 at 11:20 PM

I a truck driver and was pulled over about 2 weeks ago by osp trooper. And he had 1 of those cameras on him. He asked me if he could record us i said yes go ahead. Thats my 1st time with a police officer haven 1 of those body cams. I felt very glad that the trooper had 1. It think it keeps everything on the up and up for everyone. I think it should be mandatory That all law
Enforcement have a body cam. So i support this.

301

Cynthia

March 25, 2015 at 12:45 AM

Definitely in favor for officers to have body cameras. I think this would be a great tool in many situations and would provide real and accurate information.

303

Robyn

March 25, 2015 at 5:09 AM

YES! I am for body cameras. It's a great medium. We need to make some type of change to better our police and lessen the number of fatalities.

304

Mark A Hanson

March 25, 2015 at 7:21 AM

I see no issue with body cams. They will help protect the police officers from false claims by people.

306

Amy

March 25, 2015 at 8:04 AM

I am all for the PPD wearing body cameras. In today's society, it is time to hold everyone accountable for their actions.

308

Pam

March 25, 2015 at 8:16 AM

Wearing body cams is a good idea-it protects everyone involved in an incident. However, they need to stay turned on. They don't need to be too easy to turn off-defeating their purpose. If an officer is on break, except for bathroom visits, they should stay turned on also. Consider the 4 officers on break at the Starbucks that were shot at....

309

Neil Obrien

March 25, 2015 at 8:18 AM

I believe it would benefit both sides equally. I also believe very strongly police need it for their own protection. There's to much controversy in America on how our police treat the people. By all means let the police have all the aides to better their job an life's.

310

Sheri Sachse

March 25, 2015 at 8:34 AM

It's a good idea not only for accountability reasons but safety ones as well. For our officers and the public. The gate swings both ways.

311

Mikaela O

March 25, 2015 at 8:34 AM

I am in favor! It will hopefully eliminate any gray areas that may occur during a stop.

312

Steve C

March 25, 2015 at 8:40 AM

Yes. The people who want it the most will be shocked when it's the police being harassed, threatened on a daily basis. let the truth come to light.

313

Erin Coy

March 25, 2015 at 8:41 AM

I am in favor of police wearing camera's, for the citizens and the police officers themselves.

314

John cuyler

March 25, 2015 at 8:44 AM

if transparency is the goal, then police officers must wear body cameras. They must never be turned off, and anybody should be able to view the video.

I have grown up with mostly distrust toward police, because while there may be many good cops, there are easily as many that are not. Just because a person is talking to a policeman should not automatically mean that they are either a criminal or suspect. Also, because a person becomes a policeman/woman does not mean that they are ideal for the job. There are many policemen who are certainly jaded, mad at the world, or worst and likely most common of all, on a POWER TRIP. This is not good, and the only way we'll regain this trust lost is by not sweeping this stuff under the rug but by facing it in the great wide open, so that the cops that are doing a good job get their deserved commendations, and those who are not get stripped of their badge.

It is time for police to be a real part of the community, not a thing to be

315

Paige

March 25, 2015 at 8:46 AM

I am in favor of body cameras but also in training for officers to de-escalate situations.

317

Scott

March 25, 2015 at 8:57 AM

Body cameras would be a way to effectively protect the officers, as well as citizens. This is a great idea.

319

James Daniel

March 25, 2015 at 8:58 AM

Body-cams protect both the officer and the public.
This is a no-brainer...
Body-cams=YES

320

Eunice

March 25, 2015 at 8:59 AM

I think body cams, with restrictions as to when & who sees the footage, would be a very good thing.

It would protect Truth & Integrity, for all parties concerned. which could serve to remove doubt by having transparency for what the officer sees.

BUT - in the same token, officers shouldn't insist that bystanders videotaping a crime scene should turn off their cameras!!

It must go both ways to be just.

321

Keshia Schneider

March 25, 2015 at 9:16 AM

I am completely in favor. Not only would cameras serve as protection for residents but also for officers.

323

Kris

March 25, 2015 at 9:27 AM

Why would the videos be open to the public? I believe that they should wear body cameras however I don't believe just anyone should be able to view what is taped. I think that viewing what is taped should be limited to the people involved or supervisors of the officers or someone's lawyer. I worry that if the general public can view every call, there will be copies of them on the internet.

324

Anthony B.

March 25, 2015 at 9:27 AM

I'm in 100% support of officers wearing body cameras. I believe not only will it serve the purpose of making a stronger case against the people the break the law. It will reduce greatly these non factual "racist" attacks and we will finally know the truth about the officer's decision.

325

Amy K

March 25, 2015 at 9:50 AM

I am in support of body cameras. It preserves the facts of any investigation. It protects everyone involved, including the police officer.

326

Sally Williams

March 25, 2015 at 9:55 AM

I agree 100% with Police officers wearing a camera. The questions I have are mostly on the details. Who will have access to start or stop the recording? Who will have access to these recording? Can the party involved with the police officer request copies of the video? The fear is, if the police officer or police officers are in charge of the questions above, there is room for police tampering. Maybe an outside agency/ third party should handle the video/camera logistics.

328

Lora Shamblin

March 25, 2015 at 10:09 AM

I am 100% for body cameras. Can these also be put on our K-9 units as well. I am still in mourning over Mitch who was shot during a chase on robbers

330

Nate Gwartney

March 25, 2015 at 10:17 AM

I support officers wearing body cameras. Officers could use this protection against false claims. If ever Tom, Dick, and Harry can whip out a cell phone and start recording police officers, the officers should have the right to record as well.

331

D furlow

March 25, 2015 at 10:18 AM

Absolutely police should wear them, just as you have a few bad people there are some bad police, and this would hold them accountable and protect them from false actuations.

332

Jon Simonson

March 25, 2015 at 10:18 AM

Not a bad idea but the video should be auto deleted after 30 days if no one requests that it should be saved for further review.

Requests to save the video data could be for various preselected reasons.

Some examples would include:

  1. An arrest was made.
  2. A person who was at the scene of the video requests further review for the purposes of potentially filing a complaint.(person or their family or lawyer).
  3. An injury and/or accident occurred.

Third parties unrelated to the video would not be able to request data be saved.

334

James Jamison

March 25, 2015 at 10:25 AM

Yes they should, for their protection as well as any citizens that they interact with.

335

Andrew B

March 25, 2015 at 10:26 AM

I am in favor of the body cameras, however I feel the video footage should not be openly available to the public unless directly relevant to a trial or investigation. Attorneys should have access of course, but my concern is that if there is an open database of video footage that the general public can access, then video footage inside somebody's home may be used to "case" somebody's home or even harass them. What's inside, how many people live there, what color is the furniture, etc. I feel a balance needs to be found where the footage is attainable but only when it needs to be or there are concerns with the way officers performed. Perhaps some sort of formal request for footage needs to be filed, then reviewed before it is granted so legitimate claims can be determined.

I also don't want the footage used to harass our police officers. I worry if footage is openly available to anyone anytime, people may start trying to be "managers" of the police force and concern themselves with things that they do not need to be concerned with. I'm not sure if a complete recording of every officer's day is even being considered here, but if it is I don't believe it would be productive for people to listen to every word that comes out of their mouths when they are sitting idle for a moment or eating their lunch or whatever. Again, refer to my first paragraph for where it would be relevant and when it would be available.

Thank you for consulting the public on this.

336

JP

March 25, 2015 at 10:38 AM

I strongly support the use of body cameras, both for the protection of the City and the officers, and for the public. Three years ago I filed a complaint against a Portland PD officer for childish and rude behavior while on duty. The department handled the complaint well, and took measures to improve the officer's behavior. HOWEVER, I have to think that if the officer had been wearing a camera, he'd have conducted himself in a more professional manner to start with.

338

Paul Parker

March 25, 2015 at 11:39 AM

With the track record of Portland Police
They should absolutely be required to wear cameras!

They need accountability for their actions.

Too often - too many unresolved questions regarding use of excessive force and dead bodies.

340

PD

March 25, 2015 at 11:52 AM

I believe cameras are a good idea and video from incidents should be posted quickly after an alleged incident before there is too much time for the press and others to "speculate" and spread rumors about what happened.

341

Mary Ann

March 25, 2015 at 11:52 AM

A good idea IF they are kept private by the Police Dept., and are NOT available for the internet.

342

brandon

March 25, 2015 at 12:34 PM

It's about Damn time. I fully agree they need cameras. It will hopefully prevent police from lying and hurting innocent ppl. Hey Mabey if we are lucky they will even stick to the oath they made when they took the job haha lmao! I doubt it though....

343

Alex

March 25, 2015 at 12:36 PM

Altercations being recorded by voice has helped so much with false accusations on both sides of the spectrum. I believe replacing them with a microphone/camera combination will further help reduce those false accusations. I hope that this will set a trend of a new norm across America. Police are often seen as tyrants, power hungry ticket writers. This could bring them back into the community instead of above it. Hopefully this will force more police to be accountable for their actions and also help them against false accusations of brutality.

345

Hannah

March 25, 2015 at 12:51 PM

I think cameras bring more accountability and will protect the public from officers who break the law and rules but also for the public who accuse officers wrongfully.

I think cameras need to be on every vehicle and every officer and not have the ability to be disabled. We have seen videos in some cities where officers turned off cameras as they beat citizens.

I think PPB's Policy Manual also needs to be updated to make it a serious disciplinary infraction to tamper with or turn off cameras.

347

Pat Hampton

March 25, 2015 at 1:10 PM

I believe Portland police should wear body cameras and there would be consequences for not wearing the camera, not having it turned on or filming in front of the officer. A driver refusing the breathalyzer is considered drunk and arrested. It seem that if no film of a police event can be produced that the officer is guilty. Actually the camera would protect officers from unjust accusations and protect the innocent from police brutality. Camara / microphones would force officers to do what they are suppose to be doing rather than parking beside a fellow officer visiting or time in the donut shop. There would be more respect for the police that were protecting the public instead of the police being shown as harassing and provoking the public.

348

Cindy Fisk

March 25, 2015 at 1:14 PM

I think using body cameras is a great idea. It will not only give the police another way to protect themselves from hearsay but it should make the public feel safe when dealing with the police. Personally I always side with the police but I know a lot of people always believe the stories that the police set people up. The cameras should put a stop to that. If the money is already available to put these into use, please do so as soon as possible.

349

Shane PDX

March 25, 2015 at 1:24 PM

I see no downside to having a more thorough, unbiased view of what happens in high-stress situations where events may not be remembered or restated correctly by the various individuals involved or observing. Get them on our officers as soon as possible.

350

Jamie W

March 25, 2015 at 1:29 PM

I am in favor of camera's

I do not see any reason to make special rules for sensitive investigations, footage should be made available to the proper agencies for review and action.

I think in the spirit of disclosure it should be available to anyone who fills out a request and their information, (ID, Fingerprint, photo, etc) would be kept as record of access. It should only be viewed at a police station where steps are made to make sure it was not removed in any way (cell phones or camera's) that should limit people requesting video for illegal reasons.

Video should never be reproduced or shared externally. law agencies should be able to view the footage in some kind of restricted way during an investigation.

351

Vicnete

March 25, 2015 at 1:41 PM

I want Gresham Police to have these Camera's as well Gresham Police are out of out of control and revenue collectors and violations of peoples Rights out here in Gresham Oregon soon myself will put my rights of free speech out to be known about this and Gresham police are harassing people like myself

353

Joseph Cooper

March 25, 2015 at 2:26 PM

I cannot think of an instance where a body camera would be detrimental accept if they are only to be used by the police as a propaganda tool to sway public opinion in their favor. Camera's keep people honest. Obviously if there is a naked guy running down the street or someone is telling an officer personal information then that part should be cut out. The incident in question should be able to be viewed by the public though so we can make up our own minds how the police are doing their jobs.. I mean the fact that you are having to ask really makes me already think that your ability to use common sense is maybe not as good as it should be? Don't let them edit their own footage, and make them turn them on at every stop or face penalties so we don't get the excuse they forgot to turn it on before they shot someone to death, and we should all be fine.

354

Dawn Grace

March 25, 2015 at 2:33 PM

I think it would be very beneficial to police officers to have body cams. This would provide protection from wrongful accusations and also document how a suspect is acting. It would also create more accountability.

355

Lisa B

March 25, 2015 at 2:56 PM

I think it is in everyone's best interest if camera's are worn by ALL police, sheriff, fire, medical personnel. Body camera's and recording devices that automatically record to someone who is taking notes on another end.

The camera's would serve both the people in charge (police) as well as the "other party" should something go awry.

It's a simple question with a simple "YES" answer.

It's too bad for those who feel this is against privacy.

356

Lorene Kesler

March 25, 2015 at 3:02 PM

I am in favor, as I believe it will protect Police Officers from unwarranted accusations and raise the public's level of trust. Good for all concerned!

359

A concerned citicen

March 25, 2015 at 3:42 PM

Yes you should make it mandatory for all police officers to have them on whenever on duty. The footage should only be available to the officers involved, any court appointed official that is deemed necessary to obtain the footage, as well as the plaintiff and defendants upon request of their legal counsel. It should only be at the option of the plaintiff or defendant's legal counsel to release the footage to social media unless the opposing plaintiff or defendant (with no need for legal counsel) files a written or verbal request with the police or court to not release the footage with a reasonable explanation why they are not to release the footage (i.e. to protect the perpetrator or victim from public repercussions) any event involving injury or death to a suspect or officer should be reviewed by internal affairs for misconduct.

360

Jim D

March 25, 2015 at 4:13 PM

Sorry to be the voice of dissent but... Reading through the comments - its concerning that we as a society are so comfortable saying "yes" to what is clearly another erosion of our privacy rights. Nobody going about there own personal business should be filmed without permission - period. Via a body cam - cell phone - google glass - movie studio or any other method. Leaving them on "all the time" is Orwellian at it's core.

361

Ruben Castro

March 25, 2015 at 4:50 PM

I am in favor of body cameras on police officers, it is all about transparency. This technology will protect citizens and police officers as well, it is a win win situation for everyone.

362

Anna Owens

March 25, 2015 at 5:00 PM

I'm in favor of the body cameras. I do not trust Portland police at all. To me, they are just as scary and potentially dangerous as any stranger walking on the street; only worse because they carry guns, stunguns and badges that make them think they have authority over people and their lives. I really hope that Portland police become more trustworthy in the future. I want to trust them.

364

molly

March 25, 2015 at 7:10 PM

I am in favor of body cameras on police at all times they are on duty and in every situation.

365

R.Tupper

March 25, 2015 at 9:31 PM

I am in favor of the body cams. Police should not be able to turn them off while on duty, even when on lunch.because even on lunch things happen. If big brother can watch us pick our nose in public,we should be able to watch our taxed paid employees. Let's face most of us work in places that we are being recorded at all times.footage should only be released to any court case, or Involved party.They should not be realeased to the general public as it may illegally misused for all involved parties. I do however feel if ever need to be reviewed there should be an outside agency/ committee along withe police dept and a court official to be review the tape together prior to releasing to each party. This way no one can make claims that the video has been altered by anyone.

366

Chevy Kid

March 25, 2015 at 10:33 PM

Why wouldn't police want to wear these things all the time? It will help them from being falsely accused. Likewise it protects citizens from experiencing false accusations. And hopefully protect s innocent people from excessive force, assault, being killed, etc...

If the police are doing nothing wrong and don't have anything to hide then they should be happy to wear body cameras at all times. Period.

367

Richard

March 25, 2015 at 10:42 PM

Yes yes yes. Protects the police as well as citizens. Tired of police getting the blame for other peoples poor choices . Plus those few bad apples may also be found. Yes and do it now

368

Christopher Johnson

March 26, 2015 at 10:28 AM

i am in favor of body cameras. They should be worn by every officer. Including the ones who watch the inmates!

369

Shaina

March 26, 2015 at 1:03 PM

Body cameras are a must! The stalker situation in gangs is being denied when people think too fast. Steve is stalking and Jon is the victim kind of like a child following them around. Victims are stalked for life and set up again and again. Cameras must happen for the human condition can't go without analysis and deliberation time. Hitler failed the world by moving too fast. The Pope would be bombed if he had scheduled it correctly. Hitler was on speed and did not do what he knew to slowly enough to get it. If the Pope was gone we would not have the number of terrorists we have in the USA. Terrorists are not caught because they lie and the victims always must look like the criminal...
Cameras must be posted everywhere not only on Police Officers.

370

Cassidy Barton

March 26, 2015 at 2:32 PM

Yes, please. If a public officer is responding to any call it is a matter of public record; fortunately and unfortunately video might be a part of this public record--but for the safety of the officers involved and the rights of the civilians involved it is necessary.

371

Billy

March 26, 2015 at 3:23 PM

I think cams are a good idea, but they should be head mounted (attached to glasses) so that we always see what the officer sees. Body worn cameras not on the head have a tendency to not show the entire picture.

372

Emily

March 26, 2015 at 6:46 PM

I am in favor of the police, not only in Portland, but in all of Oregon, wearing these cameras.

373

Scott

March 27, 2015 at 8:47 AM

I find the idea disheartening and maybe even a little creepy. In his book on roles and ethics of automation Nicholas Carr writes, "Most of us assume... that automation is benign, that it raises us to higher callings but doesn't otherwise alter the way we behave or think. That's a fallacy. It's an expression of what scholars of automation have come ot call the 'substitution myth'. A labor-saving device doesn't just provide a substute for some isolated component of a job. It alters the character of the entire task, including the roles, attitudes, and skills of the people who take part in it" (The Glass Cage, page 67). If an on-body camera initiative is going forward--and I hope it doesn't--I'd argue for short retention periods to help address cost, storage, and privacy concerns.

375

Heather L Dominguez

March 27, 2015 at 8:44 PM

I said yes because I think the police need to be put in check for their power trips. But the above comment

Portland Copwatch
March 24, 2015 at 1:03 PM
To the Portland Police Bureau

Has some very interesting points. They should only be implemented if they can be used to monitor both police and citizens in some way. Such as 2 officers at once. I don’t really know but portland copwatch has some very interesting points.

376

Rod C.

March 30, 2015 at 4:34 PM

I think cameras are a great idea. I know there are efforts in legislatures around the country to keep the videos from public access. That would defeat the purpose of the videos.. All for cameras.

377

Jay Samerian

March 30, 2015 at 10:46 PM

I am not in favor because officers are going to abuse the system and continue to rape black people

379

Consult Hardesty

April 1, 2015 at 7:15 PM

The Taser study, often called 'Rialto' indicated body-worn cameras only deter misconduct "when the level of certainty of apprehension for professional misconduct was set at 100%." Portland has not set these conditions: in fact, recent DoJ Findings of illegal use of police force termed ours a 'self-defeating accountability system." Until the City has a two-year record of using video evidence (such as in the Keaton Otis homicide) to either determine and then act on misconduct, or to identify sustained training improvements (which the Auditor reports is not the City's intention), the hardware offers no hope of performance improvements.

I encourage folks to consider the use of facial recognition software, almost mandatory in video data retrieval. BWC will identify all who pass the lens. For years, authorities will know where you were and whom you were with. When employed in real-time, authorities will - without warrant - search your identity. Officers will receive reports on parking tickets, child support payments, restraining orders, building code violations, criminal history, outstanding warrants and fines, all without asking for your ID. We do not know, however, what databases your facial scans (as with current practice on license plate readers) will relate to. We can assume officers will receive prompts. Given their proclivity to escalate civilian encounters into an arrestable offense, it's likely embarrassing data will be put to use.

Hales' legislative campaign, to carve loopholes in Oregon's open records laws, is to purpose BWC to make criminal cases, not to improve police conduct or offer transparency. Video will surface in court, not in any way that offends the police union.

Folks seeking protection from abusive police conduct should insist that accountability mechanisms are in place before advocating a million dollars be handed over to Taser.

380

T. Horner

April 2, 2015 at 9:10 AM

Cameras will be ineffectual unless they are accompanied by legislation which takes control of the footage away from the police and holds them publicly accountable for their actions. Until the public can control police training, enforcement policy, and ensure real consequences for bad behavior, cameras are a meaningless gesture. I find bias in asking feedback questions which invite people to react in fear. The simple and sensible solution to many of the fear inducing possibilities would be to give all police footage to an independent public judicial body which would be in charge of how the footage is used. Their discretion would prevent inappropriate use of the footage, and determine what public bodies get access. The only reasonable goal of body cameras to my mind is that of holding police to account when they break laws and abuse the public, but those cameras are for the most part pointed at the public and not automatically at police. As such, its a slanted gesture. How about a citizen review commitee with some real power to impose real disciplinary action on police by a common standard? Meanwhile, it's the public's duty to film and record police wherever the opportunity arises.

381

Jan Birney

April 2, 2015 at 9:33 PM

With so many people armed with smart phone cameras, to even up the odds of winning a case without so much dispute. It is in my opinion that body cams for officers will not only provide credibility for officers but safety as well. Just as long as officers have those off time moments to take care of business ;D

383

Megan Mattoon

April 3, 2015 at 2:18 PM

I am strongly in favor of the use of body cameras as a tool to clarify historical events and investigations. That being said, I also believe that reviewing or releasing footage (to specific parties, officials, victims, etc.) should be somewhat of a last resort if a dispute were to occur. Because of the sensitive material on these recordings, I don't believe that every call or event should be reviewed by law enforcement administrators.

Bottom Line: It is of my opinion that Body Cams can be a tremendous asset, but are to be used with caution and in concurrence with significant privacy policies (for the officer and civilian), checks/balances, and regulations.

Thank you for soliciting our opinions in this matter. It shows you care.


384

vernon krist

April 6, 2015 at 11:35 AM

I am in favor of body cameras.
It makes everyone involved accountable for their actions.
Any officer with a body camera that is not functioning in a contested event should receive a two week suspension without pay for the first offense 30 days for the second and termination after the third.
As a revenue source to help fund the program one company should be allowed to view all content and edit for entertainment value, ie a pdx.cops YouTube channel.
The police department should receive a share of any revenue generated.
Only exterior/outdoor footage should be available to anyone who requests it. Children under 12 should be protected.
The proper use of cameras in all sensitive encounters is "ON".

385

JM Larkin

April 8, 2015 at 4:25 PM

Body cameras will protect good officers from bogus complaints, even more than they will protect citizens from bad cops. Cameras will provide graphic evidence of events and their sequence, serving the truth and negating political agendas.

Certainly, strict policies and procedures must be in place to both protect the integrity of the videos as well as protect individuals' privacy.

That said, I urge the department to adopt the use of body cameras for all sworn officers.

386

Maria Kassapakis

April 8, 2015 at 11:57 PM

I am a Criminology Student and I think it is a GREAT idea for police to be wearing cameras. I have done research on this topic and a lot of our people's concern is our Privacy that we have a right to as stated in our Constitution. Many police stations have stated that the cameras go on once the car has stopped and the police wo(man) has gotten out of the car. If there is a time where there has been a rape incident or molestation the victim should ask politely or say they do not want this on camera and with that being said right then and there the police officer turns the camera off from that point on but still takes notes.

388

Derek G.

April 10, 2015 at 10:39 AM

The ACLU has written a detailed analysis of body cameras and how they can be implemented in a way that supports the rights and safely of both citizens and police. I very much hope that Portland will take this analysis into account:

https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/police-body-mounted-cameras-right-policies-place-win-all

389

Gregory Grimberg-phillips

April 14, 2015 at 11:07 AM

It is not a debate. These cameras should be on every police officer in our nation. As far as when they should record, all times that police officer is armed. The footage should only available if there is any need for it. And it should only be released to those involved and or those conducting an investigation.

390

Eric Chamberlain

April 14, 2015 at 5:14 PM

Body cameras would capture the factual events and help both the Police Officer and the Citizen from any falsification or alteration of such.

I agree that there has to be a very strict "chain of custody" protocol of the video captured as evidence.

391

Franklin

April 15, 2015 at 1:59 AM

The question that remains unanswered is why is it necessary to have the cameras in the first place?

If the Police Department does not solve the problem; lack of training, systemic ignorance and a adversarial relationship with the public, cameras will only catch some said behavior in action. (There are currently officers in the Drug and Vice Division that believe addiction is a choice. This tells us at least three things. 1) There is inadequate training. 2) Some officers do not even understand their own HR and/or union manuals. 3)The force is ill equipped to address these same problems within its own ranks.)

The Police should be available to "serve and protect." Sadly one of the main duties of the Police is to collect fines for the City.Revenue has become the priority not safety and public service. The Police do not "need" fines to educate the public about safety.

When the City gets sued for improper Police behavior the taxpayer pays the bill. Maybe it is time for the Police to pay at least 25% of this bill from their salary. Just imagine how quickly behavior will change then!

The Police need to be Police not taxmen. The Police should be an integral part of the neighborhood. A positive aspect. They used to be!

Instead, Police are to be dealt with quite cautiously. An expected and natural public response to Police behavior.

Cameras are not a bad idea. However, the Department needs to follow through. The mission and the internal culture need to changed. Officers like Mark Kruger need to go.

Thank you

392

John Hinds

April 15, 2015 at 11:53 AM

I believe the work of our police force is to provide ongoing observations of our communities so as to provide a certain level of peace and security for everyone in our communities. I am in favor of all officers wearing cameras and all patrol cars having dashboard cameras for the protection of the officers and all persons involved. As the paid 'eyes and ears' of the community, what officers see and hear is information bought and paid for by the community and should be made freely available to the public.

393

adwawdwda

April 22, 2015 at 4:25 PM

awdwdwdwdwdwdwdwdwdwdwdwdwdwdwdwdwdwdwdwdwdwdwdwdwdwdwdwdwdwdwdwdwdwdwdwdwdwdwdwdwdwdwdwdwddwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawdawdwaddwawadawdadawdawdddawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddFeedback: On-Body Cameras
Mar 5, 2015 at 10:18 AM 392 Comments

The Portland Police Bureau would like to hear your thoughts about on-body cameras.

The Portland Police Bureau is currently researching on-body cameras for police officers and would like to hear from the community about this important topic. The Bureau believes that the use of on-body cameras by police officers can improve community relationships, build trust and enhance officer accountability.

There are many steps in this process before the Bureau can move toward implementation on the street:

Legislative

The Oregon Legislature is addressing several legal questions surrounding police use of on-body camera systems, including, but not limited to, consent and public records. Through July 2015, the City of Portland will be involved in the legislative process and begin developing a budget.

Policy

Once the legislative process is complete and the legal hurdles have been addressed, the City will address equipment acquisition, discuss relevant bargaining issues, create policy around the use of on-body cameras, develop training for the use of on-body cameras, and eventually implement the use of on-body cameras by police officers on the street.

With this realistic timeline, the Bureau does not expect to begin implementation of on-body cameras until sometime in 2016.

We Need Your Feedback

The Portland Police Bureau would like to hear your thoughts about on-body cameras as a tool to enhance community relationships, build trust and enhance officer accountability.

Please provide feedback using the form below. Questions to consider include:

Privacy issues that concern you.
How to use the technology during sensitive investigations: domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse, response to care for someone needing mental health assistance?
Should footage be available to anyone who asks (this could include victim interviews, interior of homes, children, uninvolved community members, etc.)?
Once footage is released, should there be any restrictions on sharing and posting that video?
Other thoughts, suggestions or concerns you may have.

Thank you for your interest in this important discussion.

392 Comments

Add a Comment

1
Jeannene jackson
March 17, 2015 at 9:08 AM
I am in favor of body cameras.

2
David Mathew
March 17, 2015 at 9:10 AM
I am in favor of body cameras.

3
Beverly Tobias
March 17, 2015 at 9:13 AM
I think on-body cameras would be a great idea in order to protect Police officers from the horrific accusations they face for doing their jobs. I can't believe that people side with criminals over police in every altercation. I guess certain people think that the only time police are doing the right thing is when they are protecting them personally. It's not the Police that are the problem! It's the way people are raising children to be angry, resentful, suspicious thugs. I can't believe the simple requests Police make that are met with defiance, rage and resistance. Watch YouTube and you'll find mother's demonstrating dangerous and defiant behaviors in front of their children, children pushing Police beyond limits of any human expectation and people purposely taunting Police in order to trigger a response. It's insane. Why should our Police who are there to "protect and serve" have to face the insanity of the populous alone.

4
michael sprague
March 17, 2015 at 9:14 AM
I'm all for it as long as there are not a lot of technical issues with the cameras suddenly don't work for a few minutes.

5
Phil Fleury
March 17, 2015 at 9:15 AM
As a retired Portland Police Reserve Officer, I support the use of body cameras. I believe that they provide an unbiased documentation of the facts of encounters with citizens, and that will benefit both police officers and citizens alike.

6
Carol Young
March 17, 2015 at 9:15 AM
I think the use of body cams is a good protection for the police and am in favor of it.

7
Steve
March 17, 2015 at 9:16 AM
I am in favor of body cameras.

8
Susan Troup
March 17, 2015 at 9:16 AM
I am very concerned about privacy issues with this. I can imagine "leaked" videos appearing all over the net, showing bystanders, private home contents, gore, nudity, etc.

I think knowing that police have cameras would aid in dealing with violence or mental paranoia on the part of the person of interest, in that it might soften/inhibit their reaction to being approached.

Videos should only be used if there is suspected inappropriate police behavior, either by the people they are dealing with or their superiors. It should be treated like any other evidence, undergoing a chain of custody, and definitely not released to anyone not involved in the case.

9
Doretta Schrock
March 17, 2015 at 9:18 AM
I believe body camera will enhance trust, improve officer accountability, and protect officers from false accusations. There may be some privacy issues to deal with but, if implemented with care, the benefits of body cameras should easily outweigh any problems.

10
Felida
March 17, 2015 at 9:21 AM
Too early. There are still to many legal and tech issues with body cameras. I think body cameras are the knee-jerk reaction du jur to a perceived problem. Social media and entertainment orientated news organizations are fanning the flames of a false premise and causing cities like Portland to react unecessaily to appear proactive to the noisy minority. Let's save our money, let the technology develop and mature.

11
Damon Eisenach
March 17, 2015 at 9:22 AM
I think its a great long overdue idea. with the way things go today police need evidence of actions more and more.
unless someone whips out a phone and starts recording video any group of people can make up things that contradict the officers report and the media makes it so it seems the officers credibility is in question. that is wrong and if the only way to prove the officers credibility is body cameras to fight bad reputations and media coverage that doesn't have the facts then yes we need body cameras for all officers. for their safety for public transparency for the benefit of court room evidence. I am for it. a few bad apples have brought it to this but this can show the good apples.

12
Phil Anthony
March 17, 2015 at 9:23 AM
My family and I FULLY SUPPORT the use of the proposed body cameras. It is our belief that the images captured by them is indisputable evidence and will protect both law enforcement and those being filmed during the encounter.

13
Jamie L Pettus
March 17, 2015 at 9:24 AM
I am in favor of body cameras as well.

14
Connie
March 17, 2015 at 9:36 AM
Personally, I think spending money on more equipment won't change or solve the problem. The issues run deeper than a body cam can solve. Body cameras are like the Emperor's new clothes.

I would prefer to see a program for debriefing, anger management, assertiveness vs aggressiveness, and spending time getting to the core of the hatred and anger that is driving the anger and brutality on both sides.

Until we can get to the sources of the prejudices and anger all of the equipment in the world won't stop the problems facing us. This goes for both sides in the issues.

We have seen in the last week or so that racial tensions, prejudices and bullying start early and are prevalent in our schools. Where is the mayor and school board in addressing these issues loudly and materially? I do think we need to have police/law enforcement resources in the schools, not to show force but to answer questions, initiate discussions and to teach.

Going back to a police presence in the communities, budgeting money for more staff and supportive services instead of more militarization would go a long way to helping the citizens as well as the officers. It is not uncommon for domestic abuse, unethical behavior, alcohol and drug abuse to also be issues within the police force, there needs to be staff and resources spent on addressing these issues. The community won't be served by pretending that officers are victims at the hands of "others" or that "others" are victims of the police without doing something other than taking pictures.

Cameras are just another expense to allow the police and community to ignore the root causes of the problems.

15
Lynn Russell
March 17, 2015 at 9:43 AM
I can see the benefits of body cameras but I also believe that less government is better. There are too many laws and more everyday. I feel like my freedom is being compromised.

That being said, I would like to see every meth or other addict in treatment before any jail time.

16
Bryan Tierney
March 17, 2015 at 9:55 AM
Hi,

I believe we should outfit officers and command staff with cameras. This would help out not leaving the fate of actions taken by a trained professional up to interpretation of a judge or the spin a lawyer can put on a case because there is no photo evidence. Protect the police from the citizens please!

17
Vicki G.
March 17, 2015 at 9:56 AM
Privacy is a major concern and frankly should be decided by citizens not politicians or police officers. The citizens have valid concerns with misuse of technology and how that impacts each and every one of us in different scenarios. I think we also should understand and have reassurance that the cameras will not be tampered with by an officer or conicidently destroyed surrounding incidents of misconduct. There are many questions to be answered, many concerns to be addressed. Also, who will review this footage and under what circumstances? Is this only for grievances of police misconduct? If there is a concern of police misconduct who will independently review the footage without somehow being bias? Can citizens request footage, will it be accessible to them upon request, what will that process be? What if police enter a home and there is a concern of privacy, will there be protections in place so the public does not have open access to footage? Under what circumstances can this footage be obtained? How will this technology assure the citizens that more accountability will be on the officers in lieu of their own privacy?

18
Anonymous User
March 17, 2015 at 9:58 AM
I am in favor of body cameras for the protection of both the police officer and the person/s presumed to be guilty. It will provide concrete, unbiased documentation of the actual events of each encounter. This should assist in rebuilding the integrity of law enforcement and rebuilding the trust within the community which is needed to both protect and serve.

19
Larry Mendoza
March 17, 2015 at 10:02 AM
I'm in favor of using the body cameras.

20
Janet Robinson
March 17, 2015 at 10:14 AM
I support the use of on-body cameras overall.I believe on-body cameras will provide a true account of events and dialogue exchanged between law enforcent personnel and individuals. I believe on-body cameras would help to ensure the appropriate person(s) will be held accountable as needed. As a citizen of Portland, OR, I would expect strict rules and protocols be put in place to ensure these devises are used only in a law enforcement capacity and with consideration for the privacy and safety of our citizens for which you are sworn to protect and dedicated to serve.

21
Nancy Westrell
March 17, 2015 at 10:14 AM
It is good protection for both the officers and the public, and seems like it could be evidence in court for some crimes (like assault of an officer). I don't think the videos should be available to just anyone not connected to a specific incident that was taped. So probably videos should not be "released" as in put on news feeds or YouTube. However, some of the videos could be really good for training officers, for example dealing humanely with seriously mentally ill people.

22
Kim Koyle
March 17, 2015 at 10:23 AM
YES to body cameras. No, the public at large should not have access to all videos taken (anyone involved in an incident where they were used should be allowed to view them though). Many of our citizens have trust issues and don't understand the chain of custody for the evidence. Some make assumptions about videos being destroyed etc. but they don't understand that it can't be tampered with. This is the real challenge. Also, civilians need to understand how the videos protect law enforcement AND citizens and save the department hundreds of thousands of dollars in frivolous cases of 'he said she said'. Every citizen has video on their phone…every LE officer should be equipped the same way.

23
Todd Scofield
March 17, 2015 at 10:23 AM
do it, it fosters a culture of greater accountability, not just with police officers but with the community they serve as well.

24
Amy Lomnicky
March 17, 2015 at 10:24 AM
I am in favor of the body cams.

25
Garry L Landers
March 17, 2015 at 10:27 AM
Good idea I am for it 100%

26
Noreen Gibbons
March 17, 2015 at 10:30 AM
Long overdue.....great idea, protect both sides!

27
Benjamin Buckman
March 17, 2015 at 10:31 AM
Great idea. Yes please.

28
L. Brown
March 17, 2015 at 10:33 AM
I think body cameras are a good tool, however, I also believe that they should not continually record during an entire shift. A) The amount of data storage would be a burden to the Bureau and be cost prohibitive; B) Recording during meal times, casual conversations between fellow officers and other employees, casual contacts throughout the day, bathroom breaks, etc, is a matter of privacy; C) There needs to be clear and defined rules for releasing information from the cameras.

29
Ronn
March 17, 2015 at 10:35 AM
My family and I have discussed this many times and we are in full support of body cams.

30
Mike Bodine
March 17, 2015 at 10:37 AM
Yes to body cameras, no to letting officers control the video

31
Zack Salzwedel
March 17, 2015 at 10:42 AM
I am 100% in favor of body cams on the Portland Police

How to use the technology during sensitive investigations: domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse, response to care for someone needing mental health assistance?

How-ever the footage is used, I feel that the camera's need to remain active (capturing video and saving it) any time the officer wearing it is doing anything 'on the clock'. Whether it be paperwork, or sensitive cases. The people who get paid by our tax dollars need to be accountable for every single moment of their time that we, the citizens, are paying them for.

Should footage be available to anyone who asks (this could include victim interviews, interior of homes, children, uninvolved community members, etc.)?

I feel that the footage should only be available to the people that the officer directly interacted with as part of their duties and the courts (or representatives there-of). If the officer wasn't talking with someone then I see no reason for them to access the footage.
Once footage is released, should there be any restrictions on sharing and posting that video?

I feel that this footage does need to have some special restrictions on who can distribute it. I feel that this footage should only be made available in a public or semi-public(facebook, twitter, etc.) manner only with the full knowledge and consent of all citizens in the footage. The officer's opinion on sharing the footage would not be considered as all officer actions taken while on the public's dime should be subject to the public's scrutiny.

32
Michael Choe
March 17, 2015 at 10:42 AM
I would support the cameras, but it depends on the quality of footage vs how much it would actually cost to implement. Greater than 90% of of people have a phone that will do this for free.

33
Nancy
March 17, 2015 at 10:45 AM
The use of on body cameras should serve to protect the community thru better serveillance of known perpetrators, protect the police inasmuch as criminals will know they're being taped, and even the accused themselves as any police intervention will be available to courts to help determine the presence (or lack thereof) of police brutality.

The information should be available on a need to know basis. The extended public do NOT need to have this info. It should not be made available on line except in those cases where the police specifically want the public's assistance in locating a suspect.

34
walt nichols
March 17, 2015 at 10:45 AM
I have been in favor of the idea for years. It should be required equipment for every police officer. Yes some interactive contact should have restrictions. But that should be limited. ( with a review before it is release to protect victims and persons willing to put their safety at risk to provide information to the police )I am in favor of the voice activated system. Not the manual turn on and off. It should be a system that is returned for recharge and down load at the end of every shift. I fully understand the millions in expense the system will cost. But this puts everyone on notice that behavior matters even the General public.

35
Frank T. Conn
March 17, 2015 at 10:47 AM
The important thing is, how do the majority of the Police feel about these devices? I'm a firm believer in the philosophy of "Let those who ride decide." If you all feel this is a good idea, then I'm all for them.

36
KrisZ.
March 17, 2015 at 10:49 AM
Yes to body cameras. They will provide irrefutable evidence for both sides, and raise accountability. They may even act as a deterrent. However, it seems that people are concerned about data release and manipulation, so I think the recording should be wireless to a central location, and reviewed by a responsible (maybe a third) party. Then data should only be released if absolutely necessary to protect innocent bystanders as someone stated. Perhaps a reduction in lawsuits against the city will make the implementation pay for itself.

37
Skye Whitaker
March 17, 2015 at 10:49 AM
I believe that it's a good idea; it protect good cops from untrue allegations, and preserves citizen's rights. Totally worth the cost, given everything that's happened with accusations of misuse of power/force in the country.

38
Ofc. Meier
March 17, 2015 at 10:51 AM
Body cameras are a waste of money. How many officers could you employ instead? Body cameras for the entire bureau would be hundreds of thousands of dollars. Our officers are good officers and know what they are doing. Private citizens already film everything with their cell phones. One of the reasons a lot of departments in Washington are getting rid of body cams is because too many officer videos were ending up on YouTube.

Body cams will not help keep officers accountable. They will only hurt the police bureau.

39
lee
March 17, 2015 at 11:02 AM
Thumbs up for body cams. I believe it will protect the officer, their department and ultimately the taxpayers money from frivolous law suits.

I think it is sad that we have come to this, but with the distrust of the police due to a few bad eggs, I believe that cameras would go a long way to keep the bad guys honest and the good guys on the right track.

Careful legislation on the use of the video would need to be drafted to ensure privacy. Can video evidence from a body camera be used against a suspect who hasn't had their Miranda rights read to them?

40
Danny D
March 17, 2015 at 11:03 AM
I am in favor of body cameras. Spend less money on military grade equipment if you need to find money to spend on the cameras.

41
Hayley
March 17, 2015 at 11:11 AM
I am in favor of body cams.

42
Anonymous User
March 17, 2015 at 11:14 AM
Privacy issues that concern you.
1)re:CAMERA FOOTAGE IN OR ON PRIVATE PROPERTY!
JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE RESPONDING TO AN ISSUE IN A PRIVATE SETTING DON'T GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO VIOLATE THE PRIVACY AND SANCTUARY OF OUR HOMES OR PRIVATE SPACE!
NOT FREELY AVAILABLE

How to use the technology during sensitive investigations: domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse, response to care for someone needing mental health assistance?
2)re: SPARINGLY WITH NOTIFICATION AND RIGHT TO SAY NO VIDEO!!! NOT FREELY AVAILABLE

3)Should footage be available to anyone who asks (this could include victim interviews, interior of homes, children, uninvolved community members, etc.)?

3)re:NOT FREELY AVAILABLE PERIOD!!! CAMERAS SHOULD NOT BE RUNNING (photographing) PRIVATE SPACES, PROPERTY OR SITUATIONS.
Maybe POSSIBLY AUDIO ONLY! IN SOME INSTANCES WITH NOTIFICATION of recording AND RIGHT TO say NO!

4)Once footage is released, should there be any restrictions on sharing and posting that video?

4)re: FOOTAGE SHOULD NOT BE FREELY AVAILABLE TO ANY Tom, Dick, or Harry.

5)Other thoughts, suggestions or concerns you may have.
VIDEO SHOULD HAVE a LIMITED RETENTION PERIOD! AN EXPIRATION, NOT ARCHIVED FOREVER. LESS THAN 6 MONTHS.

43
Owen
March 17, 2015 at 11:15 AM
I would oppose the implementation of on-body cameras. If officer accountability is in question I believe a more direct and hands on approach should be taken. With the dollar amount proposed to be spent on hardware, infrastructure, training and support staff, a proper management or supervisor staff could be hired in its place. I don’t believe the answer to every problem is more technology. “Integrity is doing the right thing, even when no one is watching.” If we cannot trust our constabulary to do the right thing I would suggest a review process looking into the next level up.
The statement of on-body cameras can improve community relationships is far too vague a statement to comment on.
Privacy would be a large concern in my eyes as I would believe all footage should be available on public record. As a result of this I would find myself far less willing to become involved in assisting officers in community cases.

44
Patrick Roberson
March 17, 2015 at 11:15 AM
I think it's a great idea as long as:

The Police use them all of the time and are unable to turn them off if things turn ugly.
The public also has the right to video officers without threat of having their cellphone taken away.
45
Linda
March 17, 2015 at 11:16 AM
Definitely think they are a good idea. If you are involved in illegal activities, you should lose your right to privacy concerns involving the video. It will protect the officer's rights by recording the altercation. It should be made only on a need to know basis.

46
Steve Chretien
March 17, 2015 at 11:16 AM
I think this is LONG overdue and am happy to see it implemented. Police have been getting a bad rap for a while, while other Officers have been getting away with stuff for a while. This will bring everyone under the same fold/umbrella and hold all parties responsible for their behavior.
Congratulations you guys, I suspect police complaints and accusations against officers will drop dramatically. :ThumbsUp

47
JimStevens
March 17, 2015 at 11:18 AM
For everyone's safety and for accurate recording I am very much in favor of body cams with sound.

my biggest concern for my area is speeding, we seem to be the Daytona beach speedway for those Washington residents who work in the Beaverton area, and go over the hill to commute.

48
Jane
March 17, 2015 at 11:19 AM
GREAT IDEA- we need to protect the POLICE- as much or more than the public- and it will also protect the actually innocent- If you are worried about being filmed- then WHY?? What are you up too?

49
Violet Pascoe
March 17, 2015 at 11:19 AM
In the society we have, where every incident turns into a lawsuit, I believe that the cameras are required.

50
Amanda Morgan
March 17, 2015 at 11:23 AM
I am in favor of body cameras.

51
Jeff shaw
March 17, 2015 at 11:25 AM
if you're going to do it. Do it all the way. The cameras must be on at all times the officer is on duty. I find it difficult that trust will be built if the camera can be turned off and on at the officers will.

52
Kori Basquez
March 17, 2015 at 11:29 AM
Body cameras are a common sense solution to promote accountability of citizens and law enforcement. So yes! Please enact a policy requiring body cameras be worn by all law enforcement serving in the community.

Sincerely,

Kori Basquez, MS
Mental Health Clinician

53
JoAnne N
March 17, 2015 at 11:34 AM
I am in total favor of body cams! I think it will be a benefit for the officers and the citizens.

54
Vicente San Martin Jr
March 17, 2015 at 11:34 AM
I do not trust the Officers at all if they can control when the body camera is on or off i would like to know it is on all the time with every run in they have and every stop they make Gresham Police are just as bad as Portland they are no better Gresham Police violate people's rights and they do it all the time and get away with it and one other thing on March 5th 2015 a Gresham Officer engage into a talk with me on the shootings of Ferguson and New York of the 2 officers that got shot and i said good how dose it make you feel he got upset and then he said if i was to jaywalk he would write me a ticket and he also said if i did not give him my info he would take me to Jail i do not carry my ID with me this was done right between 181st and 188th max stops so the officer retaliation on me for saying how dose it feel

55
Jed Black
March 17, 2015 at 11:34 AM
I support the use of police body cameras. It helps to ensure safety and accountability for all parties involved.

56
Debbie
March 17, 2015 at 11:41 AM
I am for the police having body cams.

57
Cyn
March 17, 2015 at 11:48 AM
I think it’s a great idea! It’s a protection for both sides.

58
Veronica
March 17, 2015 at 11:49 AM
The video cameras should be for traffic encounters and general public street patrol use only. They should not be allowed to be used, video taping the inside of somebodies
home or intimate areas. They should not put a victim at risk of greater harm of any sort. The footage should only be available to people involved in a situation and only be kept for a short bit of time otherwise.

59
Susan Skoubo
March 17, 2015 at 11:50 AM
I believe they should wear them. Maybe like for what happened to me. I'm not a harden criminal, but I had a police officer cuss me out late one night, yelled at me and put me in danger. In traffic. Maybe they wouldn't act so power crazy.

60
Roberto Lovato
March 17, 2015 at 11:50 AM
I am guilty of mentioning police body cameras to Federal Judge Michael H. Simon at the public hearings on the Portland & USDOJ Settlement agreement in his courtroom. I thought at the time that this was a good idea, but now I have reservations about this matter. JoAnn & Roger Hardesty think that police body cameras are a bad idea because they can be used negatively against the public. I now agree with them. The Portland Police Bureau, the PPA & the City of Portland in the historical record have shown that they will turn programs around and use them on the people and not for the people. So, now we should be careful how the use of these Police body cameras are implemented and used. Be vocal to you City representatives on this issue. Roberto Lovato AKA EL Chicano

61
T G
March 17, 2015 at 11:52 AM
I am conflicted about body cameras. Yes, I want unbiased accountability, but I am concerned about privacy issues AND the tendency to focus on something that might be useful after the fact of an officer killing or beating a citizen rather than focusing more time and money into better training. Prevention is more important to me because, as we have seen in cases around the country, seeing a video of an officer killing someone still allows them to get away with murder in the courts. We need cops to be trained in de-escalation, how to not be intimidating, not relying on lethal or brutal force as a first instinct, and sensitivity training to not see people of color as an immediate threat. They need to be taught that civilian lives are not less valuable than their own.
There is also a very real possibility that an officer can shut off a camera, block it, or "accidentally" break it when they are about to do something they don't want recorded. Prevention is more important than the clean-up. We need our police officers to actually serve the community, not act as a harrowing military presence.

62
Carolyn
March 17, 2015 at 11:53 AM
I fully support the use of body cameras for Portland Police. It's an imperfect system but other cities have shown that citizen complaints against the police drop once cameras are being worn. I think all parties will behave better and if anyone behaves poorly...well it's all recorded!

63
Adam H.
March 17, 2015 at 11:56 AM
I am in favor of PPB using body cameras.

64
Byron Kinnaman
March 17, 2015 at 11:57 AM
Any video recording of police actions is of NO VALUE. This evidenced in the Chicago choking death of a black man. Video evidence clearly showed an unnecessary killing by a police officer then officer went free.
Accountability and corrupt police agencies, unions, and district attorneys need to fixed before body cams will do any good.

65
Concerned Citizen
March 17, 2015 at 12:15 PM
Im all for body cameras to protect officers from liars and for those few that are innocent protect them from a few bad officers. Officers don't kill people for sport and its time we set the record straight with camera footage. Im tired of hearing how certain groups of people are always victims. Then again if you are one of those creepy thug officers your time will be up. Unfortunately this wont work for police managers will it?

66
Kristen Seaton
March 17, 2015 at 12:18 PM
I think the cameras are a good idea. They would protect our police officers as they serve and protect us.

67
naomi
March 17, 2015 at 12:22 PM
I'm in favor of the body cameras. Other cities that have used them has seen a drop in claims against the police officers. So yes, to help keep the officers safe, citizens honest and the one offs honest as well.

68
Jim M
March 17, 2015 at 12:24 PM
The way things are going now days, it's too bad body cams have to be used in the first place. I do believe that by using them, the police will have video evidence each time there is interaction with citizens. It will eliminate false accusations by the public as well as protecting citizens from being thumped on when simple direction would suffice. If both police and citizenry have nothing to hide, I don't see a problem using body cams. I think Portland should adopt them after written policies in their use have been established.

69
MLW
March 17, 2015 at 12:40 PM
Yes. The sooner the better..

70
Lamont wolverton
March 17, 2015 at 12:44 PM
Totally in favor, let's get the truth as to what transpired during routine patrols to protect the rights of all.
My opinion is that the officer usually is always in the right under difficult conditions.
Let's hope if cameras were worn during the Gurule scuffle, Judge Steward would have made a better decision!
Thanks for a voice!

71
Vincent Dinguis
March 17, 2015 at 12:49 PM
please use cams...for your safety and ours.

72
Thomas F
March 17, 2015 at 12:54 PM
I am in favor of body cameras.

73
Troy C.
March 17, 2015 at 12:54 PM
Wait and see what happens around the nation.

Spokane City Council approved a $733,000.00 contract with Taser International for 220 body cameras. How many officers are in PDX? Do the math.

http://www.policeone.com/police-products/body-cameras/articles/6955826-Wash-chief-weighs-pros-and-cons-of-body-cameras/

74
dustin mcsherry
March 17, 2015 at 1:02 PM
They are a great idea. So long as the police themselves do bout have the ability to turn them off, it delete what's been recorded.

75
Travis Beehler
March 17, 2015 at 1:03 PM
I think the MOST important thing about all this is that officers can not ever have the ability to turn the camera's off. They are turned on by a shift supervisor at the beginning of the shift, and they aren't able to be turned off by anyone but a supervisor at the end of the shift.

If an officer is shown to have turned off or tried to turn off the camera, then it's an automatic firing, and charges of tampering with evidence.

Now, I don't think the public has a right to know all of the videos, such as personal information from a victim of a crime, but if an officer is involved in a shooting, that should be readily available for the press and the public.

This will likely save millions in lawsuits that won't happen because of people falsely accusing officers of wrongdoing.

76
J G
March 17, 2015 at 1:03 PM
I am not currently in favor of body cameras. As a rape victim, I would have been less likely to report what had happened if I were on camera. I would also be less likely to interact with the police if it meant that I was being recorded.

It is a privacy concern not only for the officers who would have to wear them (bathroom breaks, emergency phone calls from family, lunch time, etc.), but for the public. I am a law-abiding citizen, but do not want to be filmed. Especially during the aftermath of victimization by a criminal.

77
Tara
March 17, 2015 at 1:06 PM
I'm cool with body cameras, and I think it will protect officers as much as anyone else. Heck, the cops do so much good that it'd be nice if some of those videos were released with identities hidden. Privacy-wise, I think it's fine to keep the camera rolling for those conversations and interior shooting, but I don't think anything that doesn't come with a legal release should be made available. No "Freedom of Information Act" or anything like that should get footage that includes people who don't want to be seen.

Naturally, some of these videos will end up being used in court cases, which I think is fine, but it should be just like the VCR and/or DVD video, which obviously (or usually) hasn't been on the internet. It should be played in court and not released online, even as a matter of public record, just like evidence presented in courts is obviously not available for the public/press to handle, and sometimes not even photograph. We don't need to know or see everything. We really don't.

Now, let's say a person on film wants to have the footage. That does seem reasonable to me, and it would be nice if there was a way for someone to sign something saying it had been released to them (in case it leaks and they try to blame the police for that) and you aren't liable for it's public release--but also aren't allowed to share it without a different kind of release. For example, suppose I fell and hurt myself during an encounter with the police. It might be nice to see that to see for myself what happened without it going out on the interwebs or being released to the press. I watch, I see I'm an idiot, I apologize if necessary, and no one else needs to know.

I do think some different levels of release would be good. Court only; police and on-camera citizens only; press/public release. That sort of thing. And if the police do release it (with on-camera citizen permission), it would certainly be best to blur people or things that would help identify a location, or a person who hasn't signed a release. Some of that could get weird. If I lived in a hoard house, I sure wouldn't want anyone to see that. But I don't, so it's cool.

78
PJ
March 17, 2015 at 1:07 PM
The cameras themselves are fairly inexpensive. Who is going to pay for the storage of the information from the cameras? More than likely there will be policy stating that the camera has to be on for all contacts and that information can not be deleted. That is a lot of data space that is not cheap!

79
Tara
March 17, 2015 at 1:07 PM
Oh, and kids. You should blur all the kids for a public release.

80
jason deemie
March 17, 2015 at 1:07 PM
I beleive it wold be a great idea. but one thing about the privicy clause would be to have the person requesting video of someones home/person to also get the individule on the tapes permision also.

81
Quency
March 17, 2015 at 1:09 PM
I'm in favor of body cameras but only if the video is treated as public record and released with filling out a form; otherwise it would be a waste of everyone's time and money. That said it could be very powerful to back-up timelines and stories of events quickly with great clarity. But if it is not released quickly and easily it could be damaging and make it look like things are being covered up.

82
Angel True
March 17, 2015 at 1:18 PM
I think body cameras are an excellent idea. I am highly in favor.

Regarding privacy: Video needs to be available to all involved parties including police, suspects, attorneys for both sides, property owners related to the incident, insurance companies processing claims, and anyone else deemed relevant to the issue or have a specific need or purpose related to the incident other than public disclosure.

Public release or use of released footage must be treated on a case-by-case basis with the "allowed use" determined at the time of information release. Use can be restricted for sensitive circumstances but over ridden for public interest.

However, the public does NOT have a need to view footage unless there is a specific concern, complaint, or there is value in letting the public see the footage.

Careful guidelines need to be crafted for pre-defining the acceptable use after release under each circumstance.

This will put Portland ahead of the curve and is well worth the investment in supporting the police and rebuilding trust with the public.

83
Kristina
March 17, 2015 at 1:24 PM
Individual officers should not have access to turn the cameras on or off. Not having a camera turned on, or attemps to block the camera during an interaction should receive disciplinary action. The footage should not be accessible to the media, but should be kept as evidence, and fall under the same regulations as police reports.

Individuals who have been recorded should have a right to view the evidence/video. The cameras should be dispersed equally throughout the city, not just in certain areas.

84
James H
March 17, 2015 at 1:35 PM
I strongly support the use of body worn cameras. As a resident of Portland, I have no interaction with law enforcement as most citizens do not. I think the facts are police activity is recorded by iPhones and cameras but it would be good to have the interaction between police and individuals who do have interaction with law enforcement as it tells the Officers perspective.

85
Michael
March 17, 2015 at 1:35 PM
Go for it. a lot cheaper than buying Robo-Cops.

86
Chuck Coleman
March 17, 2015 at 1:37 PM
I am all for it. The bonuses are significant.

It would help weed out bad cops that do nothing but bring shame to the force. We do not need bad cops and they need to be removed from the force sooner than later.
It will reduce citizen complaints as the camera will give an unbiased view of the incident and many complaints are not valid. Once the video is reviewed the complainant will more than likely drop the complaint.
It will be the public looking over the shoulder of the police and marginal cops will have to be on their best behavior because the camera is always watching.
It will give the DA more evidence for them to convict. Video evidence is hard to dispute.
PLEASE spend the extra money to get wide angle (140º at least) image stabilization (IS) and HD devices. All of those will help give clearer images.

87
CC
March 17, 2015 at 1:37 PM
it sure doesn't sound like Pres. Daryl Turner wants cameras of any kind. Body cams will keep both sides honest.

88
Carrie Schaufler
March 17, 2015 at 1:37 PM
I fully agree with the body cameras! It is truly needed.

89
Jess E. Hadden
March 17, 2015 at 1:38 PM
I don't see what good it will do. Police commit murder in broad daylight in front of cameras. We all watch the videos in horror, share them on Facebook, and then wonder why there are so many such videos. Without DAs who are willing to prosecute cops, the police will continue to do the things that they're doing to the people of this city. So long as the city's armed force has Daryl Turner & the police union to protect its own criminal element from justice, body cams will only serve to "rub it in."

90
Bud Feuless
March 17, 2015 at 1:41 PM
First and foremost, if body cameras are to be at all useful, policy must be adjusted to ensure their use. Policies must be put in place to ensure that:

They are always on when police patrol or incident response is underway and that guidelines are very strict on when they can be turned off, with bias toward keeping them on if there is any question.
The above be linked to policies governing behavior and discipline, including consequences for failure to abide by policy.
As far as privacy is concerned, there must be a balance between the individual right to privacy and requirements that the state share information regarding public activity of its police with the People. As such, I recommend a waiting period prior to release of any video that is in or of a place that might legitimately be considered private, including living spaces or parts of the body or clothing generally considered private. Please notify and allow the subjects of same to request privacy, if they so choose. All other video should be made immediately public and such video where privacy is requested, should a request for that video from the public be received, should require administrative review to determine the valid need for release of that video in the public interest vs. the degree to which it might invade the individual's privacy and/or consitutional rights. I would suggest you consult DoJ on this, as any misstep would likely lead to their investigation, so we might as well start off with their standards and remain consistent.

91
Raynette Grant
March 17, 2015 at 1:46 PM
I think this is a great way to protect the police and the people from the police that may get to rough! DO IT!!

92
Sarah
March 17, 2015 at 1:46 PM
I think it's a good idea. With more information about an incident, accusations and bad feelings from all "sides" should be reduced.

93
Jean Harris
March 17, 2015 at 1:49 PM
Don't believe you are even asking. Body camera would protect the police officer, have evidence of wrong doing or right doing, have the ability to id criminals and victims. Would make the police officer more responsible in their actions.
While I generally do not approve of cameras recording people with what is going on now days the police and citizens need to be protected.
Police will be need to be more responsible for their actions and other police.
Criminals might not take the chance of breaking the law if there are cameras are on.
Questions: Will the cameras transmit data right away or downloaded later. If later, the police might be in danger.
Will the citizens be able to see those pictures? So my vote is yes as long as the citizens are not spied on. This is still a free America.

94
Ryan M
March 17, 2015 at 1:49 PM
I am in support of the use of body cameras. I would like to see stiff penalties in the situation where an officer turns off his recording device, and is then involved in an application for force.

Make the footage readily available to those with a legitimate request. Transparency is what are after.

95
Leah Waterworth
March 17, 2015 at 1:53 PM
I fully support the use of body cams.

96
Senta Scott
March 17, 2015 at 2:02 PM
I am in favor of the body cams to protect the officers and the public.

97
John B.
March 17, 2015 at 2:08 PM
I think body Cameras would show all the garbage Law enforcement has to put up with on a daily basis.

I think they should start a video library of those that are more frequent "Customers".

98
Mike S
March 17, 2015 at 2:12 PM
The body cams are probably one of the best ideas yet there are too many lying criminals that talk so much crap about police and try to say that cops wrong them in some way when they are caught this way there is 100% proof the cops are doing their jobs how they are supposed to and criminals can just shut up.. In other words I would love to see body cams and a portland police videos show like cops where it shows these idiot criminals being busted. 😉

99
Patricia Piazza
March 17, 2015 at 2:25 PM
Body cams are the only thing that makes sense fir many reasons. I'm for them.

100
Marsha Anderson
March 17, 2015 at 2:26 PM
sounds like a good idea.....what should also be considered is the recorded events be relayed to other organizations, such as Cop Watch, Independent Review Committee, neutral lawyer assigned to this task. Most officers welcome this, if the surveillance, like anyone knowing there are cameras prevent just one officer to not go over what he has been trained to do, and react inappropriately...then it will be worth it. Oh, maybe this isn't the right forum for this suggestion, but maybe in all officer involved shootings, the officer should be drug tested.

101
Kathy Brawley
March 17, 2015 at 2:29 PM
totally in favor of the use of body camers. Nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide. Too bad it has come to this but officers need to protect themselves. Gor for it Portland.

102
Juliet
March 17, 2015 at 2:30 PM
I strongly support body cameras for the protection of all parties involved.

103
Eliot
March 17, 2015 at 2:37 PM
For the protection of both sides of the problem... A VERY BIG YES!

104
Ian R.
March 17, 2015 at 2:37 PM
I support the use of body cameras to protect both parties involved. However, there have been instances in the past (in other states) where footage from officers or their cars "disappears". This leaves the citizens feeling cheated and abused. I would advocate for a policy that all footage is controlled by another government entity other than the police. To help not only prevent blame on the officers for broken cameras or faulty equipment, but also as a way to prevent the public from feeling cheated or abused. Checks and Balances!

105
brad
March 17, 2015 at 2:41 PM
yes, I think cameras are appropriate for use.

106
J A Bixel
March 17, 2015 at 2:42 PM
I would welcome anything, That would help those that protect & serve our beautiful City !
The information that it would provide would be amazing.

107
Nicole
March 17, 2015 at 2:42 PM
I would like to see the police use body cameras to document their interaction with the public.

Privacy issues that concern you.
I think that privacy should be used in the same manner that it is handled now. I think video footage should be available to lawyers upon request and only those involved.

How to use the technology during sensitive investigations: domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse, response to care for someone needing mental health assistance?
I think the footage should be considered under the same rules as video dash cameras.

Should footage be available to anyone who asks (this could include victim interviews, interior of homes, children, uninvolved community members, etc.)?
The footage should only be available to those involved as well as their lawyers.

Once footage is released, should there be any restrictions on sharing and posting that video?

Videos should not be shared or posted on social media just like a dash camera.

108
Brian
March 17, 2015 at 2:47 PM
You can start with only using them in public spaces. Turn them off before entering a place where privacy could be expected (e.g., a house). Perhaps, leave the mic running, but turn the camera off -- let the person know you're still mic'd.

Later, could expand usage later to more private areas. Baby steps.

Handle footage the same way you handle any request from media outlets.

109
bill ward
March 17, 2015 at 2:48 PM
I hope cops want these cameras because I think a lot of people will be shocked to see what our men and women in blue have to put up with on a daily basis. I support it and look forward to seeing more objective feedback on occurrences that take place daily. I think a lot of folks forget that a lot of bad things happen out there and we train people to deal with bad things. that means by default violence. I thank you for everything you do, if this helps the dept, go for it.

110
Dave Stefonek
March 17, 2015 at 2:50 PM
I am in favor of body cams. I live in Corbett rather than Portland, but do spend significant time in Portland. Body cams would protect both the police and the people they encounter. I am willing to trade a little privacy for the additional integrity offered by the cams.

111
Ben
March 17, 2015 at 2:50 PM
I support our officers wearing on-body cameras. This will increase accountability for all parties. All police interactions should be recorded and archived indefinitely.

Records should be available for review by police department administration and any elected or government appointed oversight groups. Records should only be released or used in court by judicial order on a case by case basis. Records should be made available to the public only on judicial order. Judges should determine who's custody the records are released to and hold those parties accountable for any use of the records.

112
Kaaren Graham
March 17, 2015 at 2:59 PM
I am in favor of PPB moving forward with procuring body cams.

113
Candy
March 17, 2015 at 3:03 PM
yes the police should wear the personal cameras but only if they are not turned off at the convenience of the officer. The pictures should only be used as evidence & never sold or used in any other way. Also, the public should be able to use their own personal cameras to film the police as long as there is no interference.

114
Candy
March 17, 2015 at 3:04 PM
yes the police should wear the personal cameras but only if they are not turned off at the convenience of the officer. The pictures should only be used as evidence & never sold or used in any other way. Also, the public should be able to use their own personal cameras to film the police as long as there is no interference

115
Michele Parr-Harmes
March 17, 2015 at 3:06 PM
I completely in favor of this.

116
Jennifer Parise
March 17, 2015 at 3:21 PM
I am in favor of body cameras to protect people and the police officers.

117
Mike
March 17, 2015 at 3:27 PM
I'm all for body cams as long as the footage is treated like evidence and is not available without a court order.

118
Donna Johnson
March 17, 2015 at 3:31 PM
I am in favor of the personal cameras to keep both sides protected.

119
Christine Boschiero
March 17, 2015 at 3:49 PM
I am in favor of body cams.

120
Janis Nowell
March 17, 2015 at 3:51 PM
Yes! Get the cameras and be protected from the people who think they are above the law! I could say allot more but not here. I appreciate the police completely! God bless you!

121
John Stalions
March 17, 2015 at 3:53 PM
I absolutely believe that Portland Police should use body cameras. I think there is ample evidence that they can have a huge impact in protecting both police and the public. I think most recordings should be restricted to law enforcement and appropriate investigative bodies. The media should be able to make requests for specific recording in limited circumstances where it is deemed appropriate and guidelines should be made for these instances ahead of time. Also there should be very clear expectations for officers to have there cameras on and recording at all times when they are on duty to avoid shenanigans, as well as strict archiving of all recording for at least 3 years. Thank you for allowing public comment, and I hope this process moves forward quickly.

122
Todd Fulkerson
March 17, 2015 at 3:57 PM
Any time an officer is engaging with anyone, that camera needs to be turned on or the officer should face REAL repercussions for failing to turn it on.

123
Susan
March 17, 2015 at 4:07 PM
An overwhelming YES! Body cameras are a win-win situation! The decision should be an easy YES!

124
Brett
March 17, 2015 at 4:09 PM
I fully support the use of body cams on our Police Officers in Portland

125
Beverly Silveira
March 17, 2015 at 4:15 PM
It seems it will answer a lot of questions. I am in favor.

126
Macy
March 17, 2015 at 4:25 PM
I think they should have body cams

127
Sean Darst
March 17, 2015 at 4:33 PM
I'm in favor of body cameras.

128
Citizen
March 17, 2015 at 4:33 PM
Fully in favor of the idea that every move the police make be recorded for accountability.

For privacy protection (both of the police and the public) recordings should only be available during court proceedings pertaining to an arrest or investigations of police conduct.

Release of videos should be controlled in a similar fashion to other materials pertaining to police investigation reports.

129
Jaremy
March 17, 2015 at 4:43 PM
I am in favor of body cams.

130
Gail Rask
March 17, 2015 at 4:47 PM
If you want the public to side with the actions of the police, body cameras could help the public understand actions of the police. If I was a police officer, I would want to be able to show how I acted in situations involving police response.

131
kathy smith
March 17, 2015 at 4:48 PM
Hi Portland Police, March 17, 2015 Yes I think it is a good idea for you to wear body cameras, as soon as possible.And you should make sure that the officers have their cameras on during any interactions with the public, so that they and the public will more likely behave better and more fairly. That should include all the police officers who interact with the public, including the ones answering the telephones. It is very important to have trust between the police and the community , and accountability.

132
DOUG ADAMS
March 17, 2015 at 4:50 PM
BODY CAMS HAVE MULTIPLE GOOD RESULTS AND FEW IF ANY BAD.
I AM 100% IN FAVOR. THE PROTECTION OF THE OFFICER AND
THE VIDEO VALIDATION FOR THE USE OF FORCE ALONE ARE
REASONS ENOUGH. PROTECT THE BLUE!!

133
Carole Barkley
March 17, 2015 at 4:51 PM
I would rather see financial resources put into hiring more officers for foot patrols.

134
Judith Lienhard
March 17, 2015 at 4:59 PM
I am against body cameras for many reasons.
First of all, I want to see the discussion about whether or not we should use them. and the community needs to be able to give input.
I am very worried that this is quick techno fix when deep reforms are needed.And who would profit from this? what are the connections between corporations and police chiefs, etc?
I am worried about privacy issues and control of cameras. there many instances when body cameras were turned off by police before they committed violence against citizens. or they "malfunctioned". we have seen in the case of Eric Garner where everything was on camera and yet, no indictment resulted.
who would control the cameras? when would they be on? who would have possession of the data after an incident? is it possible to alter the data? i have no trust towards the police. we have more and more surveillance and spying on citizens. we do need to film incidents, we need to film the police and i want that done by citizens not cops.
since cops want these cameras, makes me think, it will protect them more than us.
once again, I am absolutely against body cameras.

135
Kathleen McGuire
March 17, 2015 at 5:00 PM
I favor the wearing of body cameras by Police Officers for their protection as well as the protection of others.

136
Carol Weigel
March 17, 2015 at 5:10 PM
If you are not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing
to worry about. And maybe it might help.
I do believe we have some over zelous people and that might
help that also.
Carol Weigel

137
Diane Rios
March 17, 2015 at 5:10 PM
Thank you for asking! I am in favor of body cams, but only if they are used appropriately and without bias in favor of the police. I think the idea of having an IMPARTIAL witness is a crucial step for justice to be served. I am not worried about privacy issues if they are used appropriately. If the cams are messed with, edited, or otherwise tampered with before the film is viewed by a jury or a judge, then I am not in favor.

Bottom line: as long as they are filming everything, without censoring any material, I am in favor of body cams.

thank you!

138
Lisa Voogd
March 17, 2015 at 5:26 PM
I believe that body cameras would be of great use in the current climate of distrust between citizens and law enforcement. They could provide crucial evidence in cases of alleged misconduct, and if used consistently, could help mitigate the impact of conflicting witness statements. Internal review of the videos would provide endless opportunities for training and improvement in the areas of public contact, de-escalation techniques, and standard protocol. That said, handling of the recordings would require special care due to privacy concerns. They should NOT be open to general public records requests, and should be available only to law enforcement, courts of law, and the individuals involved in a recorded encounter. It would be inappropriate and potentially damaging for the media or citizens to be able to make blanket requests for the recordings under freedom of information or public records requests. This could allow dangerous misuse, for example, employers requesting any recordings related to a potential hire, etc. Privacy and anonymity for children and crime victims must also be considered. Special legislation may be necessary to protect privacy and prevent abuse of the records.

139
Helen Bibelheimer
March 17, 2015 at 5:30 PM
I am in favor of police wearing camera's. Cameras are everywhere and must be a great idea. So with that in mind I say YES to body cameras.

140
James Lopez Ericksen
March 17, 2015 at 5:36 PM
Police body cameras have always been around. Post cards were sold across the nation showing lynchings and proud white faces. Illustrations before let everyone see slave auctions. Presidents watched as slaves were marched out of Washington DC as the capitol was built. Eric Garner's murder, all filmed with audio, is a modern day lynching.

Body cameras or the witness to injustices has never been a determining factor to justice. Through trauma, we all require a moment of resolution and even solitude. With hundreds of years of trauma, repetitive assaults against black folk from police and vigilantes, there has been little to no time to mourn. Without convictions the black community is shown yet again they are the ones left to clean up a mess. Without resolution there is no opportunity for peace.

Power and resources need to go into a community oversight committee. This committee needs to be run by and for the community holding our police accountable to the kinds of actions which move away from serve and protect to diesculates and engage.

Visual evidence is and has not be shown to help in the conviction of white folks or police who assault people of color. Without a judicial system to convict those who assault, folks can not effectively mourn and there is no peace.

No Justice. No Peace

141
Mary Bryant
March 17, 2015 at 5:36 PM
Body cameras protect the public and police officers. They are not infallible but are the best we can do to prevent abuse in both directions.

142
Marianne
March 17, 2015 at 5:37 PM
Yes, sadly, i agree, our police officers need to wear body cams to "protect them" from the people who hired them to protect us. Sad days for America

143
Chris Herring
March 17, 2015 at 5:38 PM
It's a fantastic idea to add cameras. With all the money saved by not arresting and jailing citizens for minor drug offenses they should have plenty extra money floating around in the budget.

144
georgiegirl
March 17, 2015 at 5:46 PM
Yes, I think the Portland Police should wear them.

145
Gary Pyburn
March 17, 2015 at 5:49 PM
Body cams should not be worn unless bodycams are on suspects. Let the police do their jobs! BTW who is gonna pay for the cameras? Let's start a camera store and make a fotune as a carpetbagging camera salesman.

146
Phil L.
March 17, 2015 at 5:55 PM
i am in favor of police officers being required to wear body cameras.

147
Jacqui Duhon
March 17, 2015 at 6:02 PM
I am in favor of whatever it takes to keep both the police officers and the citizens safe. Sounds like an awesome idea to me.

148
Karin Forkner
March 17, 2015 at 6:21 PM
I think it's a wonderful idea. It would not only protect the citizen from any thing that can be misconstrued about any sort of dealings with the police, it has the potential to protect an officer from allegations of wrong-doing that may not be true. It's the same concept as police dash cams and I think that it needs to be implemented as soon as possible. I do think though, that there need to be rules regarding the misuse or sudden "loss" of videotaped content. If the officer suddenly loses the footage, or anything along those lines, the burden of proof for any arrest or incident that a citizen is to be charged with, needs to fall on the department. I think this would keep the department and the officers a little more honest.

149
mike
March 17, 2015 at 6:26 PM
I'm on the fence about this. I want to see ppb bad cops weeded out using this system. and I want ppb to stopped being sued over stuff that didn't happen. but as I've read about other city's use of body cams, it seems to me that cops are still above the law and the fact that there's body cams capturing video of things going wrong, nothing happens to these cops. I don't see why as a tax payer I should have to pay for an expensive system that does no real good....

as far as privacy, if I tell a cop I don't want to be recorded. will he/she have to stop?

150
Judith Lienhard
March 17, 2015 at 6:27 PM
http://thegrio.com/2015/03/17/mentally-ill-man-video-screwdiver-police-killed/

151
Tracy
March 17, 2015 at 6:42 PM
This is great. It's a win for everyone. It keeps people from making false claims, and it keeps the police honest as well.

152
lyn kirby
March 17, 2015 at 6:44 PM
I love the idea of body cams. It will build trust with the public as long as the cameras are not turned off midway through a situation like we have been hearing about in other cities.

153
John Buss
March 17, 2015 at 6:44 PM
Absolutely in favor! These will weed out the few problems, and instill confidence that the Police truly want to do what's right by the public they serve....Problem citizens with false complaints will quickly be taken care of as well, it's a win win.

154
Douglas Steele
March 17, 2015 at 6:57 PM
Although body cams are a step in the right direction I would think that cams on glasses or protective eyewear would better show what the officer see's and why they react the way they do. The body doesn't always turn when the head does.

155
Edward Norton
March 17, 2015 at 6:59 PM
Yes, anything that promotes Police Accountability in Portland is an absolute necessity. The Consent Decree forced on the PPB by the Department of Justice has accomplished wonders for reducing the body count by Portland Police.

The PPB and Police Union has a well recorded 40 year history of obfuscation and obstruction of every attempt to increase Police Accountability. Over that period; Citizen Review Committees have publicly resigned in disgust and Grand Juries have written scathing letters identifying the systemic institutionalized "problems" of the PPB and after 15 years of PARC review and the claims by the PPB that they were taking positive action to resolve clearly defined institutionalize corruption policing in Portland continued to degrade until the DOJ started watching....but that is noting but a finger in the dyke holding back the ocean of PPB scandal and abuse.

The worst that Portland could do is to return to the days when the Police Union was running the PPB and organizing to hold the City Council and public at bay while the body count and citizen complaints and wrongful death lawsuits and civil suit settlements climb....all at tax payer expense.

Too much smoke for there to be no fire. The time is long past for Police Accountability in Portland.

156
leo campbell
March 17, 2015 at 7:29 PM
Police should have to keep a body camera "on" during the complete shift, no exceptions. Should not have an "On-Off" button that the officer "accidentally" or deliberately can control the camera function.

157
Michael Ortiz
March 17, 2015 at 7:33 PM
i am in favor of body cameras

no secrets means no lies...worse problem is when a police officer drifts off the grid somewhere doing something shouldn't be doing because off where no one knows where {they} are.

158
Jessica Hutchinson
March 17, 2015 at 7:57 PM
I think body cameras should be required for reasons of accountability for both police officers AND the public they interact with. I think it should be considered a major red flag if a controversial event occurs and the evidence that is suppose to be caught on camera is either tampered with, deleted or the camera shut off or never started in the first place! In fact the rules should be so strict on this that unless eye witnesses from the public step forward to give synchronized accounts of what occurred then any charges pressed against an individual claiming innocence or brutality or corruption ought to be automatically dropped as a result of there being no untampered camera evidence!

159
Sally
March 17, 2015 at 8:04 PM
They should absolutely use them! No excuses for either side.

160
Hyung
March 17, 2015 at 8:33 PM
I am opposed to body cameras. This is a diversion from the real issue about lack of accountability. It is telling that many police chiefs have a special relationship with the corrections industry, like Taser Corporation. What good are cameras when neither the police union or city councilmembers are making any changes to really hold cops accountable with firing, suspension without pay, criminal prosecution, etc. The cameras will still allow cops to use their own discretion on unaccountable behavior to turn off them off or use cameras selectively to spy on and record evidence against the public. We already know there are issues with PPB’s 48 hour rule and other cities have had problems in public access to video footage. Stop the diversion and start with making a commitment to change policy and hold cops accountable.

161
Robert Rubenstein
March 17, 2015 at 8:38 PM
I support the use of police body cameras. The cameras should be tamper proof so they can't be turned off or erased by the officer. Recordings should be retained as potential evidence. The recordings should only be available to parties in criminal or civil cases. They should never be released into the public domain.

162
Jacob
March 17, 2015 at 8:40 PM
I am in favor of body cameras for Portland Police Officers.

163
Debbi Jackson
March 17, 2015 at 8:52 PM
I'm in favor of the body cams.

164
Joshua Sorenson
March 17, 2015 at 8:53 PM
I am in favor of body cams

165
Dale Mead
March 17, 2015 at 8:54 PM
I think who ever would have a problem with any police department having their officer's wearing body cameras. Maybe the ones that need to be watched a little closer.

166
me
March 17, 2015 at 9:27 PM
I want to respectfully disagree with Connie. When individuals learn that their behavior is being recorded, and they wont be able to make up accusations and the police can show that there actions were not only lawful but reasonable. There will be no Emperors clothing.

The problem isn't about prejudice, thats the excuse. The problem is about what behavior we allow. Dont give anyone an excuse to play a victim. Hold indaviduals accountable for there actions, dont make excuses for them.

These cameras will let the truth be known.

167
joe
March 17, 2015 at 9:33 PM
Please add body cameras asap. There should be a city ordinance to make clear to the police and public how all aspects of the camera program works. The ordinance should be updated annually to improve over time and adapt. At a bare minimum it must restrict who has the ability to request footage. All stakeholders should have input. Police union. Homeless. Mentally ill. Media. Lawyers for both sides. We should be a model for the democratic world.

168
Justin
March 17, 2015 at 9:35 PM
Yes, on-body cameras!!!

169
J. McCarl
March 17, 2015 at 9:44 PM
I do have privacy concerns for victims of domestic violence and children and look for consideration of this as policy is made for use of cameras. However, cameras can provide clarity which could help protect both police and citizens and I believe police should wear body cameras.

170
Rick Zucker
March 17, 2015 at 9:53 PM
First, I think body cameras are good. It gives citizen greater confidence in the police, and police will feel more confident about their interactions. I think the video needs to be available, but only on a limited basis. It should only be available to those in the interaction, reviewing the interaction for appropriateness (internal affairs), evidence of criminal activity, or someone with legal standing, like the parents of a teen who had a police interaction. These people should not be allowed to release the video to the public without the permission of all in the video. Another issue to resolve is how long should the video be kept, as there will be a lot of data. Maybe regular video is deleted after a month unless there is an interaction that is being reviewed, charge brought, etc.

171
Nick Miner
March 17, 2015 at 10:02 PM
I am strongly in favor of body cameras.

172
B. Beebe
March 17, 2015 at 10:05 PM
yes, with evidentiary protocols available to both parties should solve lots of the current ambiguities.

173
Susan T.
March 17, 2015 at 10:29 PM
I am strongly in favor of body cameras as part of policies relating to police accountability.

174
Ye Feng
March 17, 2015 at 11:20 PM
I am in favor of the body camera. In tense situations where multiple activities/engagements are happening at the same time, it is sometimes beyond human ability to track the events clearly. The he-said-this and I-said-that post-mortem analysis is very hard to conduct in the cases of children's altercations, let alone between adults. The enhanced transparency brought by body camera offers the protection of both sides. Another point is when language difference is involved, can anyone repeat what a victim said in a language he is not familiar with? What if that is material evidence?

175
Not now
March 17, 2015 at 11:28 PM
This site displays the name and email address of the most recent commenter to the next poster.

ATTN: Site Admin

176
b beller
March 17, 2015 at 11:28 PM
I'm all for the use of body cameras, it will help keep police accountable for human life and help as a teaching aid for other police. It will also allow the law abiding public to feel comfortable around police knowing that there will be a third party involved.
Use of the technology during sensitive investigations should be used in accordance to the advice of those who have an every day experience with those types of abuse or illnesses; psychologists, social workers, counselors, aid workers.
The footage should be available to anyone who is involved in the case; lawyers, judge, parents of children unless they're the perpetrators.
Once footage is released, there should be restrictions on sharing and posting videos just as minors identities are not shown in the media there should be a list of restrictions on videos being released to the media especially before the court case is closed.

Most of the problems I have with the cameras have to do with using the cameras as propaganda tools and paparazzi fodder rather than assisting and protecting the public as well as holding police accountable to treating all Portlanders with respect for human life and community whether the color or their skin or mental illness. We as Portlanders need to learn to not repeat history by learning from it rather than repeating our mistakes again and again.

177
Barbara Allen
March 17, 2015 at 11:33 PM
Please instate body cameras for all law enforcement officers who have direct contact with members of the public. Please do not allow the option for said officers to disable or otherwise turn off the cameras while on shift. Please fully disclose both initial cost of each camera and annual cost of each camera, specifically as it pertains to taxpayers.

178
Hobie
March 17, 2015 at 11:40 PM
The police must begin to wear these things in every encounter with citizens - whom they are sworn to SERVE and PROTECT. Failure to use these devices as indicated should result in severe punishments with no excuses. Unpaid weeks off should be a minimum for a first offense.

We are your bosses, and it's clear that you need us to monitor you a bit more closely.

179
Tanner Hoskins
March 18, 2015 at 12:06 AM
I am all for the use of Body Worn Cameras, I understand that there is a privacy concern, but the use of the cameras will allow Officer's to be able to have video evidence of what took place on their watch. With people claiming Racism, and Police Brutality right and left, I feel these would save Officer's, as well as the Department Money in the long run from false accusations.

180
Lisa Reed Guarnero
March 18, 2015 at 5:15 AM
Yes to body cams, as long as they are required for EVERY interaction with the public. '

Proper maintenance of the cams should be a high priority so there will be no excuse for why the camera wasn't used. There should also be some way to hold the officer accountable if it wasn't used, or if it was used illegally or unethically by the officer.

181
Jaclyn Herrick
March 18, 2015 at 6:10 AM
I am in favor of body cameras.

182
Sue
March 18, 2015 at 6:41 AM
Yes, I'm in favor of body cameras and dashboard cameras. Protects both officers and the possible criminal. The facts are in the pictures. Eliminates the guessing though I know it won't show every little thing. And the videos should be shown in court sessions.

183
Kyna Eaton
March 18, 2015 at 6:52 AM
I am for the cameras, it can help to protect everyone. There should be nothing to hide on all sides!

184
Carole J Schumacher
March 18, 2015 at 7:18 AM
I am in favor of the on body camera.

185
Carole J Schumacher
March 18, 2015 at 7:22 AM
This would protect the officer in the event of court issue's, reports, etc.

186
Jason Simmons
March 18, 2015 at 7:35 AM
while I am strongly in favor of wearing the cameras, I feel the information should be public and avaible through a freedom of information act. Additionally I feel that why the cameras are here to provide a video record of all the officers day's events who are wearing these cameras, the ability to turn them off and on should not be made possible by the officer wearing the camera. I strongly believe that the cameras should record the full shift without the ability to arbitrarily decide what and when the cameras should be filming. This would make all units wearing the camera equally accountable.

187
Kyle
March 18, 2015 at 7:42 AM
Here's my question, what's the point? If a police officer can just turn off the camera before they do something wrong, or if they are caught doing something wrong and nothing happens to them, what's the point? I don't see this being in any way helpful except that police officers can use them to help their cases. Unfortunately that's all I've seen across the country. Either the officer just happens to not have them on at the perfect time or if they do something wrong there are no repercussions to the officer. What's the point?

188
Dan Cain
March 18, 2015 at 7:51 AM
I support this idea, with one HUGE caveat.

There absolutely MUST be serious penalties if police disable or tamper with the cameras.

If police are able to "lose" or "accidentally delete" videos, then the whole policy stinks.

I really wouldn't mind if a subpena was required to access the footage. I don't want you guys buried in FOIA requests.

189
Michael Condon
March 18, 2015 at 8:01 AM
First and foremost, for there to be any sense of trust, cameras must be reliable. In departments where cameras have been previously deployed, there's been a rash of "missing footage" when a controversial event happens. Officers in LA were found to be removing the antennas on their wireless mics. That cannot happen here.

If cameras are implemented, police command has to be behind them 100%, and has to ensure officers treat them with due respect. That includes disciplining officers who attempt to subvert the cameras.

Footage must be public. I understand there are situations where footage may have compromising personal details - domestic violence, welfare checks, situations involving minors, etc. If the PPB has sole control over which footage is released, however, it quickly loses public trust.

I see two possible solutions. The first is a citizen's review board, who reviews any footage the PPB would like to keep unreleased. They would have the final say in footage release.

The second, and my preference, would be an internal review. Either at the request of the officer, or at the request of any party involved in the incident, a tape can be held from release for a fixed period (I'll propose 60 days) during which the recording of the incident can be reviewed for personal details. Identifying info such as faces, names, addresses and license plates can be blurred for the publicly released copy of the recording, in much the same way as is done on TV shows.

The key, however, is transparency. Without transparency there can be no public trust. Without public trust, police cannot operate effectively.

190
Andy Suffion
March 18, 2015 at 8:18 AM
I am in favor of police officers wearing on-body cameras and long as individual officers aren't allowed to decide when and where to use them. The videos should be secured, and only used for administrative and evidentiary purposes (no publication or news release without protection of individual privacy).

191
Dick
March 18, 2015 at 8:31 AM
Cameras help, but without recordings, the pictures can be deceptive. Much of what police have to deal with is verbal abuse.
192
Byron Harmon
March 18, 2015 at 8:34 AM
Police body cameras absolutely should be implemented. When used properly they protect the public from the police. Last year between 450 and 1000 people (no database is maintained of this data, the public has to piece it together through media reports) whereas only 23 officers were killed by civilians. This means in an encounter with the police a civilian is 20 to 40 times more likely to end up dead than the officer. Where such cameras have been implemented police violence and complaints against officers both plummet.

Cameras should be on at all times. And outages that coincide with police violence or the death of a civilian should be diligently prosecuted.

Perhaps a policy that the cameras should be turned off if asked by the civilian in question or if consent to search is denied and there is no warrant or sufficient reason to normally warrant a search.

The footage should either be made readily available to the public, or there should be some sort of review board with no ties or conflicts of interest with the police force. It would undermine public trust if the department used its discretion regarding which footage to release. Perhaps people should be able to request footage of themselves, and barring it's use in an ongoing investigation or court proceedings be in charge of deciding whether it is released.

193
Brandon
March 18, 2015 at 8:41 AM
Yes, body cameras protect the police officer as well as the citizens.

194
Dick Johnson
March 18, 2015 at 8:55 AM
I agree body cameras should be worn by police officers protects everyone.

195
Brian Ellis
March 18, 2015 at 9:00 AM
I think body cameras should be worn to protect the officers as well as the citizens. I think citizen should be able to request that the cameras be turned, but said request itself must be filmed. I think the image of those filmed should be the intellectual property of those filmed, and citizen should be able to request that their images be destroyed after a certain period after any incident. Outages that coincide with the death of a civilian should be diligently prosecuted. In the case of mentally ill citizen experiencing a violent emotional episode, the cameras should not be turned off no matter what.

196
Tami Wright
March 18, 2015 at 9:01 AM
I think this is a great idea and I am a small business owner and the majority of my clients think so too... Tami

197
Kate
March 18, 2015 at 9:02 AM
I am in favor of body cameras, both for the protection of the public and the officers. Good cops should be in favor of them, and maybe it will make bad cops think twice about continuing their unprofessional ways.

198
Frances
March 18, 2015 at 9:02 AM
Body cams are a great idea. Mostly, I believe, to protect officers from false accusations and highly inaccurate witness statements such as we've seen in the news over the last nine months or so. People can't, however, have it both ways. They want officers' behavior made public, well your behavior is made public as well. I could be wrong, but it's my understanding that police reports are public, and video will just be part of the report. When police respond to your home on a domestic violence call, and your children are found to be living in filth, that video can be used against you in your DHS hearing. When you're pulled over for a duii, your video can be used against you in court and with the dmv when your license gets revoked. I'm guessing it could save a whole lot of money in court costs, if people know their behavior was recorded on video, they may understand it's just not worth challenging. Police also shouldn't have to take the time to notify people that they are being recorded and gain consent. It should just be the public's understanding that, if interacting with an officer, you are being recorded - should make all interactions a lot more cordial. Current laws regarding the identity of sexual assault victims and juveniles can be maintained by obscuring their appearance. I've done several ride alongs, and people's behavior always stuns me. I get that people don't like being told they can't do something, but it's amazing how fast "your just doing this cause I'm (young, old, race, in a sports car, etc)'' or "don't you have real criminals to find" comes out. It's just embarrassing.

199
A.L. Martinez
March 18, 2015 at 9:06 AM
I am very much in favor of body cameras for PDX officers.

200
Frances
March 18, 2015 at 9:21 AM
For all you folks who think the officer should have no discretion about when the cameras are on or off, would you want a camera on while you're taking a s*** at work? Can you hold it for ten hours? Good lord, use your brains. Cameras are a useful tool, for sure, but they will never show everything. Cameras have no peripheral vision, and there can be no subtitles containing all the officers' thoughts, real time. They will never provide all the answers, and I worry people are being set up with unattainable expectations.

201
GJB
March 18, 2015 at 9:21 AM
Yes please. I've heard too many cases of officer abuse, and consistent use of such cameras could really help settle matters: vindicate or verify.

If recorded video is subject to privacy concerns, then a neutral should be brought in to review footage and allowed to document (in writing) the nature of any specific sensitive footage, while also authorizing a very specific and limited "black out" of said footage.

Please also consider related scientific studies, such as http://www.policefoundation.org/content/body-worn-cameras-police-use-force

202
Daizee
March 18, 2015 at 9:26 AM
Yes to body cams! Footage should be accessible to those involved and their legal counsel. Release of footage to the public must be approved by those involved or their faces blurred out. All privacy rights should be considered, however body cams will protect both the police and the public they serve.

203
David
March 18, 2015 at 9:27 AM
Yes, please use body cams. There needs to be better accountability for police since we aren't seeing any coming out of either police mgmt or the grand jury system. Body cams will help to protect both citizens and good cops. The scammers and bad apples will be filmed. And if the police want to help the situation even more, rescind the current 2-day gag order for officers involved in incidents. This delay has always raised suspicions with the public. Finally, increase public involvement for officers. People tend to fear the unfamiliar. Thanks.

204
Tristan Bailey
March 18, 2015 at 10:57 AM
Absolutely. The Portland Police need this technology. The residents of the greater Portland area need the Police to wear body camera technology too. This technology could have legitimate use in Portland as long as there is any level of distrust of Portland's Police Department in the community, and there is a great deal of distrust here that goes back to long before Rocky Balada. HOWEVER, there must be no control of the camera on the police officer's part and data collection/storage must not be left to the individual officers. Individual police officers must not be allowed to turn the device on or off at their pleasure. Any gap in the day's video which becomes evidence of any sort MUST be considered as evidence in OPPOSITION to the officer's testimony or the legitimacy of the purpose for the camera will have been nearly nullified. This technology must be utilized as the POV of a disinterested third party, and not as a means of supporting bias in favor of defendant or officer.

205
Logan
March 18, 2015 at 11:20 AM
I am very much in favor of body cameras.

Video should be stored for a designated amount of time, available upon request to anyone involved in a stop or arrest.

206
McKenzie
March 18, 2015 at 11:27 AM
i am not in favor of them

207
Laurel Redner
March 18, 2015 at 12:06 PM
I think it is a good idea, even though the film may not be helpful in some occasions: protects both the officer and the public.

208
Portland Copwatch
March 18, 2015 at 12:20 PM
We at Portland Copwatch decided after long discussion and research to neither publicly applaud nor oppose the introduction of such cameras in Portland. We do feel that if the cameras are pursued, the community needs more input into
the policies guiding them than can be provided by this website.

We have and will continue to raise concerns that the use of the cameras violates Oregon Revised Statute 181.575 that prohibits collecting and maintaining information on people's political, social or religious affiliations with no suspicion of criminal conduct. The use of body cams can pose serious civil liberty infringements and must be carefully regulated.

We will likely have more input soon, but encourage people to read these three articles in the meantime:

> http://www.portlandcopwatch.org/PPR64/CopCams64.html

> http://wecopwatch.org/police-cameras-quick-fix-for-police-misconduct-or-counter-surveillance-tool/

> http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2014/03/25/study-contrasts-rialto-police-albuquerque-police-regards-body-mounted-cameras/

dan handelman and other members of
portland copwatch

209
Pam Allee
March 18, 2015 at 12:33 PM
Seems like a good idea - unless we're going to start hearing that an officer "forgot" to either turn his device on, or "forgot" to check the battery before doing so. Or whatever excuse will be found...

Maybe you'd only have top do this until real citizen review and oversight becomes the norm. (Like only for a hundred more years or so?)

210
Liz
March 18, 2015 at 12:35 PM
I am NOT in favor of body cameras. I would rather see my tax dollars invested in training and increased accountability about racial bias and profiling. The recent "I am Darren Wilson" posts on Facebook by PPB members demonstrates that there is a lot of racism in the organization. There have been enough cases in other states of "camera malfunction" to support the argument that taping someone doesn't guarantee moral behavior.

211
T H
March 18, 2015 at 12:41 PM
There is no valid reason for not using body cameras. It protects everyone involved.

212
Anita_B
March 18, 2015 at 12:52 PM
Great idea. I'm all for body cameras and believe they are long overdue. A camera protects both officers and the people they interact with, by providing an unbiased record of what occurred. Memory is notoriously flawed--especially in emotional encounters. A video doesn't rely on human memory or error. Solid thumbs up. Get them.

213
Timothy Hurita
March 18, 2015 at 1:09 PM
I am in favor of 3G\4G enabled body cams. Cameras capable of automatically uploading recordings to a secure server accessible only to trusted members of the judicial system or higher ranking officials. This would address both privacy concerns and minimize tampering.

Footage should not be available to anyone that asks, it should only be made available through a court order with proper justification. Once the footage is released, it may or may not be posted publicly depending on the circumstances to be determined by a judge in good standing.

I think that with proper implementation and oversight, body cams would benefit both citizens and the police.

214
hedda lee
March 18, 2015 at 1:15 PM
Portland police can't be trusted with guns or tasers. Why would we trust them to use body-cams in a way that achieves real safety for Portlanders from police aggression and violence?

215
Peter McGovern
March 18, 2015 at 1:21 PM
I am also in favor of body cameras. More people are more likely to be on their best behavior if everything is being recorded.

Also..their data must be available to an independent review board and/or the public in the case of problems.

The police should not be able to police themselves due to "the Blue Code of Silence".

216
J U
March 18, 2015 at 1:28 PM
As far as I'm concerned, the biggest obstacle is cost. Would we contract with a third party vendor to supply the cameras, software, and storage solution? This would be a huge burden to an already limited budget.

Access and control of the cameras should probably live with a third party, not the PPB. However, even if it was up to the officer's discretion to use the camera, I would still be in favor. More information is better than none.

217
Noel Nicole
March 18, 2015 at 1:30 PM
I believe police must wear body cameras in order to improve community relations as well as protect police from unfounded attitudes from the public and media. Most people do not need unfettered access to this information. The Portland police department, is, in my opinion, an excellent role model for other police departments in both the US and Canada.

218
Brian Davis
March 18, 2015 at 1:42 PM
While I am certainly of the opinion that we as a city need to do everything in our power to ensure that our police bureau faithfully represents our values as a city, I do not believe body cameras are the best way to accomplish this. Indeed, I think compelling armed agents of the state to record everything they see might have a whole bevy of unforeseen consequences.

I would much rather see the bureau focus on community policing, which I consider a more holistic solution to the problems body cameras are meant to address. Let's get police out of their cars and walking beats, so that they become familiar faces in the communities they are supposed to be protecting and serving. I also think the bureau should make every effort to diversify, specifically at leadership positions, to bring the demographic profile of the police department more in line with that of the city. There should also be a requirement that a Portland officer must live within the city of Portland, and the officer should live in the neighborhood he or she serves wherever possible.

Body cameras are a band-aid. The solution is to completely overhaul how we do policing.

219
Deb Johnston
March 18, 2015 at 1:43 PM
in favor of cameras

220
Kimberly Frank
March 18, 2015 at 2:09 PM
I am in support of body cameras. I think together the people and police of Portland can team up and show the rest of the world what a good relationship between police and community looks like.

221
Kate H
March 18, 2015 at 2:10 PM
I'm a paramedic, and I vote for body cameras. I know first hand the kind of things that go on when all parties on scene know that they're not being recorded. The way that law enforcement behaves on camera is often different from how they behave off camera -- which isn't to say that they're all bad all the time. The fact is that the nature of the job attracts some bad apples, and there needs to be a way to remove them.

With great power comes great responsibility. Let's start holding them to that.

222
Leslie
March 18, 2015 at 2:35 PM
I believe police officers should wear them. How would it hurt to have them on? In light of all these instances of police brutality all over the country, it only seems fitting for officers to wear the cameras to gain back the public's trust/ to ensure fewer instances of death by cop occurs.

It will cost a lot more than quietly (and literally) burying the mistakes of the bureaus officers but I'm willing to pay it.

Even if we opt out of the cameras, I know I will personally be filming every police stop I witness.

223
shyra wade
March 18, 2015 at 2:48 PM
As long as the police can't turn them off at will I think this will be good for both citizens and cops cause we have faulty ass citizens and faulty ass cops but we also have innocent victims (citizens) and good cops

224
Steven Robinson
March 18, 2015 at 2:49 PM
It's actually a win win for law enforcement and civilians. There is no question police fabricate probable cause in many cases.

For an example:

I was driving and an officer pulled me over and claimed I was speeding at 3am. I knew I wasn't speeding and said so. All he had to support his claim was that he tracked me manually (conveniently didn't have radar) for 5 blocks and I went around a semi truck more than once. I was driving (allegedly 60 mph in a 35) if you do the math it was mathematically impossible to properly time me at that distance
It was my word against his... And the burden of proof should have been on him (pun intended).. To name a few incidents.

225
Meredith Barrioz
March 18, 2015 at 4:22 PM
Police and the public should be filming interactions with law enforcement. The public must have full access to all law enforcement video, audio, and written forms of documentation. Unedited video and audio access. Written documentation should be on a case by case basis so as not to compromise the integrity of an ongoing investigation/prosecution. Transparency is a must. Not every officer is suited for the job. The videos are a valuable tool in weeding out bad cops and vindicating good ones.

226
Sonia
March 18, 2015 at 4:25 PM
I think cameras would be a good start. Hopefully the bureau has studied what has and hasn't worked with body/car cameras in other cities. One example I can think of is when officers didn't turn their cameras on saying they forgot (whether it was intentional or not, I don't know but it is something to consider). I also think officers should be held accountable in some way when their camera is not turned on.

227
M Swift
March 18, 2015 at 4:28 PM
I'm very much in favor of Police Body Cameras.

228
Eric Matchett
March 18, 2015 at 4:37 PM
Under no circumstance should the officer wearing the body camera be able to turn it off. Access to that footage should be controlled by an independent agency based on citizen privacy concerns. When a patrol officer is on duty the camera is on. No exceptions.

229
Bob Haskins
March 18, 2015 at 4:37 PM
Has anyone considered self incrimination? The camera just recorded your actions, your testimony if you will. This is all prior to you being notified of your right not to self incriminate. Just saying...

230
Red Hamilton
March 18, 2015 at 4:40 PM
I think if they show the true nature of the stop, violence or situation than I support it. But as it stands now, Police are killing people with the all so convenient "He was reaching for my gun" or "He was resisting arrest. We have to think about the racial profiling that goes on daily- especially in Portland. We have to think about the people behind the badge, and why they harass and follow black men and people in their day to day jobs. That's the REAL problem. Internally we have to teach police that it's not ok to hate, discriminate and harass everyone that doesn't look like them. We should take the millions of dollars being spent on body cameras and spend it on diversity and racial sensitivity training, training for officers and community building.Honestly the camera's can be turned off or not even turned on because we know that police have to lie to justify their unlawful aggressions and the law will always believe them. I vote no cameras.

231
David F
March 18, 2015 at 4:45 PM
I am totally in favor of this.

232
daniele holloway
March 18, 2015 at 4:59 PM
I believe body cams are a good idea to protect citizens (mentally ill and people of color especially) from the police. The number of unlawful actions and excessive force incidents involving police is rising at an alarming rate. PPB has paid out millions of dollars in settlements or loss of trials. The deaths of James Chasse, Aaron Campbell, Kendra James and Keaton Otis (to name a few) could have been prevented if officers were wearing body cams,HOWEVER, I do not think they are the answer. In numerous cities across the country officers have been caught tampering with and turning off cams during incidents that may escalate into a use of force situation. Police accountability will be the ONLY thing that will protect officers and citizens. Hopefully, the DOJ agreement makes some changes, doubtful but hopefully.

233
Elizabeth Gibbeson
March 18, 2015 at 5:00 PM
I believe body cams can be an important tool for the police force. It can provide needed protection for officers in cases where questions come up later. It helps create trust with the community by providing transparency. I don't believe they need to be worn by every officer, but for those working on patrol. During investigations that are sensitive, I don't believe they should be worn. There are things I wouldn't want to talk about on camera and people may not be as open as they could be. Also, I just can't see a valid reason to wear one when interviewing minors or victims. When dealing with mentally ill folks, cameras could be a good tool for the officer. I do not think the videos should be released. They should be made available to attorneys or whoever has a need, but I think they are police property and should remain in police custody. If someone wants a video of their interaction with the police they should get their own camera.

234
Kurtis Engle
March 18, 2015 at 5:00 PM
Thanks for asking for input, instead of doing silly stuff like Seattle, and ignoring the complaints. Taking your queries one by one:

*Privacy issues that concern you.

Privacy is important, but should be handled when the information is released to the public, and not before. Until it is given to the News, it is evidence and should not be tampered with. You might remove something important that may ruin or exonerate a suspect, inappropriately. After release, it's News, and that is different in important ways.

*How to use the technology during sensitive investigations: domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse, response to care for someone needing mental health assistance?

The camera should be on all day long. There should be no way to turn it off except attaching it to the charger. That way, the camera will ALWAYS be on.

*Should footage be available to anyone who asks (this could include victim interviews, interior of homes, children, uninvolved community members, etc.)?

Footage should be available when there is a need to know; to the Department, to law enforcement generally, to the attorneys in any case relating to the specific video, whether it be a criminal matter or a complaint of officer conduct, and audio/video of interest to the general public should be available to and through the press AFTER bystanders identities are obscured by fuzzying their faces but not their hands. (the bystanders, not the officers or the people of interest) If the press passes that video on, that is what they were supposed to do with it. If anyone else passes the UNREDACTED video on, that would be a policy violation, potentially actionable.

*Once footage is released, should there be any restrictions on sharing and posting that video?

For the PRESS version, no. For the UNREDACTED version, yes.

*Other thoughts, suggestions or concerns you may have.

Like everything, this technology is a two edged sword. It will make very clear to everyone what misconduct is and who is responsible for it. On the other hand, prosecutions will in many cases be made much easier also. One could with justification remark, "Everyone wins". And perhaps that should be said. Change is something that causes change. And no one likes that. Because old habits die hard. And that is what this is about.

Thank you.
235
Jim D
March 18, 2015 at 5:10 PM
Will the officer notify me that I'm being filmed before filming starts? Do I have the right to deny being filmed if I am not under arrest? If either of these questions are "no" I do not support this practice. I currently have the privacy right to deny search or seizure without probable cause - I would assume I have the same privacy rights when it comes to being filmed and you should ensure they are as part of this new practice. You need to be very clear with citizens when it is appropriate/legal for officers to film us without our knowledge or permission. To be clear - my comments only apply to "body" cameras. I am in full support of vehicle mounted cameras.

236
john jolliff
March 18, 2015 at 5:33 PM
I think the Portland Police department is the best in the nation. I truly trust their judgment. If they want these cameras, I am for it. It is too bad they do not get more appreciation for the difficult job they have volunteered to do.

237
Charles Wiley
March 18, 2015 at 5:34 PM
I am in favor of body cameras for officers. No more questions about actions of the officers or the public.

238
Darlene Bensin
March 18, 2015 at 6:36 PM
I am in favor of all Police Officers being equipped with body cameras. Mostly, for the safety of, and allowing our officers to do their job, without the fear of being charged with a crime when what they are doing is trying to prevent crime and protect our Citizens. As far as privacy concerns go, I would assume that there will be restrictions as to whom, and under what circumstances that the filming would be shown. If it was used in a court case it should be used for only the jury, judge, and lawyers, not the media. I trust the City to make the right decisions when it comes to privacy for all Citizens and Police personnel.

239
Joshua Vierra
March 18, 2015 at 6:56 PM
If you are going to spend taxpayer money on body cameras, make it so the officer is not allowed to turn it off or remove it while on duty, undercover or not. If it malfunctions, there should be a backup and the officer would have to answer for any amount of time not recorded and if there is no explainable cause, they should be put under investigation and be put on unpaid leave if the unexplained malfunction resulted in an interaction not being recorded. Also, if the officer is found by a non-police/D.A. (group of citizens, kind of like a jury) entity to be guilty of turning off their cameras, or being negligent in charging their camera, they should be automatically fired, and jailed for destroying evidence. Also, certain situations the officer should have to turn off the camera, such as during strip searches, in which case the time the camera is turned on and off is recorded. Audio would still be recorded at all times. Oh, and an officer, before they say anything else to a person they approach, should be required to announce that they are recording video/audio.

240
Cousin it
March 18, 2015 at 7:14 PM
I think body cameras are absolutely worth a try for various reasons. To protect the public and also protect our valuable officers. It's sad it's come to this, but something has to be done to protect everyone involved. Too many false accusations and now people threatening to harm our officers. These things can only be resolved with proof so yes, it's time for this. Maybe the use of the cameras will be reason enough for people to behave. If I obey the law and have nothing to hide I should have no reason to be filmed in the first place.
I too believe the videos should be used for legal reasons only. Somehow they need to be held under lock and key with another camera in the storage room so they never end up on you-tube.

241
Jill Simpson
March 18, 2015 at 8:06 PM
If it helps to prove that the Police acted reasonably, then I am for it.

242
Matt S
March 18, 2015 at 8:15 PM
Accountability is tantamount in my workplace, and I would expect the same for the PPD/OSP/all other LEOs. The legal costs will plummet as video evidence will often exonerate the innocent and convict the guilty with much less lengthy trials. The only concern is finding new hires for when the corrupt are cut so easily and quickly. There is no moral downside, this will help to heal tensions across racial and socioeconomic lines, it will simplify officer involved incidents to allow LEOs to miss less work during investigations, and will ultimately change relations between citizens and LEOs, a relationship that has been strained as of late. The question is not whether to do it, the question is how soon can we implement it.

243
Greg Crowe
March 18, 2015 at 9:14 PM
The evidence behind law enforcement's use of body cameras is clear. Police who wear body cameras have reduced use of force incidents and reduced complaints against officers. From the perspective of the public and the perspective of police departments, this seems a clear win-win.

244
Anthony
March 19, 2015 at 8:00 AM
I am in favor of body cameras. Recording the truth is beneficial to citizens and officers.

Face blur should be added to publicly released footage of those individuals not relevant to a particular case (background people, not the officer or the citizen they are interacting with), with unblurred footage available for courts if it becomes relevant later. There are software programs that can do this automatically.

Yes, the footage should be available to the public. The truth does no good if it is hidden.

245
Citizen2
March 19, 2015 at 8:55 AM
Portland Police have still not respected the privacy of the public by fixing the glitch pointed out to them yesterday. The glitch allows the public to see the name and email address of any commentator on this thread.

Just another example of why the public doesn't trust the police.

246
Jack Inglis
March 19, 2015 at 9:06 AM
Portland's police have a long way to go before many in our community will feel there is trust and accountability. Body cameras are a very important step towards that goal- but only if there are very strict rules in place that prevent officers from manipulating when they are on or off. There can be no trust if officers can choose when they are on.

Please make this happen.

247
Timothy
March 19, 2015 at 9:08 AM
Head mounted cameras on the bill of a cap facing where the cop looks is crucial. As is continuos recording not reliant on the cop pressing record, live upload, and complete public access to the saved videos with passcode provided withinin hours, if not minutes, by public access request. This whole project should be administered by a new citizens cop watch department not affiliated with the police. These public interest folks will help the current stupidly high cost estimates to come back to reality to buy and operate cameras with server storage. And it will help ensure police don't accidentally fail to record as this new cop watch department will have the authority to suspend without pay any officer not transparently recording their interactions with the public.

I $750 iPhone with free iCloud photos could meet these needs. Surely an independent civic minded group of folks could find a better cost for this project, not only to make it more useful. But to simultaneously highlight the disgusting nature of how bloated this program has become.

248
Betty
March 19, 2015 at 9:08 AM
I am in favor of body cameras. Who has access to the tapes is a separate issue. I should think administration, court staff, lawyers, etc. should have free access, but I don't think the rest of us would relish seeing our own traffic stop on the 5:00 news.

249
Michael Stevens
March 19, 2015 at 9:29 AM
I'm in favor of body cams because it gives department a chance to see if any employees are above who they are, because yes 98% of cops are good, buts it's the 2% that make law enforcement get the bad wrap in the end. I'm in favor, and we get a second point of view on scene with the officer because a dash cam isn't the full view in the scene.

250
Wendy
March 19, 2015 at 10:50 AM
I am in favor of body camera. It is visual documentation of what occurred during the situation.

251
Zerdath
March 19, 2015 at 11:42 AM
I am in favor of body cameras, to protect and verify the story of both sides in an altercation. The cameras should record the entire time the officers are on duty. Not every incident gives them enough time to turn on the camera. And there should be suitable punishments for tampering with the cameras. And suitable protections of the recordings to be used for legal purposes only.

252
Ian stewart
March 19, 2015 at 11:47 AM
There is absolutely no reason why a police officer should decline having a body camera if they have nothing to hide. And likewise any individual on the receiving end of police attention should have no reason to fear being recorded unless they have something to hide as well.

Any possible downside to this is trivial, or selfish compared to what it offers that is positive.

253
Concerned Portland Gentleman
March 19, 2015 at 12:38 PM
Do it. Accountability seems to lead to more positive outcomes.

http://www.policefoundation.org/content/body-worn-cameras-police-use-force

254
Mark Birdsall
March 19, 2015 at 1:36 PM
I want to know what it will cost and if the public will be allowed access to the information. It sounds like a good idea, but without details it is hard to judge.

255
Beth
March 19, 2015 at 2:22 PM
In general, I think on body cameras are a good step, but I do not think they are only way to improve relations between police and the public. As we saw with the choking death of Eric Garner in New York, police abuse caught on camera does not necessarily change the outcome of police prosecutions. An additional step must be taken to provide further training and opportunities for the community and the police to build trust. Cameras alone will not improve community relations.

256
Jason flores
March 19, 2015 at 6:55 PM
I am very much in favor of on body cameras.
As a student in cognitive psychology
I know that memory is fallible and eyewitness testimony is notoriously error prone.
Cameras keep everyone honest and accountable
Both police and suspects.

257
roy
March 19, 2015 at 7:34 PM
Since Portland police has a history of police brutality, absolutely the cameras should be required,along with tasers. Too many people in this country are being murdered by cops with itchy trigger fingers.Once a cops shift starts they shouldn't be able to be shut off either.

258
Matthew
March 19, 2015 at 7:58 PM
I am in favor of cameras.

259
Matt
March 19, 2015 at 9:49 PM
Footage taken by body cameras should be made available as soon as possible to any person accused of a crime or pressing charges against individual officers, or their legal representation, in an easily accessible video format (e.g. MP4, WMV), and it should be up to their sole discretion as to whether said footage is made available publicly. All footage should also be archived for a long period of time, several years at least, regardless of relevance to any legal cases.

260
Jymmi Sparkz
March 20, 2015 at 6:04 AM
Body cameras seem to be a good idea, my concern is avoiding expensive problems in the storage of the data on them.
Cudos to all the Officers for their bravery in service and their excellence at fairness in the community. Be safe.

261
Dane Lepsey
March 20, 2015 at 9:44 AM
We as a family strongly agree with body cameras for the safety of officers. It would clear up many questionable situation and hopefully restore the trust in the people that our officers work hard to do what is right while keeping their selves safe.

262
Dawn Luethe
March 20, 2015 at 10:22 AM
I am 100% for body camera's. I think they will protect our police force from most of the complaints they receive, and be able to help the public in the rare cases the police act more aggressively than they should have. They would be a great training tool for the officers to use after the call. I have two concerns. The first one is how they are shown to the public. I think there should be a privacy policy similar to the HIPA policy that is used in medical situations. I do not think they should be available to the public, but shown to a review board to make any determination needed. If there is a lawsuit, then they should be available to the public after it is completed. My other concern would be jury trials. Most of the public that would be on the jury are not trained to see the same things the police are trained to see in regards to how a person is acting suspiciously, and to have an idea that they are going to react badly before they do. I would want to make sure they have expert witness to explain some of this to the jury.

263
Gloria Bouchor Luzader
March 20, 2015 at 1:06 PM
I am in favor of the police wearing and using body cameras. This is a safety issue for the police and the public. I feel horridly violated being "on-film" by the abundance of smart phones from unknown persons.

264
Mike
March 20, 2015 at 1:37 PM
I'm in favor of body cameras

265
John Schoonover
March 20, 2015 at 8:07 PM
Cameras should be on at all times. The only exceptions are when the officers are on a bathroom break which should be logged in with the dispatcher. The excuse of I forgot to turn it on will come with an immediate 30 day suspension without pay.
A camera that is turned in as malfunctioning will be turned in to an authorized technician to be certified as being in working condition. A camera with three certified instances of malfunctioning in a one year period will be permanently removed from service.
Cameras should be “point of view” of what the officer is SEEING. The cameras should be either worn as glasses, or like a Bluetooth device, or mounted on a hat. They should ALWAYS point to where the officer is looking. Body cameras do no good if the officer is turned due north but a sudden noise or action is due south.
The camera device should have a red light (or some indication) that the device is on and recording which is indicated to the officer and to the general public.
The recordings should be held for a length of time commensurate with the commonly held statute of limitations with crimes which occurred during that shift. If the officer was involved in a riot situation or murder that recording should probably held in perpetuity. If it was an everyday shift of general interactions and traffic stops it would seem that five years should be long enough.
The recordings should be available to the officer to defend himself against accusations from the general public, and they should also be available to the person involved in an interaction with the officer to prove their side of an interaction.
The recordings should be made available to media IF they show through a COURT ORDER that the recordings are needed to show/prove accusations against an officer in a particular situation or to prove the ongoing actions of the officer or department are detrimental to the general public in an ongoing manner.
If the victim or officer feel they need to release the recording to the general public to prove their point, they should be able to. But the general public should not have “open book” rights to anything that they wish to see. IF A COIURT feels there are legitimate reasons to release the recordings in public, then they must be released.
It should be noted that the camera works in the officers behalf in more instances than not, and they should be encouraged to use them at all times. Personally I see something in the realm of Google Glass devices as being the perfect type of device. If built in a durable condition the officer can also be given “heads up display” type information that will aid in his everyday work and interactions.

Several departments have shown that citizen complaints against officers have dropped by up to 80% or more, due to changes in officers behavior while wearing cameras and the public’s acknowledgement that the officers have something to fall back on to disprove their allegations.

266
vicki ezell
March 21, 2015 at 8:09 AM
Accountability for the police and citizens with the use of on body cameras. Everyone wins. Totally for on body camera use.

267
Trevor Shepard
March 21, 2015 at 11:15 AM
I think that body cameras will serve to protect both officers and the public by bringing transparency to the police/citizen interactions. For privacy reasons, I think video of said cameras should not be public, but having them as a reservoir of reliable evidence is great!

268
Aubre Gilbert
March 21, 2015 at 11:27 AM
Part of me is concerned that cyber crime will present obstacles in keeping the information private. However, I think that a tool to increase accountability will go far to prepare the broken relationship between citizens and police. I am in favor of body cameras.

269
Tammy Ryan
March 21, 2015 at 8:51 PM
100% in favor of body cameras for all PPB officers. Anyone involved in criminal activity have by choice given up their right to privacy, victims do deserve privacy but I am unsure how to protect them other than blurring their image. Release the video to anyone, in a reasonable time frame for a fee to cover costs of producing the video clip, and labor hours for responding to the requests.

270
Neil Wagner
March 22, 2015 at 9:27 AM
I'm in favor of the cameras I don't want our police to hesitate when trying to protect me.

271
Robert Voss
March 22, 2015 at 9:31 AM
Yes to body cameras.
Yes to changing allocation of car cam money to body cams.
Yes to (as some cities have already done) switching burden of proof onto police personnel who develop a technical problem with body cams during a confrontation with the public.

272
Pontine Rosteck
March 22, 2015 at 9:59 AM
I am very strongly in favor of body cameras.

273
Gary Rosteck
March 22, 2015 at 10:02 AM
Yes for body cameras. would like the tapes available to public/police review board, unedited.

274
Anonymous
March 22, 2015 at 11:38 AM
I support police officers wearing body cameras. I believe it will assist both the PPB and those involved in an incident. However, I am deeply concerned with the policies that may be established by the PPB regarding when and under what circumstances officers can turn off the body cameras. I have viewed numerous OSP body camera videos where the officers either turned off the audio or video. Just leaves the perception, whether true or not, that the police are doing something "sketchy". If the bureau is that worried about what officers might say our divulge while responding to an incident, I would suggest the entire video and audio be preserved and edited, if necessary, after it has been scrutinized by both the prosecutor, defense and the bureau. It lends itself to trust that is built through the transparency of the process.

275
RICHARD SILVA
March 22, 2015 at 4:05 PM
Officers on duty are public employees and personal body cameras should be part of their normal equipment just as much as a badge and uniform. Their recent actions and protestations of innocence have brought them to the point of being distrusted and disbelieved in the communities they serve. (See the Oregonian editorial about POA Daryl Turner, 3/22/15.) Cameras might help repair their reputation and demonstrate that they are not gun-happy cowboys. If they are to regain my respect they need to demonstrate cooperation, not obstruction of the Independent Police Review Board. I strongly support mandatory use of personal cameras by uniformed officers as soon as possible. Obstruction by the POA should be replaced with eager and enthusiastic adoption. It will protect the officer as well as the public. I am a white male conservative 75 years old. Enough of this.

276
Marissa
March 24, 2015 at 9:44 AM
Body cameras are a great resource, but they're expensive. The real investment here should be in education. Racism is one aspect of our society that is impossible to ignore or separate from ourselves. The existence of racism doesn't mean that people are bad, it means that people are made up of the stuff around them, and racism is one of those things. Racism, of course, is very bad. We know that whiteness is preferred and implicitly associated with goodness. Alternatively, blackness is associated with badness. (See Harvard Project Implicit and many, many studies on the matter)

Police officers have an incredible opportunity to be guardians of our communities, but a tremendous responsibility to act justly. I believe that time and resources need to be spent in educating officers on cultural training. They need to understand a bit of the historical trauma experienced by communities of color. They need need to know about racism, and begin to accept that- while not necessarily racists- racism does indeed affect them. Police officers need to be trained to have more of an awareness of the complexity that is race in America.

277
Jack Smith
March 24, 2015 at 10:38 AM
I think time has come to do just that. ..

278
Kim Degutis
March 24, 2015 at 10:41 AM
I am all for body cameras on law enforcement officers. It protects officers from claims of brutality, protects citizens if officers are too violent, and would confirm actions by officers in questionable cases (think Ferguson if officer Wilson had one, varying witness accounts would not have gummed up the investigation).

Protect our officers, get the body cameras.

279
Roger
March 24, 2015 at 11:48 AM
Body cameras are a simple way to increase transparency in police actions. They are just a piece in the puzzle, though. Without a working system for addressing citizen complaints and reprimanding or prosecuting officers that violate the law, the cameras have no utility. It's an important prong in an approach to ensuring proper policing - but implementing body cameras should be more than a concession to concerns, a bargaining chip. Reform is needed in more areas.

280
Leora Mahoney
March 24, 2015 at 12:16 PM
Go for it, anything to help our officers.

281
tcvm
March 24, 2015 at 12:42 PM
I am in favor of body cameras and believe the footage should be easy to acquire.

282
Luann Hopkins
March 24, 2015 at 12:43 PM
I feel the on body cameras protect both the police officers and the public. I feel there will need to be some privacy boundaries as far as releasing videos. Children, domestic violence victims, and other sensitive situations would preclude release to general public or news agencies.; but, of course, should be used in incident reviews in-house or in court.

283
Portland Copwatch
March 24, 2015 at 1:03 PM
To the Portland Police Bureau:

As we mentioned in our previous post, Portland Copwatch has taken a neutral position on the issue of body cameras, but we have numerous concerns which need to be addressed if the Bureau decides to adopt them. One of our more serious concerns, that cameras will be used far more frequently to support the prosecution of community members than to hold officers accountable, is not addressed at all in the questions raised by the Bureau. In an era where the Bureau (and the City) is focused on Equity, getting a tool that will likely lead to more people of color going to jail should definitely be part of the consideration of the "yes" or "no" to body cams question. (For example, a recent story on Oregon City's adoption of video cameras only talks about the uptick in prosecutions and says nothing about officer misconduct: <http://portlandtribune.com/pt/9-news/245113-111707-ocpd-testing-body-cameras-on-officers-while-theyre-on-duty>.)

With regard to the Oregon Revised Statute we referenced earlier, ORS 181.575 which prohibits law enforcement from collecting OR maintaining information on people's social, political or religious affiliations, we've long disagreed with the City Attorney who says collecting that information is happening "inadvertently and not deliberately." The statute does not differentiate motive; it was created to stop police from spying on the community.*

As a group that tapes and trains and encourages people to tape the police, we're all for community members holding the cops accountable, but not the state (/law enforcement) gathering info on us. When community members tape the police, the camera is pointed to show what the police are doing. When the police tape, the camera is facing away from the officers.

More detailed examples might be the recent footage released of officers rescuing an infant in a submerged car: <http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/14/us/utah-baby-submerged-car/> where the scene feels very dramatic but it is actually very difficult to tell what is going on. Imagine such chaotic footage from officer cameras in the case of Jason Cox, whose lawyers secured a major jury verdict when Portland officers beat him on a third-party security camera. <http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2014/09/portlandjuryawards_tomanbe.html>
The body cameras attached to the police at best would look like a flurry of arms and clothing, but probably would not show the body blows or even the Taser use against Mr. Cox.

We were very cautious when the Bureau brought Tasers to Portland in 2004 as a response to the Jose Mejia Poot and Kendra James shootings. Amnesty International had already put out alerts as to the dangers of the weapons. (And the very mature, multi-millionaire CEO of Taser called them "Amnesty Irrational" in an email to us.) It wasn't until about 7 years later and 300 more deaths that Taser finally admitted the weapons yeah, maybe, might be able to cause death. (And Portland Police started by using them 300 times a year, now use them about 100 times a year, but only shoot people 4 times a year... in other words, Tasers were not a replacement for deadly force, but a new kind of weapon that's being over-used.) At least one person, Timothy Grant, died in Portland after being hit by a Taser.

It's not a coincidence, we think, that Taser is one of the manufacturers of the cop cams. Or that they were the ones who paid for the one study that keeps being cited over and over again, in Rialto, making it seem like an accountability "magic bullet." As we wrote about this study in our newsletter (<http://www.portlandcopwatch.org/PPR64/CopCams64.html>), "Using a test and a control group, this study found camera use led to a 59% reduction in use of force incidents and a 87.5% reduction in complaints. However, these reductions are based on the difference from one year to the next, not the difference between the control and test groups."

An article published on March 18 about San Diego's camera program talks about the drop in force and the drop in complaints the same way-- comparing one year to the next but not comparing the officers with cameras to those without.
<http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-body-cameras-20150318-story.html>
The article also ascribes the drop in complaints to people knowing their complaints were false, which is not provable without asking all people who had encounters if they thought they were mistreated and if so, why they didn't file a complaint. It could, of course, also be the result of the officers modifying their behavior because of the cameras.

A meta-study that gathers information from other studies says there is not enough information to know whether the cameras affect police behavior-- it also shows that the Rialto study was not peer-reviewed.
<https://ojpdiagnosticcenter.org/sites/default/files/spotlight/download/Police%20Officer%20Body-Worn%20Cameras.pdf>

Getting back to the issue of the cameras leading to more convictions, we believe that for every
one officer who acts better knowing he/she is being recorded, there will be twenty people (and in Portland, at least 4 of them will probably be African American, over-represented by 3x) who will be convicted for some minor offense that happens to be caught on the camera. And for every cop that gets held accountable for misconduct there will be several dozen people convicted because they didn't know their Miranda right to remain silent.

These are rhetorical statistics, not based on any of the research, just to make the point that these cameras have as much of a downside as potential. As an organization, we certainly don't want to be on record praising the wonders of police cameras only to find that the main purpose of them is to convict more community members, to gather intelligence on people's political activity, or to collect information on politicians or others that can be used to coerce their behavior.

We at PCW aren't actively working to oppose body cams, but we also can't actively support them unless we have a chance to give "your rights" trainings to all 1 million people in the metropolitan area first so they don't say something incriminating on the cameras. That is because, as people know from the Miranda warning, "anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law."

A September 2014 Oregonian article on body cameras quoted the US Dept of Justice expressing concerns about privacy and Miranda rights.
<http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2014/09/mayorcharliehalespushingfo.html>

And while the ACLU of Oregon, which authored ORS 181.575, is more comfortable with body cameras than other kinds of government surveillance, the ACLU's national policy states:

For the ACLU, the challenge of on-officer cameras is the tension
between their potential to invade privacy and their strong benefit in
promoting police accountability. Overall, we think they can be a
win-win--but only if they are deployed within a framework of strong
policies to ensure they protect the public without becoming yet
another system for routine surveillance of the public, and maintain
public confidence in the integrity of those privacy protections.
Without such a framework, their accountability benefits would not
exceed their privacy risks.

<https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/police-body-mounted-cameras-right-policies-place-win-all>

The National ACLU also notes, as we have, that most dashboard cams are activated when police car overhead lights are turned on, which presumably means the officer is investigating some kind of criminal activity. If these cameras are on all the time it becomes a surveillance tool. In an analysis about this issue, members of "We Copwatch," a Bay-Area-centered but national Copwatch group, wrote:

Across the country, body cameras are being purchased by police
departments in the name of transparency. According to a widely
publicized study, Rialto, California, boasted an 88% drop in
complaints in the first year after the cameras were introduced there,
along with a 60% drop in police use of force. Rialto is a small city
with only 66 cops, and its Police Chief, Tony Farrar, collaborated with
Taser International, Inc., in the study. The Taser corporation has
gained record profits by marketing body cameras to hundreds of cities,
along with a cloud-based backup and search service called Evidence.com,
which was used to collect the data for the Rialto study that led to
many of these sales.

Even the study's authors acknowledged that their methodology was
flawed, because no evidence was collected from the members of the
public who were also being videotaped by the wearable cameras to see
how that influenced their behavior in relation to the police and their
willingness to make complaints. Tasers involvement should be a red
flag to anyone who thinks these cameras are an easy tech fix for
police accountability, as should the publics inability to access the
body cam video recordings.

<http://wecopwatch.org/police-cameras-quick-fix-for-police-misconduct-or-counter-surveillance-tool/>

A videographer who's faced off with police and created the site "Photography is Not a Crime" addresses the claim that body cameras will decrease use of force, noting:

That logic falls apart if we take a look at the Albuquerque
Police Department which introduced body-mounted cameras in 2010 -- one
of the first departments in the country to do so -- only to continue
to see an unsettling number of violent incidents against citizens.

They killed so many citizens since introducing the cameras that the
United States Department of Justice launched an investigation in late
2012, citing an unusually high number of incidents resulting in
"excessive force, including use of unreasonable deadly force, in their
encounters with civilians."

But even the USDOJ investigation, launched around the time the Rialto
Police Department issued cameras to its officers, did nothing to curb
the aggressiveness because cops continued killing citizens, not in the
least bit swayed by the pending investigation.

<http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2014/03/25/study-contrasts-rialto-police-albuquerque-police-regards-body-mounted-cameras/>

Again, if the City decides to go ahead with this program, which it has been noted elsewhere will be incredibly expensive to maintain, we strongly urge the Bureau to look at the restrictions proposed in legislation that was introduced by Rep. Jennifer Williamson, HR 2757:
<https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB2757/Introduced>
Not only does this bill require limiting storage to one year unless there's misconduct (or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity), but it prohibits use of the video if those conditions don't exist (except for law enforcement training, which is of concern). It requires the storage be done by a third party who is not the vendor of the camera. (We hope this means the Bureau can't use Taser's spin-off corporation that manages data for its cameras.) The bill also wisely addresses the release of footage by requiring all the civilians who are on the footage to give permission for it to be released.

Please feel free to contact us at <copwatch@portlandcopwatch.org> or 503-236-3065 if you have any questions.

--dan handelman
--Portland Copwatch
copwatch@portlandcopwatch.org

Our organization has been spied on at least twice by the PPB for fully lawful 1st Amendment activities, once in 1992 (when the file created was titled "Civilian Police Review Board") and once in 1998 (which noted that Dan Handelman is an organizer of demonstrations around US policy in Iraq, but made no allegation of criminal conduct).
<http://www.aracnet.com/~copwatch/spycase2005.html>

284
D. Mcghean
March 24, 2015 at 2:38 PM
Definatly in favor of cameras. Our police need protection from misleading claims.

285
Bob Haskins
March 24, 2015 at 3:13 PM
No cameras period. If you do not trust the police, when you are in trouble, do not call them. Obey the laws and there is no reason to fear. If you really are in fear of the police, fire them and start over, but if you do, what changes?

286
Patrick Ebert
March 24, 2015 at 3:33 PM
Excellent idea.

287
Philip C
March 24, 2015 at 4:58 PM
I'm not sure why the public should have to pay for more equipment to police the police, if that's really what the body cameras are for. If we don't trust the officers perhaps there needs to be more pressure from the courts and power given to the oversight committees to fire dishonorable officers and charge them with crimes such as lying, assault, etc.

In the recent case of Thai Gurule, the judge ruled in favor of Gurule against the police testimony because of three private videos recording the events. Yet, Daryl Turner, president of the Portland Police Union made a statement: "The officers' reasonable perceptions count, not video footage." "In this case, the cell phone video footage does not capture the physical struggle from the officers' perspective, nor does it capture the officers' reasonable, split-second decision-making and thought processes in tense circumstances." If this is the attitude of the police union president, disregarding video footage from three different angles, does he speak for the rest of the police force?

If the police do have body cameras will they do everything they can to make them as ineffective as possible when it comes to police accountability? Next will they be removing the transmitting antennas like the LAPD or purposely making the video shaky or angling the camera so you can't see what they're doing? There's so many ways to avoid accountability with the cameras. Perhaps a year long test would make sense to allow the civilian review committee to evaluate the effectiveness of the cameras. Or only having the cameras on officers who have had multiple complaints filed against them.

288
Kenny Housman
March 24, 2015 at 7:16 PM
Provides for officers safety (eyes are on you making it difficult to get away with assaulting an officee. Should cut down on court cost. Court should make choice on when where and what is shown.
Loud verbal warning you are being recorded.
All this should do the trick.
PS penalties for not turning on or tampering with recordings.

289
Brendan Wright
March 24, 2015 at 8:19 PM
I support them. They've done great things in other places for increasing accountability, and decreasing litigation. It's like call recording in financial institution call centers-- it protects everyone involved, because you can establish a clear picture of what went on, and who said and did what.

290
Bill Purcell
March 24, 2015 at 9:17 PM
You're under enough scrutiny/pressure. Stupid idea.

291
Rick M
March 24, 2015 at 9:33 PM
Big yes for body cameras. Anything that encourages officers to use less force AND encourages civilians to behave better is worth the effort.

292
Tim Clouse
March 24, 2015 at 9:59 PM
i am in favor of police wearing body cameras. Personally I believe it would reduce or eliminate the constant spurious attempts by people to falsely accuse offices of wrong doing as well as give a "police eye view" of what was happening. Cameras are everywhere. Police are going to have video of them taken. I think it's in thier favor to have a complete unedited officer view point to present right at the start vs. having to piece things together or worst case scenario, just thier word against a picture.

293
JP
March 24, 2015 at 10:07 PM
I am in favor of all local departments officers wear body cams. I was leaving a store tonight after purchasing some energy drinks for the morning. I saw a car prowler (white male, 50's, smoking marijuana publicly, and looking through cars on a BMX bike with a flashlight.). Knowing my home town I knew an officer would be close by. I managed to flag one down but in the process was humiliated and scolded. I think having the body cameras would give officers accountability and not allow them to abuse their authority. I have also learned just to mind my own business and move on. I will never again reach out to an officer for help. They do more harm than good these days. And that's a sad feeling to have. And it's like that everywhere. Just watch the evening news.

294
Mark
March 24, 2015 at 10:08 PM
Absolutely yes.

295
nathan
March 24, 2015 at 10:16 PM
There a lot of abuse toward police officers and that abuse should have charges.

296
Hannah
March 24, 2015 at 10:17 PM
Yes, a thousand times yes, body cameras should be required every where not just in Portland. There is no downside,but so many benefits. The best one being with body cameras the chances of a police officer misbehaving or using his authority wrongly will go down. We will now be able to see if a police officer who shot someone 2x is justified. Of course this isn't a huge issue in Portland, but that's why I stated earlier that is should be required everywhere.

297
Cary Danielson
March 24, 2015 at 10:36 PM
I am torn about this question. On the one hand, yes to protect those who potentialy may get abused. On the other, to protect those who are in the worst moment of their lives....humm? If we could only trust the pd! In a perfect world......

298
Jeannette Bardi
March 24, 2015 at 11:07 PM
I am FOR the camera's being worn by ALL POLICE.

299
clinton kruse
March 24, 2015 at 11:20 PM
I a truck driver and was pulled over about 2 weeks ago by osp trooper. And he had 1 of those cameras on him. He asked me if he could record us i said yes go ahead. Thats my 1st time with a police officer haven 1 of those body cams. I felt very glad that the trooper had 1. It think it keeps everything on the up and up for everyone. I think it should be mandatory That all law
Enforcement have a body cam. So i support this.

300
L. Morgan
March 24, 2015 at 11:56 PM
Body cameras protect police and civilians. Yes to body cameras.

301
Cynthia
March 25, 2015 at 12:45 AM
Definitely in favor for officers to have body cameras. I think this would be a great tool in many situations and would provide real and accurate information.

302
Tom
March 25, 2015 at 4:33 AM
I am in favor.

303
Robyn
March 25, 2015 at 5:09 AM
YES! I am for body cameras. It's a great medium. We need to make some type of change to better our police and lessen the number of fatalities.

304
Mark A Hanson
March 25, 2015 at 7:21 AM
I see no issue with body cams. They will help protect the police officers from false claims by people.

305
juleskar
March 25, 2015 at 7:23 AM
Heck yes!!

306
Amy
March 25, 2015 at 8:04 AM
I am all for the PPD wearing body cameras. In today's society, it is time to hold everyone accountable for their actions.

307
Kayla
March 25, 2015 at 8:11 AM
I am in favor of the body cameras.

308
Pam
March 25, 2015 at 8:16 AM
Wearing body cams is a good idea-it protects everyone involved in an incident. However, they need to stay turned on. They don't need to be too easy to turn off-defeating their purpose. If an officer is on break, except for bathroom visits, they should stay turned on also. Consider the 4 officers on break at the Starbucks that were shot at....

309
Neil Obrien
March 25, 2015 at 8:18 AM
I believe it would benefit both sides equally. I also believe very strongly police need it for their own protection. There's to much controversy in America on how our police treat the people. By all means let the police have all the aides to better their job an life's.

310
Sheri Sachse
March 25, 2015 at 8:34 AM
It's a good idea not only for accountability reasons but safety ones as well. For our officers and the public. The gate swings both ways.

311
Mikaela O
March 25, 2015 at 8:34 AM
I am in favor! It will hopefully eliminate any gray areas that may occur during a stop.

312
Steve C
March 25, 2015 at 8:40 AM
Yes. The people who want it the most will be shocked when it's the police being harassed, threatened on a daily basis. let the truth come to light.

313
Erin Coy
March 25, 2015 at 8:41 AM
I am in favor of police wearing camera's, for the citizens and the police officers themselves.

314
John cuyler
March 25, 2015 at 8:44 AM
if transparency is the goal, then police officers must wear body cameras. They must never be turned off, and anybody should be able to view the video.

I have grown up with mostly distrust toward police, because while there may be many good cops, there are easily as many that are not. Just because a person is talking to a policeman should not automatically mean that they are either a criminal or suspect. Also, because a person becomes a policeman/woman does not mean that they are ideal for the job. There are many policemen who are certainly jaded, mad at the world, or worst and likely most common of all, on a POWER TRIP. This is not good, and the only way we'll regain this trust lost is by not sweeping this stuff under the rug but by facing it in the great wide open, so that the cops that are doing a good job get their deserved commendations, and those who are not get stripped of their badge.

It is time for police to be a real part of the community, not a thing to be

315
Paige
March 25, 2015 at 8:46 AM
I am in favor of body cameras but also in training for officers to de-escalate situations.

316
Amber Ashlock
March 25, 2015 at 8:49 AM
I am in favor of body cameras.

317
Scott
March 25, 2015 at 8:57 AM
Body cameras would be a way to effectively protect the officers, as well as citizens. This is a great idea.

318
Josh
March 25, 2015 at 8:57 AM
Yes please use body cameras that can not be alters or shut off for convince!

319
James Daniel
March 25, 2015 at 8:58 AM
Body-cams protect both the officer and the public.
This is a no-brainer...
Body-cams=YES

320
Eunice
March 25, 2015 at 8:59 AM
I think body cams, with restrictions as to when & who sees the footage, would be a very good thing.

It would protect Truth & Integrity, for all parties concerned. which could serve to remove doubt by having transparency for what the officer sees.

BUT - in the same token, officers shouldn't insist that bystanders videotaping a crime scene should turn off their cameras!!

It must go both ways to be just.

321
Keshia Schneider
March 25, 2015 at 9:16 AM
I am completely in favor. Not only would cameras serve as protection for residents but also for officers.

322
Linda Justice
March 25, 2015 at 9:22 AM
I support cameras..keeps both sides honest.

323
Kris
March 25, 2015 at 9:27 AM
Why would the videos be open to the public? I believe that they should wear body cameras however I don't believe just anyone should be able to view what is taped. I think that viewing what is taped should be limited to the people involved or supervisors of the officers or someone's lawyer. I worry that if the general public can view every call, there will be copies of them on the internet.

324
Anthony B.
March 25, 2015 at 9:27 AM
I'm in 100% support of officers wearing body cameras. I believe not only will it serve the purpose of making a stronger case against the people the break the law. It will reduce greatly these non factual "racist" attacks and we will finally know the truth about the officer's decision.

325
Amy K
March 25, 2015 at 9:50 AM
I am in support of body cameras. It preserves the facts of any investigation. It protects everyone involved, including the police officer.

326
Sally Williams
March 25, 2015 at 9:55 AM
I agree 100% with Police officers wearing a camera. The questions I have are mostly on the details. Who will have access to start or stop the recording? Who will have access to these recording? Can the party involved with the police officer request copies of the video? The fear is, if the police officer or police officers are in charge of the questions above, there is room for police tampering. Maybe an outside agency/ third party should handle the video/camera logistics.

327
victoria roscoe
March 25, 2015 at 9:56 AM
I am in favor of police wearing body cameras.

328
Lora Shamblin
March 25, 2015 at 10:09 AM
I am 100% for body cameras. Can these also be put on our K-9 units as well. I am still in mourning over Mitch who was shot during a chase on robbers

329
TONY PRYOR
March 25, 2015 at 10:16 AM
I TRULY BELIEVE IN THE USE OF BODY CAMERAS ..

330
Nate Gwartney
March 25, 2015 at 10:17 AM
I support officers wearing body cameras. Officers could use this protection against false claims. If ever Tom, Dick, and Harry can whip out a cell phone and start recording police officers, the officers should have the right to record as well.

331
D furlow
March 25, 2015 at 10:18 AM
Absolutely police should wear them, just as you have a few bad people there are some bad police, and this would hold them accountable and protect them from false actuations.

332
Jon Simonson
March 25, 2015 at 10:18 AM
Not a bad idea but the video should be auto deleted after 30 days if no one requests that it should be saved for further review.

Requests to save the video data could be for various preselected reasons.

Some examples would include:

An arrest was made.
A person who was at the scene of the video requests further review for the purposes of potentially filing a complaint.(person or their family or lawyer).
An injury and/or accident occurred.
Third parties unrelated to the video would not be able to request data be saved.

333
Debra Porter
March 25, 2015 at 10:23 AM
Completely in favor!

334
James Jamison
March 25, 2015 at 10:25 AM
Yes they should, for their protection as well as any citizens that they interact with.

335
Andrew B
March 25, 2015 at 10:26 AM
I am in favor of the body cameras, however I feel the video footage should not be openly available to the public unless directly relevant to a trial or investigation. Attorneys should have access of course, but my concern is that if there is an open database of video footage that the general public can access, then video footage inside somebody's home may be used to "case" somebody's home or even harass them. What's inside, how many people live there, what color is the furniture, etc. I feel a balance needs to be found where the footage is attainable but only when it needs to be or there are concerns with the way officers performed. Perhaps some sort of formal request for footage needs to be filed, then reviewed before it is granted so legitimate claims can be determined.

I also don't want the footage used to harass our police officers. I worry if footage is openly available to anyone anytime, people may start trying to be "managers" of the police force and concern themselves with things that they do not need to be concerned with. I'm not sure if a complete recording of every officer's day is even being considered here, but if it is I don't believe it would be productive for people to listen to every word that comes out of their mouths when they are sitting idle for a moment or eating their lunch or whatever. Again, refer to my first paragraph for where it would be relevant and when it would be available.

Thank you for consulting the public on this.

336
JP
March 25, 2015 at 10:38 AM
I strongly support the use of body cameras, both for the protection of the City and the officers, and for the public. Three years ago I filed a complaint against a Portland PD officer for childish and rude behavior while on duty. The department handled the complaint well, and took measures to improve the officer's behavior. HOWEVER, I have to think that if the officer had been wearing a camera, he'd have conducted himself in a more professional manner to start with.

337
Jeanne Wheeler
March 25, 2015 at 10:48 AM
I am in favor of cameras on police officers.

338
Paul Parker
March 25, 2015 at 11:39 AM
With the track record of Portland Police
They should absolutely be required to wear cameras!

They need accountability for their actions.

Too often - too many unresolved questions regarding use of excessive force and dead bodies.

339
David
March 25, 2015 at 11:40 AM
I am in favor of the body cameras.

340
PD
March 25, 2015 at 11:52 AM
I believe cameras are a good idea and video from incidents should be posted quickly after an alleged incident before there is too much time for the press and others to "speculate" and spread rumors about what happened.

341
Mary Ann
March 25, 2015 at 11:52 AM
A good idea IF they are kept private by the Police Dept., and are NOT available for the internet.

342
brandon
March 25, 2015 at 12:34 PM
It's about Damn time. I fully agree they need cameras. It will hopefully prevent police from lying and hurting innocent ppl. Hey Mabey if we are lucky they will even stick to the oath they made when they took the job haha lmao! I doubt it though....

343
Alex
March 25, 2015 at 12:36 PM
Altercations being recorded by voice has helped so much with false accusations on both sides of the spectrum. I believe replacing them with a microphone/camera combination will further help reduce those false accusations. I hope that this will set a trend of a new norm across America. Police are often seen as tyrants, power hungry ticket writers. This could bring them back into the community instead of above it. Hopefully this will force more police to be accountable for their actions and also help them against false accusations of brutality.

344
Terrina
March 25, 2015 at 12:39 PM
I am in favor of police wearing a body camera.

345
Hannah
March 25, 2015 at 12:51 PM
I think cameras bring more accountability and will protect the public from officers who break the law and rules but also for the public who accuse officers wrongfully.

I think cameras need to be on every vehicle and every officer and not have the ability to be disabled. We have seen videos in some cities where officers turned off cameras as they beat citizens.

I think PPB's Policy Manual also needs to be updated to make it a serious disciplinary infraction to tamper with or turn off cameras.

346
Danielle Raichel
March 25, 2015 at 1:01 PM
I'm in favor.

347
Pat Hampton
March 25, 2015 at 1:10 PM
I believe Portland police should wear body cameras and there would be consequences for not wearing the camera, not having it turned on or filming in front of the officer. A driver refusing the breathalyzer is considered drunk and arrested. It seem that if no film of a police event can be produced that the officer is guilty. Actually the camera would protect officers from unjust accusations and protect the innocent from police brutality. Camara / microphones would force officers to do what they are suppose to be doing rather than parking beside a fellow officer visiting or time in the donut shop. There would be more respect for the police that were protecting the public instead of the police being shown as harassing and provoking the public.

348
Cindy Fisk
March 25, 2015 at 1:14 PM
I think using body cameras is a great idea. It will not only give the police another way to protect themselves from hearsay but it should make the public feel safe when dealing with the police. Personally I always side with the police but I know a lot of people always believe the stories that the police set people up. The cameras should put a stop to that. If the money is already available to put these into use, please do so as soon as possible.

349
Shane PDX
March 25, 2015 at 1:24 PM
I see no downside to having a more thorough, unbiased view of what happens in high-stress situations where events may not be remembered or restated correctly by the various individuals involved or observing. Get them on our officers as soon as possible.

350
Jamie W
March 25, 2015 at 1:29 PM
I am in favor of camera's

I do not see any reason to make special rules for sensitive investigations, footage should be made available to the proper agencies for review and action.

I think in the spirit of disclosure it should be available to anyone who fills out a request and their information, (ID, Fingerprint, photo, etc) would be kept as record of access. It should only be viewed at a police station where steps are made to make sure it was not removed in any way (cell phones or camera's) that should limit people requesting video for illegal reasons.

Video should never be reproduced or shared externally. law agencies should be able to view the footage in some kind of restricted way during an investigation.

351
Vicnete
March 25, 2015 at 1:41 PM
I want Gresham Police to have these Camera's as well Gresham Police are out of out of control and revenue collectors and violations of peoples Rights out here in Gresham Oregon soon myself will put my rights of free speech out to be known about this and Gresham police are harassing people like myself

352
KD
March 25, 2015 at 2:18 PM
I am in favor.

353
Joseph Cooper
March 25, 2015 at 2:26 PM
I cannot think of an instance where a body camera would be detrimental accept if they are only to be used by the police as a propaganda tool to sway public opinion in their favor. Camera's keep people honest. Obviously if there is a naked guy running down the street or someone is telling an officer personal information then that part should be cut out. The incident in question should be able to be viewed by the public though so we can make up our own minds how the police are doing their jobs.. I mean the fact that you are having to ask really makes me already think that your ability to use common sense is maybe not as good as it should be? Don't let them edit their own footage, and make them turn them on at every stop or face penalties so we don't get the excuse they forgot to turn it on before they shot someone to death, and we should all be fine.

354
Dawn Grace
March 25, 2015 at 2:33 PM
I think it would be very beneficial to police officers to have body cams. This would provide protection from wrongful accusations and also document how a suspect is acting. It would also create more accountability.

355
Lisa B
March 25, 2015 at 2:56 PM
I think it is in everyone's best interest if camera's are worn by ALL police, sheriff, fire, medical personnel. Body camera's and recording devices that automatically record to someone who is taking notes on another end.

The camera's would serve both the people in charge (police) as well as the "other party" should something go awry.

It's a simple question with a simple "YES" answer.

It's too bad for those who feel this is against privacy.

356
Lorene Kesler
March 25, 2015 at 3:02 PM
I am in favor, as I believe it will protect Police Officers from unwarranted accusations and raise the public's level of trust. Good for all concerned!

357
Franklin Irvine
March 25, 2015 at 3:26 PM
I think it would be a good idea for Portland police to have the body cameras

358
Franklin Irvine
March 25, 2015 at 3:27 PM
I think it would be a good idea for Portland police to have body cameras

359
A concerned citicen
March 25, 2015 at 3:42 PM
Yes you should make it mandatory for all police officers to have them on whenever on duty. The footage should only be available to the officers involved, any court appointed official that is deemed necessary to obtain the footage, as well as the plaintiff and defendants upon request of their legal counsel. It should only be at the option of the plaintiff or defendant's legal counsel to release the footage to social media unless the opposing plaintiff or defendant (with no need for legal counsel) files a written or verbal request with the police or court to not release the footage with a reasonable explanation why they are not to release the footage (i.e. to protect the perpetrator or victim from public repercussions) any event involving injury or death to a suspect or officer should be reviewed by internal affairs for misconduct.

360
Jim D
March 25, 2015 at 4:13 PM
Sorry to be the voice of dissent but... Reading through the comments - its concerning that we as a society are so comfortable saying "yes" to what is clearly another erosion of our privacy rights. Nobody going about there own personal business should be filmed without permission - period. Via a body cam - cell phone - google glass - movie studio or any other method. Leaving them on "all the time" is Orwellian at it's core.

361
Ruben Castro
March 25, 2015 at 4:50 PM
I am in favor of body cameras on police officers, it is all about transparency. This technology will protect citizens and police officers as well, it is a win win situation for everyone.

362
Anna Owens
March 25, 2015 at 5:00 PM
I'm in favor of the body cameras. I do not trust Portland police at all. To me, they are just as scary and potentially dangerous as any stranger walking on the street; only worse because they carry guns, stunguns and badges that make them think they have authority over people and their lives. I really hope that Portland police become more trustworthy in the future. I want to trust them.

363
Dosha
March 25, 2015 at 6:35 PM
Absolutely. I think its great for both the cops and the people!

364
molly
March 25, 2015 at 7:10 PM
I am in favor of body cameras on police at all times they are on duty and in every situation.

365
R.Tupper
March 25, 2015 at 9:31 PM
I am in favor of the body cams. Police should not be able to turn them off while on duty, even when on lunch.because even on lunch things happen. If big brother can watch us pick our nose in public,we should be able to watch our taxed paid employees. Let's face most of us work in places that we are being recorded at all times.footage should only be released to any court case, or Involved party.They should not be realeased to the general public as it may illegally misused for all involved parties. I do however feel if ever need to be reviewed there should be an outside agency/ committee along withe police dept and a court official to be review the tape together prior to releasing to each party. This way no one can make claims that the video has been altered by anyone.

366
Chevy Kid
March 25, 2015 at 10:33 PM
Why wouldn't police want to wear these things all the time? It will help them from being falsely accused. Likewise it protects citizens from experiencing false accusations. And hopefully protect s innocent people from excessive force, assault, being killed, etc...

If the police are doing nothing wrong and don't have anything to hide then they should be happy to wear body cameras at all times. Period.

367
Richard
March 25, 2015 at 10:42 PM
Yes yes yes. Protects the police as well as citizens. Tired of police getting the blame for other peoples poor choices . Plus those few bad apples may also be found. Yes and do it now

368
Christopher Johnson
March 26, 2015 at 10:28 AM
i am in favor of body cameras. They should be worn by every officer. Including the ones who watch the inmates!

369
Shaina
March 26, 2015 at 1:03 PM
Body cameras are a must! The stalker situation in gangs is being denied when people think too fast. Steve is stalking and Jon is the victim kind of like a child following them around. Victims are stalked for life and set up again and again. Cameras must happen for the human condition can't go without analysis and deliberation time. Hitler failed the world by moving too fast. The Pope would be bombed if he had scheduled it correctly. Hitler was on speed and did not do what he knew to slowly enough to get it. If the Pope was gone we would not have the number of terrorists we have in the USA. Terrorists are not caught because they lie and the victims always must look like the criminal...
Cameras must be posted everywhere not only on Police Officers.

370
Cassidy Barton
March 26, 2015 at 2:32 PM
Yes, please. If a public officer is responding to any call it is a matter of public record; fortunately and unfortunately video might be a part of this public record--but for the safety of the officers involved and the rights of the civilians involved it is necessary.

371
Billy
March 26, 2015 at 3:23 PM
I think cams are a good idea, but they should be head mounted (attached to glasses) so that we always see what the officer sees. Body worn cameras not on the head have a tendency to not show the entire picture.

372
Emily
March 26, 2015 at 6:46 PM
I am in favor of the police, not only in Portland, but in all of Oregon, wearing these cameras.

373
Scott
March 27, 2015 at 8:47 AM
I find the idea disheartening and maybe even a little creepy. In his book on roles and ethics of automation Nicholas Carr writes, "Most of us assume... that automation is benign, that it raises us to higher callings but doesn't otherwise alter the way we behave or think. That's a fallacy. It's an expression of what scholars of automation have come ot call the 'substitution myth'. A labor-saving device doesn't just provide a substute for some isolated component of a job. It alters the character of the entire task, including the roles, attitudes, and skills of the people who take part in it" (The Glass Cage, page 67). If an on-body camera initiative is going forward--and I hope it doesn't--I'd argue for short retention periods to help address cost, storage, and privacy concerns.

374
Heather Dominguez
March 27, 2015 at 8:27 PM
Definite yes. Yes. Yes. Cameras can clear up so many problems.

375
Heather L Dominguez
March 27, 2015 at 8:44 PM
I said yes because I think the police need to be put in check for their power trips. But the above comment

Portland Copwatch
March 24, 2015 at 1:03 PM
To the Portland Police Bureau

Has some very interesting points. They should only be implemented if they can be used to monitor both police and citizens in some way. Such as 2 officers at once. I don’t really know but portland copwatch has some very interesting points.

376
Rod C.
March 30, 2015 at 4:34 PM
I think cameras are a great idea. I know there are efforts in legislatures around the country to keep the videos from public access. That would defeat the purpose of the videos.. All for cameras.

377
Jay Samerian
March 30, 2015 at 10:46 PM
I am not in favor because officers are going to abuse the system and continue to rape black people

378
Sarah
March 30, 2015 at 10:48 PM
THIS IS A HORRIBLE IDEA!!! DONT DO IT!

379
Consult Hardesty
April 1, 2015 at 7:15 PM
The Taser study, often called 'Rialto' indicated body-worn cameras only deter misconduct "when the level of certainty of apprehension for professional misconduct was set at 100%." Portland has not set these conditions: in fact, recent DoJ Findings of illegal use of police force termed ours a 'self-defeating accountability system." Until the City has a two-year record of using video evidence (such as in the Keaton Otis homicide) to either determine and then act on misconduct, or to identify sustained training improvements (which the Auditor reports is not the City's intention), the hardware offers no hope of performance improvements.

I encourage folks to consider the use of facial recognition software, almost mandatory in video data retrieval. BWC will identify all who pass the lens. For years, authorities will know where you were and whom you were with. When employed in real-time, authorities will - without warrant - search your identity. Officers will receive reports on parking tickets, child support payments, restraining orders, building code violations, criminal history, outstanding warrants and fines, all without asking for your ID. We do not know, however, what databases your facial scans (as with current practice on license plate readers) will relate to. We can assume officers will receive prompts. Given their proclivity to escalate civilian encounters into an arrestable offense, it's likely embarrassing data will be put to use.

Hales' legislative campaign, to carve loopholes in Oregon's open records laws, is to purpose BWC to make criminal cases, not to improve police conduct or offer transparency. Video will surface in court, not in any way that offends the police union.

Folks seeking protection from abusive police conduct should insist that accountability mechanisms are in place before advocating a million dollars be handed over to Taser.

380
T. Horner
April 2, 2015 at 9:10 AM
Cameras will be ineffectual unless they are accompanied by legislation which takes control of the footage away from the police and holds them publicly accountable for their actions. Until the public can control police training, enforcement policy, and ensure real consequences for bad behavior, cameras are a meaningless gesture. I find bias in asking feedback questions which invite people to react in fear. The simple and sensible solution to many of the fear inducing possibilities would be to give all police footage to an independent public judicial body which would be in charge of how the footage is used. Their discretion would prevent inappropriate use of the footage, and determine what public bodies get access. The only reasonable goal of body cameras to my mind is that of holding police to account when they break laws and abuse the public, but those cameras are for the most part pointed at the public and not automatically at police. As such, its a slanted gesture. How about a citizen review commitee with some real power to impose real disciplinary action on police by a common standard? Meanwhile, it's the public's duty to film and record police wherever the opportunity arises.

381
Jan Birney
April 2, 2015 at 9:33 PM
With so many people armed with smart phone cameras, to even up the odds of winning a case without so much dispute. It is in my opinion that body cams for officers will not only provide credibility for officers but safety as well. Just as long as officers have those off time moments to take care of business ;D

382
Jo Evans
April 2, 2015 at 11:13 PM
I think it will protect everyone. Cameras don't lie, if they are on the whole time.

383
Megan Mattoon
April 3, 2015 at 2:18 PM
I am strongly in favor of the use of body cameras as a tool to clarify historical events and investigations. That being said, I also believe that reviewing or releasing footage (to specific parties, officials, victims, etc.) should be somewhat of a last resort if a dispute were to occur. Because of the sensitive material on these recordings, I don't believe that every call or event should be reviewed by law enforcement administrators.

Bottom Line: It is of my opinion that Body Cams can be a tremendous asset, but are to be used with caution and in concurrence with significant privacy policies (for the officer and civilian), checks/balances, and regulations.

Thank you for soliciting our opinions in this matter. It shows you care.

384
vernon krist
April 6, 2015 at 11:35 AM
I am in favor of body cameras.
It makes everyone involved accountable for their actions.
Any officer with a body camera that is not functioning in a contested event should receive a two week suspension without pay for the first offense 30 days for the second and termination after the third.
As a revenue source to help fund the program one company should be allowed to view all content and edit for entertainment value, ie a pdx.cops YouTube channel.
The police department should receive a share of any revenue generated.
Only exterior/outdoor footage should be available to anyone who requests it. Children under 12 should be protected.
The proper use of cameras in all sensitive encounters is "ON".

385
JM Larkin
April 8, 2015 at 4:25 PM
Body cameras will protect good officers from bogus complaints, even more than they will protect citizens from bad cops. Cameras will provide graphic evidence of events and their sequence, serving the truth and negating political agendas.

Certainly, strict policies and procedures must be in place to both protect the integrity of the videos as well as protect individuals' privacy.

That said, I urge the department to adopt the use of body cameras for all sworn officers.

386
Maria Kassapakis
April 8, 2015 at 11:57 PM
I am a Criminology Student and I think it is a GREAT idea for police to be wearing cameras. I have done research on this topic and a lot of our people's concern is our Privacy that we have a right to as stated in our Constitution. Many police stations have stated that the cameras go on once the car has stopped and the police wo(man) has gotten out of the car. If there is a time where there has been a rape incident or molestation the victim should ask politely or say they do not want this on camera and with that being said right then and there the police officer turns the camera off from that point on but still takes notes.

387
ALIN DINCA
April 9, 2015 at 11:34 AM
Definitely in favor of body cameras!
Tansparancy is the key!

388
Derek G.
April 10, 2015 at 10:39 AM
The ACLU has written a detailed analysis of body cameras and how they can be implemented in a way that supports the rights and safely of both citizens and police. I very much hope that Portland will take this analysis into account:

https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/police-body-mounted-cameras-right-policies-place-win-all

389
Gregory Grimberg-phillips
April 14, 2015 at 11:07 AM
It is not a debate. These cameras should be on every police officer in our nation. As far as when they should record, all times that police officer is armed. The footage should only available if there is any need for it. And it should only be released to those involved and or those conducting an investigation.

390
Eric Chamberlain
April 14, 2015 at 5:14 PM
Body cameras would capture the factual events and help both the Police Officer and the Citizen from any falsification or alteration of such.

I agree that there has to be a very strict "chain of custody" protocol of the video captured as evidence.

391
Franklin
April 15, 2015 at 1:59 AM
The question that remains unanswered is why is it necessary to have the cameras in the first place?

If the Police Department does not solve the problem; lack of training, systemic ignorance and a adversarial relationship with the public, cameras will only catch some said behavior in action. (There are currently officers in the Drug and Vice Division that believe addiction is a choice. This tells us at least three things. 1) There is inadequate training. 2) Some officers do not even understand their own HR and/or union manuals. 3)The force is ill equipped to address these same problems within its own ranks.)

The Police should be available to "serve and protect." Sadly one of the main duties of the Police is to collect fines for the City.Revenue has become the priority not safety and public service. The Police do not "need" fines to educate the public about safety.

When the City gets sued for improper Police behavior the taxpayer pays the bill. Maybe it is time for the Police to pay at least 25% of this bill from their salary. Just imagine how quickly behavior will change then!

The Police need to be Police not taxmen. The Police should be an integral part of the neighborhood. A positive aspect. They used to be!

Instead, Police are to be dealt with quite cautiously. An expected and natural public response to Police behavior.

Cameras are not a bad idea. However, the Department needs to follow through. The mission and the internal culture need to changed. Officers like Mark Kruger need to go.

Thank you

392
John Hinds
April 15, 2015 at 11:53 AM
I believe the work of our police force is to provide ongoing observations of our communities so as to provide a certain level of peace and security for everyone in our communities. I am in favor of all officers wearing cameras and all patrol cars having dashboard cameras for the protection of the officers and all persons involved. As the paid 'eyes and ears' of the community, what officers see and hear is information bought and paid for by the community and should be made freely available to the public.

394

Nicholas Throgmorton

April 30, 2015 at 8:18 AM

In favor of body camera, however I believe it should be a head mounted camera because if the camera is (for example) on the chest, it will be difficult to view if the officer has weapon/tazer drawn. If the camera is mounted on their hear, it will be easier to be able to see from the officers perspective.

395

Thea Hayes

May 5, 2015 at 10:18 AM

Yes, Please. As a teacher (and therefore, public servant) this accountability technique needs to be used to protect both the public and the police themselves. The public needs to be protected from abuse of power, and the police need to be protected from being defamed and manipulated, particularly by social media. Please make this happen!

396

Cheryle Gardiner

May 5, 2015 at 3:35 PM

I am fully in favor of police body cameras, both as a protection for police officers and for the protection of the public. A few thoughts regarding privacy and accountability:

All video from police cameras should be streamed to a secure server, not stored on the individual cameras. This is technologically possible and would prevent unauthorized use of the videos. The server should not be able to be accessed except by TWO authorized people (similar to bank safety deposit boxes), and then ONLY if needed for evidence.

Privacy issues could be addressed by allowing only people with a compelling interest in the information to have access to it. This isn't without precedent, as information such as birth certificates, Social Security information, etc., aren't made available to the general public. Perhaps after a period of years it could be released, but only then if the parties involved agree to its release. I don't understand why domestic violence records would be any different, particularly if there are injuries to be documented.

There should be a fail-safe on each camera that would notify dispatch or other designated body if the camera fails or is disabled. The technology for that is also available as evidenced by the use of ankle bracelets for parolees. The camera should also record the location of the police officer at all times. GPS is fine for a vehicle, but if the officer leaves the vehicle, his location would still be recorded. An added advantage of both these enhancements is the safety of the individual officer. If there is criminal activity and the officer is disabled, there would be a record of her/his last location, and if a suspect disabled the camera to avoid detection, there would be immediate notification and assistance could be sent if necessary.

I believe most police officers are good and honest public servants. Unfortunately, there are a few who aren't, and those of us in the public understand the concerns an honest officer might have when reporting wrong behavior. In my opinion, body cameras with the above enhancements would go a long way toward resolving a lot of concerns for both the police and the public.

397

Lewis Van Winkle

May 8, 2015 at 2:46 PM

I think that using police body cameras is a great idea.
They should be required, since they would help protect
both the public and the police.

398

Portland Copwatch

May 16, 2015 at 3:27 PM

A Few New Links to Stories on Body Cameras

On May 15, an article in the Intercept talked about guidelines being proposed by a national coalition of civil liberties oriented groups, but further highlights concerns by Copwatch organizations about the purposes and probable uses of the cameras:
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/05/15/police-body-cameras-need-regulated-destroyed

Earlier in May, it was reported that the police chief in Albuquerque, New Mexico is being investigated for, essentially, taking kick-backs from Taser International as they got a no-bid contract to provide cameras for that city's police:
http://firedoglake.com/2015/05/02/former-albuquerque-chief-of-police-accused-by-state-auditor-of-ethics-violations/

Just more to think about.
dan handelman
portland copwatch

399

Marcello U.

May 28, 2015 at 2:27 PM

Portland Police Department,
I believe that body cameras will help stop police brutality and civilian brutality to police. We should have strict rules governing the usages of body cameras for example in cases of spouse abuse and child abuse cameras use should not be mandatory due to privacy rights. Also, all camera footage should be deleted in six month or less unless it is pertaining to a court case. Finally, their should not be leakage to the public of the footage, It could damage someones life, job, and opportunities plus it is unnecessary.
Thank You.

400

Rafael Puente

June 12, 2015 at 7:49 PM

yes, body cameras,there should be a way to double check police actions. It's a national trend to see police behaving above the law and there must be a way to check upon their behavior. Police are normal people and there should treat people the same way nurses and doctors must treat their patient with greatest respect and dignity and not like garbage.

401

Julia Stanfield

June 13, 2015 at 2:40 PM

It's a win,win for everyone. My only concern is tamper proof system that makes it impossible to edit or change the video. I thought our mayor said the cameras would be in place early this year.Camera's protect our human rights and diginity!! I believe cameras will be mandatory nationwide. IT'S A NO BRAINER!!!!!!!!!!

403

Thea Hayes

June 14, 2015 at 9:31 PM

Yes, yes, yes. Citizens that pay the salaries of the police need to be protected from abuse of power, and police need to be protected from misinformation .... particularly by social media. Do it now!

404

Lisa Brown

June 15, 2015 at 9:31 AM

I think the officers' opinions should be heavily weighted. The general public,even those who try to educate themselves on the issues like myself, are subject to much media noise that is often misinformed or biased. I trust our officers as a group--every officer I know serves with the motivation to help and protect citizens. Let's let them decide.
As an airline pilot, the subject of cockpit cameras causes concern every time the suggestion arises after a major incident. It sounds like a good idea on its face; however, because of the vast amount of pertinent info gathered on cockpit voice recorders and flight data recorders there is not a significant benefit in additional video information but there is much increased potential for punitive use against pilots. We have to be very careful in the current environment to protect innocent officers from the possibility of false accusation--or else our cities will be run by thugs. If body cameras are favored by our officers as a way to protect themselves then I'm all for it.

405

Vicente San Martin Jr

July 10, 2015 at 4:32 PM

Body Cameras on officers think it is good but i feel that there still is no trust with the officer who has the body camera if they can turn it off and on when they want to so that is my deal with that I do not want Officers to be able to turn on and off the Cameras oh by the way Gresham Police need these as bad as Portland police and the other part is if the officer was not able to have the power to turn on and off then it is keeping them in check on everything they do

406

Aic

July 13, 2015 at 8:07 AM

I support the use of body cameras, when police are investigating certain levels of crime. Drug related arrests, shootings, domestic violence, etc.

routine duties, paperwork, processing those in custody, in stations, no, since the stations, most likely already have cameras in place.

As for release of video evidence, should come through court system only. How long to keep the video evidence, perhaps a year or two past the expiration of the statue of limitations. In the murders, assault, etc. those videos given to dept. of corrections, to have on file for parole hearings, etc.

Storage, find a secure, high quality file compression program. The video evidence, stored on dedicated ultra secure computers , at the polIce evidence vault .

408

Linda Barrow

August 30, 2015 at 4:14 AM

I am in favor of body cameras for police officers, not only for better police protection but for corruption in law enforcement.

409

c. castillo

September 14, 2015 at 6:21 PM

Yes ,of course, as long as somebody else wears them. The proponents aren't going to be wearing them or experience any of the camera inconveniences.
So it is absurd for somebody to comment without thinking it through.

410

Jan Penny

September 16, 2015 at 9:53 PM

I am a British Police Officer and we have had body worn video for a number of years now. It has proved to be one of the most effective evidence gathering tools as well as providing officer safety against unfounded complaints. I cannot recommend it highly enough

411

AMA Coalition for Justice & Police Reform

September 18, 2015 at 4:11 PM

PROPOSED POLICIES FOR PORTLAND POLICE AROUND BODY CAMERAS
from the Albina Ministerial Alliance Coalition for Justice and Police Reform
(9/17/15)

1--The community has to be involved in setting any rules if the Bureau decides to get cameras.

2--A third party Oregon company subject to Oregon law who's not the manufacturer nor any law enforcement entity should store the footage, to ensure access/storage and prevent tampering.

3--If civilians who are in the video ok its being released, the footage should be released. To the extent possible under state law, the images should not be blurred out of those who have given release permission.

4--Policy should require officers to turn cameras on before interacting with any community member. There must be increasing, structured disciplinary measures depending on the seriousness of violations, including failing to record interactions or turning cameras off during contact.

5--Officers should not be allowed to review the footage before giving statements/writing reports so that they don't use the footage to change their statements.

6--Police must inform community members must be informed that they are being recorded, and inform them of their rights to remain silent and not make incriminating statements or walk away as appropriate.

7--Police cannot use footage to gather data on people's lawful activity in violation of state law (181.575).

8--PPB shall not tie the video to facial recognition software to pull up information on people when they have no suspicion of criminal conduct.

9--Footage should be used to hold police accountable for officer misconduct/criminal activity and to improve training and policy.

10--Footage should not be used to prosecute community members for minor infractions; and footage should not be used to retroactively go back and find minor crimes to prosecute.

412

Karetha DellGrottaglia

September 19, 2015 at 9:57 AM

I am in full favor of body cameras for police officers. So glad Portland is considering moving in this direction.

413

Brice Mckalip

September 20, 2015 at 2:03 PM

Body cameras should have been standard issue several years ago and getting them in the field quickly should be the first priority while details of policy and privacy are addressed later.

I encourage Portland to adopt the ACLU's policy for body cameras: every cop has one, 99% of video is deleted as non-relevant, the remaining 1% is public ally available. Seattle's policy is another good one that could be enacted quickly.

414

Tara Ellis

September 20, 2015 at 3:54 PM

I am in favor of body cameras. I think their use will protect both police and citizens, improve accountability, and help the community regain trust in our police force. I believe that footage should be available to anyone involved in the case, such as officers, investigators, the accused and their attorneys, etc, but not be made public as to protect people's privacy.

415

Tara Ellis

September 20, 2015 at 3:54 PM

I am in favor of body cameras. I think their use will protect both police and citizens, improve accountability, and help the community regain trust in our police force. I believe that footage should be available to anyone involved in the case, such as officers, investigators, the accused and their attorneys, etc, but not be made public as to protect people's privacy.

417

Mondisa Castro

October 12, 2015 at 3:18 PM

I believe body cameras would be in the best interest of Portland Police officers and also the general public. I think it will help keep everyone accountable while also keeping the officers safe against bogus claim of abuse.

418

vicki boyd

October 15, 2015 at 2:53 PM

Positive has negative and negative has positive s but as to what for... And not tampered with and could save lifes...... So they have me with drugs but I have them dealing it and or spicen somebody's drink...a eye for a eye maybe get beloved

419

Lois

October 15, 2015 at 3:31 PM

I believe body cameras can be a good thing. However, constant scrutiny is not a good thing. I have concerns that it will just become a tool for bureau management to fish for something to use against an officer they have a personal issue with.
I also have concerns about privacy. I do not believe video should be made available to the public. I think that most people would not want the general public to have access to videos that may contain sensitive information, especially any video containing children or mentally compromised citizens.
Since the talk of body cameras began I have been thinking about how I would feel if my employer would propose this, I would not want my every move or utterance to be on film.

420

Anonymous User

October 15, 2015 at 4:05 PM

Norman Persson stalking harassment domestic violence
beating female with caregiver He is possessive obsessive
Riverside County CA

421

Justin Brooks

October 15, 2015 at 9:01 PM

I support the police, and I hope that the body cameras assist them in protecting the community and doing the dangerous jobs they do to keep our society safe.

422

Donna

October 15, 2015 at 9:21 PM

I am in favor of the cameras, for the public and the police.
It is something that probably should have been done a long time ago.

423

Brian V

October 15, 2015 at 9:39 PM

Cameras yes. If camera images missing for any reason terminate officer on the spot. The city has clear video of a Portland man being beaten by officer Robert Bruder with assistance fromJeffrey Elias. Both criminal officers retained their jobs after city paid settlement to the victim. Will the footage be used to convict officers committing crimes? We have footage and it was wasted and the cost was over $500,000 tax payer dollars. Why have video and not use it? Bruders and Elias are criminals who carry guns for their job. Both are Felons who should have zero right to own a firearm. The video does not lie.

425

James Kahan

October 16, 2015 at 10:50 AM

I fully support the position of the Albina Ministerial Alliance regarding the use of body cameras.

426

Jerry Sampson

October 17, 2015 at 8:12 AM

I think that body cams are am important resource to help mend the fractured image of police officers in our community and our country. Issues of privacy are understandable, but what is important to remember is that our privacy and our rights are in jeopardy if we don't hold our officers accountable for actions that may occur while no one is looking. A simple and inexpensive way to do this is to make it known that we are all watching. Through body cams, with unaltered footage, that are available to the public that our officers are enlisted to protect.

427

Evrim Icoz

October 19, 2015 at 4:52 PM

I think it will help create more trust to have body cameras and avoid he said she said situations.

428

Sandy Berger

October 19, 2015 at 6:35 PM

I believe police body cameras protect the public from excessive force while protecting police from false accusations. To promote public trust, policies should be placed online and there should be a community education component. Policies and technology should be created to ensure segments of video cannot be destroyed or edited. There should also be policies in place to determine when recording should take place. I agree with the ACLU that polices should require recording when responding to a call for service or at the initiation of any other law enforcement or investigative encounter between a police officer and a member of the public including stops, frisks, searches, arrests, interviews and searches, or enforcement actions of all kinds. Law enforcement should notify the public when they are being recorded. For privacy, recordings should be deleted after a couple of weeks unless they are flagged based on only a few circumstances: any incident involving use of force; that leads to detention or arrest; or where a complaint is filed. Any officer or subject of a recording should be able to request that a recording be flagged.

429

Philip Katz

October 19, 2015 at 6:51 PM

I'm in favor of body cams.
I think video should be only released to parties involved. They can then release them publicly if they choose to do so.

431

Michelle Shaw

October 19, 2015 at 10:04 PM

I read of your pending use of the body cameras on Oregonlive and they mentioned that you might be purchasing the equipment from a vendor who had equipment that activated when the sound of a gunshot was heard.
I used to work as an alarm monitor for Protection One and we received sound alarms from some of our equipment - 'glass breaking' intrusion alarms was one of the types and it was not uncommon for the alarm to be nothing more than something like a 'dishwasher' or a child crying.
I hope that the technology has improved so that this is not a problem, as it would be rather unfortunate if the camera ran out of battery power because it was activated by some random noise.
Thank you for reviewing my comment.

432

kathy buss

October 20, 2015 at 5:34 AM

I am in favor of the cameras. I have a few questions and thoughts:

why not be completely transparent and have the cameras on all of the time?

it seems to me that, especially in the heat of an incident, the LAST thing they need is to have to announce that they are turning them on.

conversely, there is a lot that can be said and done BEFORE turning them on and that, too, is an issue.

the video cameras in the police cars are on all of the time, aren't they?

thank you for asking for feedback!

433

Clifford Tarpley

October 20, 2015 at 6:14 AM

WIRELESS CHARGING, FOR BODY CAMS

Maybe look into wireless charging for body cams..... Officer gets into car BATTERY chargers. No need to forget to change out batteries. The department has enough to worry about then changing batteries. I don't want that to be the next issue. Or "out" for inappropriate behavior on behalf of the police department. Battery was dead. Sounds like a scapegoat.... Again not sure how far wireless charging
has come. It would be awesome if you could take it further.
wireless charging

434

Tim

October 20, 2015 at 2:30 PM

Realistically any contact with a police officer is public record. I see no reason that the bureau shouldn't use them. I see accountability for both the officer and the citizen which is a positive for both sides. The other side is any time an officer is in uniform they are on duty and one could argue the cameras should be on or a justifiable record verbally on camera as to why it was turned off such as a personal phone call and a statement the camera is back on accounting for the duration it was off preferably in the same location like stopped in a parking lot or side of the road.

435

John Schoonover

October 20, 2015 at 5:43 PM

Feedback on Portland Cop Cameras

  1. Cameras should be able to record the whole shift for the officer. It does no good if the batteries or video storage are limited to less than eight hours unless more storage is readily available or more battery packs or charging means are available.
  2. Cameras should be on at all times. The only exceptions are when the officers are on a bathroom break which should be logged in with the dispatcher. The excuse of “I forgot to turn it on” will come with an immediate 3 day suspension without pay for first offense escalating which each ensuing incident.
  3. A camera that is turned in as malfunctioning will be turned in to an authorized technician to be certified as being in working condition. A camera with three certified instances of malfunctioning in a one year period will be permanently removed from service.
  4. Cameras should be “point of view” of what the officer is SEEING. The cameras should be either worn as glasses, like a Bluetooth phone device, or mounted on a hat. They should ALWAYS point to where the officer is looking. Body cameras do no good if the officer is turned due north but a sudden noise or action is due south.
  5. The camera device should have a red light (or some indication) that the device is on and recording which is indicated to the officer and to the general public.
  6. The recordings should be held for a length of time commensurate with the commonly held statute of limitations with crimes which occurred during that shift. If the officer was involved in a riot situation or murder that recording should probably held in perpetuity. If it was an everyday shift of general interactions and traffic stops it would seem that two to five years should be long enough.
  7. The videos should NOT be made available to the officer until AFTER his report of an incident is made. (See: Should Officers Be Permitted to View Body Camera Footage Before Writing Their Reports? January 13, 2015 By Peter Bibring, Director of Police Practices for the ACLU of Southern California & Jay Stanley, Senior Policy Analyst, ACLU Speech, Privacy & Technology Project)
  8. The recordings should be available to the officer to defend himself against accusations from the general public, and they should also be available to the person involved in an interaction with the officer to prove their side of an interaction.
  9. The recordings should be made available to media IF they show through a COURT ORDER that the recordings are needed to show/prove accusations against an officer in a particular situation or to prove the ongoing actions of the officer or department are detrimental to the general public.
  10. If the victim or officer feel they need to release the recording to the general public to prove their point, they should be able to. But the general public should not have “open book” rights to anything that they wish to see. IF A COURT feels there are legitimate reasons to release the recordings to the public then they must be released.

It should be noted that the camera works in the officers behalf in more instances than not, and they should be encouraged to use them at all times. Personally I see something in the realm of Google Glass devices as being the perfect type of device. If built in a durable condition the officer can also be given “heads up display” type information that will aid in his everyday work and interactions.

Several departments have shown that citizen complaints against officers have dropped by up to 80% or more, due to changes in officers behavior while wearing cameras and the public’s acknowledgment that the officers have something to fall back on to disprove their allegations.

The last point that needs to be made is that everyday citizens should be involved in overseeing this process at all steps and after it is introduced to the field. It will impact the public as much or more than the police officers involved.

436

Joshua

October 20, 2015 at 5:58 PM

I am in favor of their usage. It protects both parties. I also do not think that the person wearing it should have the ability to turn it off on demand.

437

Bianetth Valdez

October 20, 2015 at 7:36 PM

I think body cameras are important and vital to keep Portland police and citizens accountable. For the safety of both citizen and police, it is important to have this device on the police officer's body. Dashboard cams are not reliable. We have to have both mode of devices, in order to keep officer and citizen safe.

439

Jen Bedwell

October 20, 2015 at 8:40 PM

I personally think it is a good idea. However, if officers use them they should have to start recording at the beginning of the shift until the end of their shift. You shouldn't be able to pick and choose when and what to record. Police are biased too.

440

SteveC

October 21, 2015 at 8:21 AM

As a longtime Portland resident, I'm grateful you are implementing body cameras and considering public input. Here's my input.

  • All publicly released content should be redacted. Use software to redact automatically to reduce labor cost.
  • All content that meets a disclosure threshold (eg, part of an investigation, becomes evidence, subject to lawsuit) should be available publicly unless it's in a private residence. In a private residence some kind of approval should be required.
  • All content that does not meet the disclosure threshold should not be viewable by anyone (neither law enforcement nor the public).
  • All video content operations (eg viewing, editing, analytics, retention management) for non-public content should be logged so that they can be legally attributed to a specific person.
  • Publish a response to the ACLU position paper on this topic.

Thank you.

441

David Lee

October 21, 2015 at 2:36 PM

I would implement the program as a pilot, in randomly selected areas. Then determine its effectiveness or relative value, then next steps.....if you want to have better community policing and have better interaction with other community members, live and work in the community and get to know the community.

442

Jeff Dunford

October 21, 2015 at 3:01 PM

Absolutely yes! The only downside is cost. A few multi-million dollar lawsuits averted, and they will pay for themselves though.

443

LVD

October 21, 2015 at 4:50 PM

I think it's a great idea to eliminate any doubt there may be for the officers. However, from an IT infrastructure perspective it's a nightmare. They are typically huge files that are unmanageable. I currently work for a DA's office in OR that is trying to tackle this very problem. We certainly have the storage for them but they cannot be sent from the law enforcement agencies to the DA and then to the defense attorneys for discovery. This is a problem that will not go away and must be considered.

444

John

October 21, 2015 at 5:38 PM

The issue of Cameras must be kept secret unless a report request is filed then a 3rd party will review the information and its content will be provided without questions, but in my case I had a police report done and to date they did not allow me to see that report and I hold proof it was all lies. the system will not be open so no matter what they do its only a game of acting look case in point I HAVE ALL THE VIDEO that proved Tiffany Jenks Murder is not solved at all correct 100% not when she got killed at Blue Lake the facts told to the Public is lies. anyone who goes to Google and types in Tiffany Jenks Murder at blue lake park can see that its not possible what Police said she met them they killed her 60 minutes after they met. and the killers one of them are out already claiming they did not hear the gunshot... ok. sure..

445

Edith Zdunich

October 21, 2015 at 7:03 PM

While I'm in favor of body cameras, I also think we need to protect the right of people to film the cops themselves. Both are important.

446

Laddie Read

October 22, 2015 at 10:45 AM

I am a person who is extremely disabled and I have some concerns with the idea of using body cameras on officers.

I understand that cameras can fail and sometimes it may be at a critical moment, but I want to make sure we have proper language or rules around turning off the cameras for any reason or regulations around accountability for turning off the cameras for any reason while on duty.

I am also concerned with the idea of who sees the videos and feel they should be treated the same as evidence and only people involved with the case have access with proper approval.

447

Doretta Schrock

October 22, 2015 at 6:25 PM

Yes to cameras. Cameras are important to rebuilding trust between officers and the community. No to allowing officers special viewing privileges. That will undermine the very trust we need to build to a degree that makes cameras not worth the expense.

448

Marvin Gerr

October 23, 2015 at 11:22 AM

The issue of the use of police body cams, is simple. They work.
And, their use by Portland Police Officers should be instituted as soon as is feasible. With one important restriction, police officers who use deadly force should not be allowed to see any special views of their body cams.

451

Buddy Bee Anthony

October 23, 2015 at 4:33 PM

Body cameras will only be effective in the most aggregious cases of police misconduct. Otherwise, it will simply either show that police are just as likely to overstep legal boundaries, when it gets to court, as those they pursue/and sometimes arrest. This is why there needs to be full disclosure to unclog the courts of non-events that were never crimes in the first place. Cameras may help weed the bad seeds out and put whomever the trouble makers are, put them either on waivers or in prison. If a camera catches a criminal in the act, it should be used the same as if when it catches a cop overstepping unnecessarily using lethal force. In the cases of non-lethal force, cameras are most likely going to de escalate the level of force a video wired up officer is going to use, knowing how they handle things going to be video recorded. But, again, without accountability for behavior on both sides of the ledger, body cameras are just another invasion of privacy a slick way for the fuzz to get evidence leading to conviction on petty stuff which comprises most of what's called out on 911

452

Mike Litoris

October 25, 2015 at 10:22 AM

I support body cameras, but police should not be able to review footage before writing any reports or speaking with investigators! Also make a strict policy that any officer caught tampering with the camera (covering the lens, turning it off, turning off a microphone, etc) will be subject to harsh and swift punishment, including termination.

453

Rose Cottingham

October 25, 2015 at 2:52 PM

Absolutely yes. It is better for the citizens (protects against abuse) AND better for police officers (protects against false accusations). Everyone wins. It's awkward, uncomfortable, and not super cheap, but 100% worth it given the reduction rate in brutality and the protection against false claims.

455

Peter Ravagni

October 27, 2015 at 4:55 PM

Body cameras are needed. The officers should NOT be allowed to view video until testifying in cases of bodily harm, death or excessive force complaints UNLESS ALL folks that are charged with crimes are allowed the same privilege (won't happen will it?). Why should cops get a chance to change their story (ahem, refresh their memory) before giving their reports?

456

Nicole Knight

October 28, 2015 at 6:22 AM

I am only a sometimes resident of portland, but I want you to know that after watching informative programming on television, I am totally FOR body cameras. They were able to show cases where the body camera was the only angle that proved that the police were using proper conduct. These cameras are vital to protecting both the police and the public. They both prove proper conduct and can also provide IA with evidence of foul play when the police are not using proper conduct. I think they should be automatically reviewed during the first couple of times a police officer engages in any physical interactions with the public without repercussion for minor infractions in order to provide the police officer with feedback about what constitutes and does not constitute proper conduct. They will be nervous, but it will allow them to be more confident in their own behavior in the future. Plus if an individual is not cut out to be a police officer, it will begin the evidence track required to relieve them of such position of power before they do too much harm. Thank you.

457

B Johnson

October 28, 2015 at 11:04 PM

In today's highly publicized, social media world, police need to utilize body cameras in order to provide their perspective on an incident that may be costly in terms of reputation or dollar wise. In addition, I think it would be wise for police departments to begin utilizing non-lethal forms of capture and restraint for many of the same reasons. Avoiding litigation costs should more than pay for equipment and training.

458

Catherine

November 1, 2015 at 2:23 PM

I am in favor of body cameras.

I think the privacy issues can be dealt with like any other law enforcement/camera issue-- like police street cams, cams at stop lights, etc.

The data needs to be extremely securely protected. I think the police department must hire very qualified and thorough network security and data security professionals if they don't already have them.

As for privacy rights, the best available interpretation of state/federal constitutional privacy protection should be used, and the legal process may well refine the constitutionality of the use of camera footage over time. That's a good thing, I trust the process.

All that being said, I think the cams are very important to protect the rights of citizens and officers both. The data security and privacy measures will take some careful implementation, but I think that should be doable and well worth doing. Good job Portland and thank you for looking into bodycams!

459

Portland Copwatch

November 23, 2015 at 3:34 PM

Portland Copwatch
(a project of Peace and Justice Works)
PO Box 42456
Portland, OR 97242
(503) 236-3065 (office)
(503) 321-5120 (incident report line)
copwatch@portlandcopwatch.org
http://www.portlandcopwatch.org

Proposed Portland Police Bureau Policies for Body Cameras
from Portland Copwatch
November 23, 2015

Note: Portland Copwatch (PCW) has remained neutral on the issue of body cameras because we believe there are too many unanswered questions and not enough research on their effects on privacy and Miranda rights. PCW is concerned the tapes will be used more to support convictions than to prove misconduct, and we don't have enough time to teach all 1 million people in the Portland metro area about their right to remain silent.*-1

We have also expressed many concerns including the financial incentives of manufacturers "to make a fortune selling cameras for individual officers."*-2

Many of our colleagues in the police accountability movement nationwide oppose the use of body cameras, including We Copwatch, Stop LAPD Spying, and Communities United Against Police Brutality .*-3

Since it appears the PPB is going to acquire the cameras regardless of concerns and objections, we offer the below specific recommendations, echoing and expanding on those proposed by the AMA Coalition for Justice and Police Reform.

1--Before acquiring cameras and setting policy, the PPB should conduct a comprehensive best practices study and present it to the community for further feedback. An advisory body such as the Citizen Review Committee should be kept up to date on the implementation of the cameras and related policies.

2--The community has to be involved in setting any rules if the Bureau decides to get cameras. The Bureau must publish responses to community recommendations that are not adopted.

3--As many of the policies as possible should be included in an ordinance or resolution passed by City Council to improved oversight, community input, and consistency.

4--The City must find a system that ensures secure access and integrity of the footage. This may involved a third party Oregon company, which can provide affidavits regarding the chain of custody.

5--The Bureau must provide timely access to footage to persons who are the subject of force. If there are criminal charges, the release should come no later than the time of arraignment. If there are not criminal charges, the release should be immediate upon the request of the subject.*-4

6--If civilian subjects who are in the video ok its being released, the footage should be publicly released. To the extent possible under state law, the images should not be blurred out of those civilians, including the subjects, who have given release permission. The officers' faces should never be blurred out.

7--State law requires that cameras be turned on upon reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. We do not support any efforts to find loopholes to this policy that allow the cameras to be shut off. However, policy may be needed to address concerns of rape/abuse victims and others based on safety/privacy concerns. PCW does not have suggestions at this time.

8--PPB policy should require officers to turn cameras on before interacting with any community member if the purpose is to gather information, even in an absence of reasonable suspicion.

9--There must be increasing, structured disciplinary measures depending on the seriousness of violations, including failing to record interactions or turning cameras off during contact.

10--Officers should not be allowed to review the footage before giving statements/writing reports so that they don't use the footage to change their statements.

11--Police must inform community members that they are being recorded, and inform them of their rights to remain silent, the right not make incriminating statements, and the right to walk away if applicable.

12--Police cannot use footage to gather data on people's lawful activity in violation of state law (ORS 181.575).

13--As per state law, PPB shall not tie the video to facial recognition software to pull up information on people when they have no suspicion of criminal conduct. Body cameras should also not be linked to other databases such as license plate databases.

14--Footage should primarily*-5 be used to hold police accountable for officer misconduct/ criminal activity and, when the subject has given a release, to improve training and policy.

15--Footage should not be used to prosecute community members for minor misdemeanors or infractions; and footage should not be used to retroactively go back and find minor crimes to prosecute.

Thank you and we look forward to your reply.
Dan Handelman, Carol Landsman, Mike Schumann, Mike Tabor
and other members of Portland Copwatch

FOOTNOTES

*-1 From People's Police Report #64 (January 2015)
<http://www.portlandcopwatch.org/PPR64/CopCams64.html>
*-2 ibid.
*-3
<http://wecopwatch.org/police-cameras-quick-fix-for-police-misconduct-or-counter-surveillance-tool/>,
<http://stoplapdspying.org/body-worn-cameras-an-empty-reform-to-expand-the-surveillance-state/>,
<http://www.cuapb.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Police-Community-Relations-Body-Cams-and-the-Cooptation-of-the-Community-Agenda.pdf>.
*-4 Depending on technical ability to do so.
*-5 We had debate here about whether to say footage should "only" be used to hold officers accountable. That is our preferred overall policy should the cameras be adopted. However, as that is an unlikely scenario we have included these many other recommendations for consideration as well.

460

Kim

November 27, 2015 at 1:52 PM

Hi-
Cameras are ok as a possible verification of activities happening during an arrest. Things can be blocked out of sight or manipulated with words or body language. Just look at reality tv and all the drama created when cameras are present. They will not help prevent a possible injustice.
The most important issue seems to be preventing the issue in the first place where cameras are used as evidence during a physical altercation or worse an unnecessary shooting of one being apprehended. I think that's the elephant in the room no one wants to admit.
The most important thing is education, emotional support, and creating a calm, cool, collected police force who are enforcing the law without the presence of ego, fear, and unnecessary force. The best way for this to happen is through hiring individuals with a clear past free of violence, trauma, or fear-based reactive actions. Counseling and therapy should be required of each individual working on the force from day one until the end of their career by a third party individual. Meditation is also another key. The Landmark Forum is another wonderful option and free to all police and firefighters. It is a 4 day progressive educational class which teaches people to see their fears and clear them allowing the individual to be very calm and clear and in-line with protecting the very citizens the police are working to help.
I think these three things should be above and beyond the cameras.

461

anon

November 29, 2015 at 2:57 PM

The officer should have to turn on the camera anytime there is any interaction with the public.

If they turn it off or disable it they should be terminated. We need to have good cops in Portland and remove the bad ones. This will help with better public interaction and save money.

If you terminate the ones that turn it off, it will reduce lawsuits. The same bad apples are always on the lawsuits.

462

mona boyd

December 9, 2015 at 2:58 PM

Every single police officer on duty should be wearing and using a fully working body camera.
Every police officer on duty should be aware that we, the people, also carry cameras.
It is time that we get this right.

463

Lawrence Tate

December 14, 2015 at 1:47 AM

"Privacy issues that concern you."
Video should be used for criminal prosecution or officer misconduct cases only. For civilian or officer protection equally.

"How to use the technology during sensitive investigations: domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse, response to care for someone needing mental health assistance?"
Cameras should be on at all times regardless of the "sensitivity" of the contact. What happens with the video should be decided later.

"Should footage be available to anyone who asks (this could include victim interviews, interior of homes, children, uninvolved community members, etc.)?"
Video should be made available publicly to all if a request is made in cases that involve prosecution or complaints against officers. Any exceptions regarding "sensitive" issues should be decided by a Grand Jury or perhaps a Judge. Exceptions should absolutely NOT be decided by any law enforcement agency.

"Once footage is released, should there be any restrictions on sharing and posting that video?"
Absolutely not. Once the video is released it becomes public domain.

"Other thoughts, suggestions or concerns you may have."
My primary concern is selective recording by officers. I think that recording should be on at all times while on duty and that turning the camera off is not an option. Any tampering or turning off of the camera against policy should result in severe discipline. Turning off or tampering should automatically alert a supervisor.

464

Nancy Schreiner

December 14, 2015 at 2:15 PM

My husband, Bill Schteiner, and I (Nancy SCHREINER) are in favor of body worn cameras. We think they would serve to protect the police against false allegations and protect citizens against excessive use of force. We believe the information should NOT be available to anyone not involved in a given case. It is not for general public consumption. We already have Trial by Mass Media in the country. Please let's not add trial by Facebook! Footage should not be available to anyone who asks. It should be available to representatives of the parties involved (a client's lawyer, internal review boards, and perhaps for educational purposes. I don't actually think it should be made available to media ... at home I can imagine good arguments in favor of this. However, once it gets into the hands of media, it will likely be occasions when it gets used for entertainment purposes. We all need to take the rights of citizens and of the police force very seriously. The over availability of sensitive material prior to trial has greatly harmed our judicial system.

466

Brooks Schaper

December 17, 2015 at 5:22 AM

Cameras are everywhere, and I support police body cams. I have witnessed and been told by police to stop filming and/or taking pictures when near police activity. If body cams are to be worn, the should always be on, and citizens should never be told to turn their private cameras off. Police should have nothing to hide when on duty and our citizens should have nothing to hide in public.

468

Georgia

February 25, 2016 at 11:21 PM

I completely support police body cameras. If in any case police officers were accused of brutality it would be easy to prove or disprove the action. These cameras should always stay on and always contain unedited footage. However, I do believe the community should be able to trust police officers to do the right thing without being recorded. After all, we entrust the safety and protection of our community to police officers. They are the true heroes.

469

Nick Coffey

July 7, 2016 at 9:39 AM

I feel that body cam information are easily manipulated. I can see the emergence of training programs that would teach police how to behave while recording and how to stand so as to cast the videos in the best possible light while on camera. Consider a scenario in which policemen shout, "Sir don't reach for that gun.." when there is no gun involved. Body cams, with a little training, will show what the cops want them to show.

Please review our Code of Conduct rules before posting a comment to this site.
Report Abuse (Please include the specific topic and comment for the fastest response/resolution.)

Post a Comment
Name
E-mail (visible to admins only)
 Remember Info Yes   No
Comments
Spam Prevention In the Pacific Northwest, what state is Portland in?