Police body cameras improve accountability

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 04/06/2020 (1622 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

DISTRUST can poison the relationship between police and a marginalized ethnic community, as Manitoba knows all too well. That’s nothing new. What is new is widespread video, and it’s a game-changer.

The protests wracking the U.S. started only because images of the brutality went viral. Without the video, media reports of the incident would have relied largely on the official police report, likely saying necessary force was needed as the suspect was resisting arrest.

The interactions of police with marginalized communities has changed since video became routinely pervasive through cellphone cameras, dashboard cameras and overhead security cameras. Viral images are instantly accessible on our personal screens, making us up-close witnesses of events as shocking as the final minutes, and final breaths, of George Floyd of Minneapolis.

It’s hard not to feel horror as police officer Derek Chauvin kneels for eight minutes on the neck of the man whose alleged crime was passing a counterfeit bill. We hear Floyd plead, “I can’t breathe!” and we feel outrage as we watch three other police officers stand by without saving the life of the dying man.

The video of the death — it was shot by a 17-year-old bystander — went worldwide and allowed millions of people to judge for themselves. The verdict of the people was instantaneous: an appalling example of police brutality.

It would be too easy for Manitobans to shake our heads and suggest police abuse of their power is a problem confined to the U.S. There have been too many allegations from marginalized Manitobans who claim unfair treatment by police in this province, with some of those allegations supported by independent investigations.

Unfortunately, in most Manitoba claims of police mistreatment, there is no video evidence to support or reject the claims. That must change.

Local police should join their counterparts in many places around the world and wear body cameras on their chests that will record all police dealings with the public.

There have been plenty of studies that show police body cameras greatly reduce the number of complaint allegations as both officers and members of the public tend to behave better when they know their interaction is being recorded. Perhaps surprisingly to some people, the studies also show most officers appreciate wearing the cameras because these officers treat people properly and it protects the officers from false accusations.

In April, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs called for Winnipeg officers to wear body cameras. The chiefs spoke out after Winnipeg police shot and killed four people within a 40-day period. Of the four, three were Indigenous, and the ethnicity of the fourth is unknown.

Grand Chief Arlen Dumas said body cameras on Winnipeg police are necessary because the Internal Investigations Unit, which is supposed to provide oversight into police use of force, lacks credibility.

He’s 100 per cent right in that assessment. In its role as a police watchdog, the IIU has no teeth.

Launched in 2015 after years of Winnipeg police scandals, alleged coverups and tension with marginalized peoples, the IIU was supposed to improve police accountability. But it was dubbed a paper tiger by observers because provincial legislation says officers can’t be compelled to co-operate during IIU investigations.

The Free Press in 2018 published an eight-month investigation into the IIU, which detailed a pattern of disappearing complaints, skirted investigations, institutional pushback, disputes over jurisdiction and interference among officers identified in criminal probes.

This institutional thwarting of the IIU would be lessened if police wore mandatory body cameras. Individual officers might continue to undermine the process, but that would matter less when the IIU has video evidence of police acts of violence.

Body cameras are more than a way to catch officers doing something wrong. Jurisdictions that made them mandatory — Calgary has had them since 2017 — have found the cameras helped soothe tensions with the public by quickly quelling rumours of police misconduct. For example, when accused of improperly shooting a suspect, police can produce video showing the suspect was approaching with a weapon.

The Winnipeg Police Service had the right idea in 2015 when the police budget included a $1-million pilot project for some officers to wear body cameras. But the project was killed when the budget tightened to avoid possible police layoffs. It’s the right time to resurrect the pilot project.

Police officers will remember from their training the name of Sir Robert Peel, regarded by many as the father of modern policing. Trainees are taught a version of his principles, which states, “The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependant upon public approval of police behaviour and the ability of the police to secure and maintain public respect.”

Do Manitoba officers warrant approval and respect from the people they serve? Mandatory body cameras would let people see for themselves.

carl.degurse@freepress.mb.ca

Carl DeGurse is a member of the Free Press editorial board.