Body cameras the norm — for most police
A few years ago, body cameras were a rarity in local law enforcement.
How rare? When I surveyed 19 Central Florida police and sheriff ’s offices in 2014, only five regularly used them.
Today, however, the numbers have flipped.
Today, only five departments don’t have the lipsticksized recorders strapped to the chests or shoulders of their first responders.
There are good reasons for this progress and evolution:
Cameras provide video that helps prosecutors make cases. In other words, they help get the bad guys.
Cameras also protect cops from bogus complaints — and give citizens more confidence that they’re getting the full story.
Basically, cameras are as much a part of modern-day police technology as computers and smart phones.
“Really, this is standard technology for law enforcement,” said Apopka’s deputy police chief, Randy Fernandez. “It’s just accepted now.”
Most places anyway. There are still a handful of local agencies that don’t have them — and you deserve to know who they are.
That’s why I first created a cop-camera database four years ago … so you could see how your department stacks up.
I didn’t care about excuses. I just wanted the numbers. First in 2014. Then in 2016. And now in 2018. Check the chart for yourself to see where your local agency stands.
The four local police departments still lacking cameras are Eatonville, Leesburg, Maitland and Winter Park.
The two sheriff ’s offices behind the curve are Lake County, which has only two body cams, and Osceola, which has none — but where new Sheriff Russell Gibson says he is in the process of getting them.
Most departments only need cameras on the frontline officers — those on patrol duty, street beats and in DUI units. That’s why large departments may only have half their staff equipped while small departments (where everyone does everything) have cameras on everyone.
Where cameras are rolling, the chiefs describe one benefit after another.
In Windermere, the chief said footage has made bogus complaints disappear the
moment complainers were told that video existed.
In Kissimmee, the chief said that simply turning on the cameras — which triggers a “Now recording” announcement in their model’s case — has been known to immediately quell rowdy police scenes.
And in Daytona Beach, the former chief-turnedsheriff said cameras emboldened his best officers and made the handful of bad ones look for other jobs.
“Everything’s been positive,” Kissimmee Chief Jeff O’Dell said of his office’s sternummounted units. “The way we sold it to our folks was this: We do far more good than otherwise. People should see that.”
The offices that have rejected cameras so far offer a variety of excuses. In Winter Park, for instance, city commissioners fretted about the costs and said they hadn’t yet seen a need for them in their tony town.
But waiting until you have a controversial case that requires video footage is like waiting until your house burns down to buy an insurance policy.
And while Winter Park talked of inflated costs, many departments have found that adding body cameras is relatively cheap.
In Kissimmee, for instance, the cost of buying 80 cameras to equip the force’s entire front line was $159,000, including video storage. After that, storage costs $90,000 a year. All that in a department with a $21.7 million budget.
Plus, departments often use federal grants and forfeiture money to help cover their costs.
Most departments that say they can’t “afford” cameras simply don’t want them.
Besides, all it takes is one excessive-force lawsuit to make camera costs look tiny.
Now, body cams aren’t a panacea. They aren’t always pointed in the right direction. And officers have to be trained about when to turn them on and off.
Apopka Police Chief Michael McKinley said he views them as “another tool in the box,” adding that his officers have come to appreciate the cameras bearing witness to what they do. “Overall, our officers have embraced them,” he said. “They show they are out there treating the public correctly.”
Orlando Police Chief John Mina offered similar sentiments, saying one of his officers told him that, after wearing cameras for a while, “he felt naked without it.”
That’s exactly how agencies without cameras operate all the time. Naked and exposed. Vulnerable to criticism, lawsuits and even suspicion.
After all, as the chiefs say, body cameras are now “standard technology.” So why would anyone not want their officers to have that?