Residents unhappy at demo of body cams
No live upload of police video upsets some
A Columbus Department of Public Safety official said new police body cameras demonstrated to the public Monday night for the first time will bring a new era of transparency to city law enforcement.
But some residents who attended the event, hosted by the Columbus NAACP at Trinity Baptist Church in the King-lincoln-bronzeville neighborhood as its first in-person meeting in two years, weren’t so sure.
George Speaks, deputy director of the city Public Safety department was joined by Columbus Deputy Chief Tom Quinlan and members of Axon Enterprise, the company contracted by the city to provide the new body cameras.
“We want the next generation of technology,” Speaks told those assembled. “Now to do that, we knew it would be difficult.”
The contract with Axon, approved by the Columbus City Council in March, could run up to five years and cost taxpayers nearly $19 million.
Axon Enterprise will provide 2,105 body-worn cameras, 450 vehicle cameras equipped with license plate readers, 16 cameras for interview rooms and 75 body cameras that can be mounted on specialty tactical gear such as worn by SWAT officers. The city plans to roll out the new cameras by June.
The cameras feature what Speaks said will be top-of-the-line technology, including activating all cameras within a 30-foot radius when one camera is activated, longer video and audio recording times, and the ability to stabilize and synchronize footage from several different cameras.
Axon also will provide unlimited cloud storage for all video.
Several residents, however, expressed concern when they learned that the footage would not be instantly uploaded to cloud storage, but would require officers to return to a police station or substation to upload footage.
Speaks said Axon offered a live cloud update ability, but it would cost $45 for every device, and would be prohibitively expensive.
The Rev. Victor Davis, pastor of Trinity Baptist, said he believed the extra expense would be worth it.
“I think the cost is worth the investment for the community to continue to trust,” Davis said. “We spend it on other stuff.”
Columbus City Council member Emmanuel Remy said that when the legislation was drafted, there was not any evidence of problems with any loss of data or video that would require the extra expense of instant video upload.
“Had there been, we would have looked at it a little differently,” Remy said. However, he said he will further discuss the concern with other council members.
Other residents expressed concern that undercover officers would not be wearing body cameras.
Speaks said undercover officers would not wear body cameras because there would be nowhere to hide them, but plainclothes police officers would be issued cameras and wear them as ordered
based on the needs of specific assignments.
Unmarked vehicles do not use in-vehicle cameras as it could compromise their ability to remain undetected, he said.
Yolanda Kent, a community advocate and house leader with Minamyer Residential MRDD, said the lack of body and vehicle camera use among plainclothes officers could create transparency issues.
“We know that the cruisers were coming with cameras, but for the ones we have the stuff that’s been undercover is where trust is the problem. Trust is why we’re here,” Kent said.
Jamaal Ridley, 38, of the East Side, said he had concerns about the transparency with uploading the videos, but said he was glad the city and community members could engage about issues
with policing.
“I believe it does help with transparency, because we’re having those tough conversations,” Ridley said. “Having those tough conversations, having those open conversations. And everyone’s in the room, it’s not just one set of people, it’s the people and it’s the voices and it’s the citizens.” Cbehrens@dispatch.com @Colebehr_report