OKC body camera program rolls on
Three years after receiving approval from the Oklahoma City Council, the Oklahoma City Police Department rolled out their full body-worn camera program Friday.
“We’re full functioning,” said Capt. Bo Mathews, spokesman for the Oklahoma City Police Department, who said the small devices are expected to have a big impact in terms of transparency, accountability and fostering better public trust with the department.
With 345 cameras available, officials said all active patrol officers will be equipped with the devices going forward. The number of devices is enough to outfit an entire shift, who would
then swap cameras with other officers during shift changes.
More than 700 officers were trained this month during four-hour sessions in which they learned how and when the cameras should be used and laws concerning public disclosure of the video, said Capt. Arthur Gregory.
Mathews said the cameras would work in favor of the officers and the public when it comes to daily encounters, saying the devices can be seen as a training tool for officers and could shine a light of truth on disputes between citizens and police.
“It reminds them that they’ve got to be professional when they meet with the public,” Mathews said.
Road to the rollout
Although a number of officers had already been wearing the devices for more than a year, the program hit several snags before the full rollout.
Calls for equipping police departments around the country with body cameras came into prominence following the 2014 fatal shooting of Michael Brown, 18, in Ferguson, Missouri. Widespread outrage in response to Brown’s death and the lack of definitive video evidence of the shooting led to advocacy groups to demand more transparency in police actions.
An Oklahoma City police spokesman previously told The Oklahoman that the department had been looking into a body worn camera program two years before Brown’s death.
In February 2015, the Oklahoma City Council approved the department’s request for the program, and by December, an expenditure of $171,550 had been approved to purchase 102 of the cameras for a pilot program.
In September 2015, the Fraternal Order of Police
Lodge 123 filed a grievance against the department over fears about how the cameras and recorded footage could be used. The pilot program went ahead in January 2016, but was halted less than six months later, after an arbitrator sided with the union.
The union objected of the possibility that supervisors could use an officer’s recorded footage against the officer, with union president John George saying the concern was that a supervisor might attempt to find something wrong on a subordinate the supervisordislikes.
By November 2016, an agreement was reached and the pilot program was allowed to be reinstated.
Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 123 Vice President Mark Nelson said he has not received any negative feedback from officers since the continuation of the program and said the organization continues to work with the department to ensure policies that protect officers while accomplishing the goals of the department.
Camera use
In all, the program cost $683,325, with funds coming from the city’s general fund, sales tax, a training fund and two federal grants.
Officers are required to activate the cameras when contacting people in public places, before detaining someone or using force, before exiting their patrol cars on high-priority calls and during pursuits or sobriety tests.
Officers are not allowed to activate the cameras while interviewing victims or witnesses, in situations where people would have a reasonable expectation of privacy or in a health care facility.
Officers who have completed training have a 90-day grace period for unintentionally failing to activate the camera when required. Guidelines state that a pattern of failing to activate the camera could
lead to an investigation being launched and potential corrective action.
The cameras are capable of continuously recording up to nine hours of highdefinition video, which Mathews said should be more than enough capability as the cameras won’t be in constant use throughout the shift. Recorded video will be kept by the department anywhere from 60 days to an indefinite period of time.
Policing the police
Video recorded in incidents last year has led to the disciplining of two officers within the department after their statements about encounters didn’t match the video.
On Oct. 19, officer James Herlihy pulled over cyclist Kelsey Pierce at the corner of NW 21 and Dewey Avenue, asked her where she lived and threatened to handcuff her if she didn’t give him her identification.
Body camera footage shows Pierce taking her wallet from her backpack and presenting her identification, which was still inside the wallet. After Herlihy tells her to take it out of the wallet, Pierce can be seen thrusting her hand out with the driver’s license between her fingers.
Seconds later, Herlihy ordered her off the bicycle, handcuffed her and put her into the back of his police sport utility vehicle.
The officer can be heard telling Pierce that she was handcuffed because she was “throwing stuff” at him, despite the video showing otherwise. Pierce was eventually released, but Herlihy then entered a similar, but false, account of the encounter into his vehicle’s computer terminal, saying Pierce “was very hostile and kept throwing items around and attempted to throw her (driver’s license) at me.”
After receiving complaints about the encounter, police launched an internal investigation into
the encounter that led to disciplinary actions against the officer. What actions were taken have not been released as the discipline didn’t result in a demotion, loss of pay or termination, which would be considered public record under a state statute.
In December, Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater charged Sgt. Keith Patrick Sweeney with second-degree murder in the Nov. 15 fatal shooting of Dustin Pigeon, 29.
Video captured by another officer’s body camera during the incident led Prater to determine that Sweeney’s claim that his life was in danger during the encounter was unfounded.
In a court filing, prosecutors wrote that Sweeney opening fire on Pigeon, a
suicidal man who was holding a bottle of lighter fluid in his left hand and a lighter in his right hand, was “unreasonable, unjustified and perpetrated in an immediately dangerous manner …”
With the added transparency the cameras are expected to bring, Mathews said a major goal is to better address and work to reduce complaints
the department receives. But Mathews said it’s too early to measure the impact the limited program has had.
“I think we would like to wait at least a year to look at those numbers and to make sure that for a full year that we had the full department,” Mathews said. “I think a full year at looking back at data would be the best.”