The police shootings of an unarmed man in a St. Louis suburb and an
unarmed man in South Carolina have both shown that video can provide
valuable evidence for police and the public in cases that have few other
witnesses, and prompted a Valley attorney to ask why more agencies
don't use cameras.
Craig Rosenstein, a Scottsdale DUI attorney,
said members of the public could be surprised how few police officers
and deputies in Maricopa County use cameras in their vehicles.
"This
is a widespread failure," said Rosenstein, who noted that other
department's around the state might serve as a blueprint on how to
implement the programs.
"The justice system is dogged because so
many of these cases end up being a police officer's word against a
defendant's word. There's no third party account," he said.
But
more and more Valley agencies have started outfitting officers with
cameras in recent years, including some forced to do so by courts and
others who wish to avoid the same fate.
In 2013, U.S. District
Judge Murray Snow ordered that the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office
install cameras in every deputy's vehicle.
The reform was part of
the federal judge's ruling that Sheriff's Joe Arpaio's office violated
the constitutional rights of Latinos through many of its immigration
enforcement efforts.
In September, the agency's court-appointed
monitor presented a report indicating that the Sheriff's office was
lagging in its compliance with the judge's reforms.
In a separate
2006 race-profiling settlement, the Arizona Department of Public Safety
was ordered to install vehicle-based video systems in all of its patrol
vehicles throughout the state.
The class-action lawsuit filed by
the American Civil Liberties Union alleged DPS officers were
discriminating against Hispanics and Blacks during traffic stops.
Some local jurisdictions are trying to avoid similar lawsuits by implementing camera systems now.
The
Scottsdale and Gilbert police departments are testing cameras worn on
patrol officers as part of pilot programs to decide whether to implement
the cameras for permanent use. Scottsdale is testing ten cameras while
Gilbert tests 32.
In Surprise, police officers have worn body
cameras since August 2013. All patrol officers use the cameras while
responding to investigations, traffic enforcement and contact with the
community.
Some agencies have cited cost and budget concerns when
defending their slow implementation of camera systems, but Rosenstein
said cameras will save money in the long term.
"Police departments
spend a ton of money defending themselves when people accuse them of
wrongdoing," Rosenstein said. "A camera would bolster what they're
saying is the truth."
The Phoenix Police Department does not use
vehicle cameras, but is currently testing 55 body cameras as part of an
Arizona State University study.
Phoenix police spokesman Sgt. Trent Crump said the department is already successful in prosecuting cases without video evidence.
"If the courts begin to dictate or request additional information, we'll comply," Crump said.
Rosenstein said that is a scary thought process for law enforcement to have.
"Just
because juries convict doesn't mean we shouldn't have independent
corroboration for all to see," Rosenstein said. "Juries are generally
inclined to believe an officer over a person accused of a crime and has a
different view of events."
