Elgin police testing cameras on helmet, body

js85

Well-Known Member
I know this is a hot topic around here, and it looks like my city is testing it out.
Elgin police testing cameras on helmet, body - DailyHerald.com
The Elgin Police Department has been testing body-worn cameras for about a year in hopes of providing added protection and accountability for officers and civilians, officials said.
"If there are two different accounts of what happened, the video makes it pretty clear-cut what actually occurred," Deputy Chief Bill Wolf said.





The use of body cameras by police officers has been in the news most recently after the Aug. 9 fatal shooting of unarmed 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, by police officer Darren Wilson. Ferguson police started wearing body cameras about three weeks after the shooting.
"When there's situations where there's unanswered questions, that would be helpful," Wolf said.
Elgin tactical response -- or SWAT -- team members and patrol officers have tested eight to 10 cameras overall, said Sgt. Jim Lalley, who heads the tactical response team.
It's much more effective to carry a camera attached to a tactical helmet because it follows the movement of the head and eyes, Lalley said.
Cameras worn on the body, on the other hand, can be tricky, he said.
Officers are trained to hold their palms together over their chest to allow for quick reaction when needed, but that can obstruct the camera's view, he said.
They are also trained to position themselves sideways, weapon-side away, which means the camera won't show what the officer is focusing on, officer Eric Echevarria said.
"It doesn't give you my point of view, like during a traffic stop when I'm talking to someone in a car," he said.
There are also technical problems, like clip-on cameras falling off or getting accidentally turned on by seat belts while driving, he said.
One idea is requiring officers to wear glasses, but that could be cumbersome for some, Lalley said.
Testing in Elgin mostly operated under the assumption that Illinois' eavesdropping law -- among the strictest in the nation -- prevented audio recording without consent, Lalley said.
However, the Kane County state's attorney's office recently opined that audio recording is permissible, Lalley said.
Police also will be seeking input on the matter from Elgin's legal department, Cmdr. Dan O'Shea said.
"The eavesdropping law has been held unconstitutional," Kane County First Assistant State's Attorney Jody Gleason said, referring to a decision by the Illinois Supreme Court in March.
"I don't think there is anything right now that prevents them from using cameras in audio mode or video mode."
Gleason said that in the last month or so, she's been getting calls from several law enforcement agencies asking about the legality of body cameras.
Body cameras are under consideration in Chicago and Springfield, according to the Associated Press.
A major drawback of not recording audio became clear about three weeks ago, Lalley said.
The tactical response team activated cameras with no audio while executing a search warrant. The silent video shows the officers entering the home through an open door, but the officers can't be heard announcing their presence, Lalley said.
"It looks like we just ran in and didn't do a proper 'knock and announce,' but we did," he said.
The tactical response team was most satisfied with a $169 camera made by Contour, so it will be purchasing three or four more for further testing, Lalley said.
If the department decides to purchase body cameras for everyone, proper policies regarding their use and storage of recording will be needed, Lalley said.
Much more testing needs to be done, especially for patrol officers, Wolf said.
"There's a lot of things to work out," he said. "I can't say for sure that we've committed to (using body cameras) 100 percent, but it's definitely something we're strongly considering."
Wolf said he believes it will eventually become the norm for all law enforcement.
"In Elgin, we were an early adopter to dash(board) cameras, and it's kind of become mainstream," he said. "It will eventually be followed by body cameras."
 

bala

Well-Known Member
This is a huge step forward and the one that they have been trying out for years has come out well now.A camera gives an unbiased view of what happened on scene and it also ensures officers do their duty properly.It is all a thumbs up for the initiative.
 

ReDGuNNeR

Active Member
Wow, congrats to the Elgin police department. This accountability will allow law enforcement to be respected again by various segments of the national population that have felt that things have gone too far. It's amazing to see a police department positively bring these tools in and try to make things better for both the community and the officers themselves.

Here in South Florida, the police union and most officers are against it. Not too surprising because there is corruption in City of Miami and some departments, but that is a subject that has no relevancy here and is not indicative of the organizations at large. I look forward to reading more about this trial, and any professional reports or studies that are being done in tandem with the initial integration of police cameras.
 

Riggy

Well-Known Member
This is fantastic news! I made a thread about this a while ago and pretty much everyone agreed that police cameras are good to have. I'd bet my entire life and everything I own that the number of complaints about police officers will drop considerably!
 

askanison

Well-Known Member
I think cameras should be mandatory equipment. Something has to be in place to make an officer responsible for his/her actions while on duty. Cameras would do just that and leave a record that would show just what happened in an incident and we could move on from events like those in Ferguson.
 

JoshPosh

Banned
I'm all for it. We need to document what both parties are doing. The normal citizen and the police officers. Everyone has to be accounted for especially in the court of law. The film doesn't lie or distort the truth.
 

shreklock

Well-Known Member
This is great to hear. It's great that more and more police in the world start to use cameras, slowly but surely.
 

Patrick

Well-Known Member
I really hope that they choose to adopt it for all police officers in your city after the trial. Honestly the only reason I can think of against it is the high cost of implementation. Hopefully the county will take notice as well, and fund it for more police forces. With buying in bulk some of the costs might be alleviated.
 

Rosyrain

Well-Known Member
It is a good thing that now police officers can protect themselves and have proof in their favor. I guess it could work the opposite if an officer were to do something that he or she was not supposed to. The police around my city are starting to wear the head cameras when they respond to emergency situations. I think it is a great idea all around and for everyone. It is better to make sure encounters are done in a safe and ethical manner.
 

LitoLawless

Well-Known Member
This is really great to hear. I hope that more places take up full body and helmet cameras as well. I think it will give the more incentive to not only take less lethal methods. I think that it will shed light on a lot of things in general.
 

JulianWilliams

Active Member
I am very much in favor of this. Having camera film the cops' actions solves a lot of issues, both for the cops themselves and for the regular people. It should moderate both the cops' and the public's behavior because they all know whatever it is that they're doing is on camera.
 

missbishi

Well-Known Member
Maybe this is the only thing which could restore public confidence in the police. I can see that the lack of audio would cause so many problems though and this is maybe something that needs to be worked on before they go national.
 
Top