Traditionally, we trusted police officers. For evidentiary purposes we dash-mounted in-car audio/video cameras (great tool to capture actual footage of sobriety tests and police pursuits). Ferguson, Missouri received plenty of attention and ample second-guessing on police procedure from folks who knew zilch about the subject matter. More cops were second-guessed, their every move picked apart like a rank carcass, until the media-mesmerized buzzards circled elsewhere. From cop to cop they went. Then body-worn audio/video cameras hit the market and law enforcement agencies phased them in (cost prohibitive all at once). Nevertheless, debasing the police profession continued and the out-of-control, media-lit powder-keg continued to spark anti-cop, anti-law and order, anti-respect, and anti-critical thinking skills, automatically defaulting to every cop does everything wrong.
But wait…now we learn there is more.
One police department in Arizona has purchased and outfitted its sworn officers’ service weapons with cameras. “If we make a mistake, let’s stand up and own it,” Lt. Darrell Hixson, with the Williams [Arizona] Police Department, told the Arizona Daily Sun. “But if we don’t, why should we take all the pressure from all different walks of life — family, friends, media and the department?” Generally, that’s what body-worn cameras were destined to do for police work. Body cams have been repeatedly effective in obtaining chronological details and, as mounting incidents resulted in exonerations, disproving false allegations made against cops by the people they arrested and/or simply with whom they had a “citizen contact.”
Lt. Hixon added to the scope though, claiming his department administration’s option to test, implement and deploy weapon-mounted cameras (with microphone and lighting system) stemmed not from any one incident but from the desire to have a second resource (in addition to body cams) of what Williams police officers are encountering. Hixon believes absent, poorly focused or low-quality body-cam footage is remedied by the use of weapon-mounted cameras, as body cams are sometimes rendered useless when the officer’s vantage point is not concentrated on an unfolding incident.
Well, neither is the officer’s camera-equipped weapon if it is holstered, as in not warranted. Where I deployed on the streets, brandishing a service weapon was considered a “use of force incident” which automatically mandated a separate report explaining why the officer’s weapon was drawn. Such a protocol potentially dampens the spirits for sure, and the resulting ambivalence was monumentally backward, on the doorstep of de-policing. However, I’d rather whine about it and generate the extra reports than be voiceless, dead.
The Williams Police Department paid Minneapolis-based Viridian Weapon Technologies $500 per weapon-mounted camera unit, one for each of its current sworn strength of twelve officers. Each camera is equipped with a light, and the units themselves add three ounces of weight to the firearm. How does that extra piece fit into its respective holster? Much like it did over the past handful of years, after laser lights were introduced as attachments for firearms.
Instant-on technology-equipped holsters are manufactured to fit the firearm and its weapon-mounted camera system (attached to the gun’s rail). According to the Viridian specs, the camera system automatically activates when relieved from its holster, having the opposite effect when holstering. Mimicking a miniaturized double-barrel shotgun, the side-by-side camera/light attachment captures footage without any obscurity created from arms/hands in ready stance—one of the reasons these gadgets were invented. Although the light can be manually deactivated (day-shift cops do not necessarily need that feature), the camera stays on regardless…until the firearm is re-holstered.
Why automatic and constant camera activation until the weapon-mounted camera is re-holstered. Viridian CEO Brian Hedeen explained on the Chad Hartman [radio] Show: “Well, we wanted to not have officer discretion involved. We’ve seen from a lot of cases where a body-cam may not have been activated when it should have been. Also, situations can unfold very rapidly for law enforcement and we didn’t want them to have to, if they’re taking their weapon out they’ve got a pretty tense situation and we didn’t want them to have an extra step and say ‘Oh, I better start recording this.’ So we just wanted it to be something that just happened automatically and did not effect anything that they did in their daily job.”
Although well-intended and speaking to the issue of officer safety, hijacking officer discretion doesn’t always result in happy cops. When my department transitioned from a highly-favored police chief to his successor, we quickly learned the latest figurehead was the type who diligently sought out perceived misdeeds, not commendable actions of his police force. GPS devices were implanted on every police vehicle. Naturally, gripes ensued from the rank and file. Fuel was conserved as police patrol decreased—a stand-still-and-be-seen effort. De-policing?
As to the additional three-ounce weight of the firearm, I suppose the engineers’ considerations can be argued by the forensic-minded and/or sniper-pros who calculatingly take every molecule into account. Trivial or otherwise, marksman know the circumventions for such matters. I respect either perspective, as long as it does not impede officer safety and serves its purpose well. Logistically, it alters very little (if any) when we consider that the weapon-mounted camera comes with its own light, essentially substituting for the lights which cops have been using for a while now.
KNAU interviewed Lt. Hixson as well: “Lieutenant Darrell Hixson says the new cameras will help determine what happens any time an officer draws their weapon, regardless of whether or not they fire it. ‘So either way, we’re going to record what that weapon is doing, and that’s what we should know. What that weapon is doing. And who’s operating it and why.'” That last point grabbed my antennae: Who’s operating it and why. One of the varied worst-case scenarios in law enforcement is for a suspect to grapple for and somehow retain the police officer’s firearm, using it against him/her. Although a horridly stark notion, it does happen. That brand of grotesque footage helps piece together not only what exactly happened but also cements prosecutorial impact against the shooter.
Per Viridian’s blueprint, the weapon-mounted cameras can not be edited or tinkered. Scott Buffon of the Arizona Daily Sun reported that the footage “is uploaded to a secure server that lower-level officers cannot access,” as per Lt. Hixson.
Besides Williams PD, who else is interested? According to a Viridian Weapon Technologies press release, “The Williams Police Department was one of the first in the country to evaluate the FACT [Fast Access Camera Technology] Duty Weapon-Mounted Camera. To date, more than 400 [law enforcement] agencies are in the process of testing, implementing and deploying the FACT Duty Weapon-Mounted Camera.”
Similar to when Tasers were introduced to the law enforcement and military complexes, and akin to when Segways were rolled out for cop shops to consider purchasing, the release of new police technology is offered for the proverbial test drive. My agency received two Segways to play with and, finding their suitable place among our police fleet, purchased four in total. Same with the Tasers: we tested a few and received affirmation from all cops as well as city governance. The only hitch was cost (fiscal hiccups at the time). An “unidentified anonymous donor” who we dubbed “cool dude” apparently heard our fiscal plight and sent in a cashier’s check for the full amount required to equip every sworn member on our force.
So what’s next…body cams on police canines? Why not? One can only imagine the POV of a duty-bound police dog working for the bone, ball, or any delicious treat. Much like the complaints against human counterparts which invariably flood law enforcement Internal Affairs divisions, arrestees who adamantly refuse to cease and desist resistance and physically combatting cops may whine about the police canine taking them down.
Then again, some of those bad guys are nothing short of monsters.
Lately, we have been witnessing an increasing number of incidents in which suspects have drowned, knifed or shot police dogs. Canine-mounted cameras could procure a bevy of evidence against perpetrators who maim or murder police dogs. And with regard to stiffer penalties for such arrestees, now that legislation has or is being passed, any camera footage from a dog’s POV comes in handy for the prosecution of these animals (I don’t mean the dog).
What are your impressions of the FACT weapon-mounted camera system? Viridian does market this technology in a model designed for civilians mindful of self-protection scenarios. Self-defense situations?
