Jacquelyn Covington Professor Wendy Patrick Domestic Violence Law Topic: Criminal Issues: As police increasingly are using body cameras for interactions with crime victims and suspects, what domestic violence issues arise? What would a model policy look like? Would it protect the confidentiality of victims yet document the abuse for prosecution? How would this work in practice? II. Introduction Throughout recent years, as the public interest for policing of body cameras has expanded decisively, much has been expounded on body cameras as a policing, including sacred investigations, suggested conventions, and strategies and even evaluations of various body camera models. Networks have started experimental runs projects to decide the proper and best utilization of body cameras by policing organizations. However, if research on body cameras, or determining its best utilization by policing organizations is finite, then responding to domestic violence and sexual assault cases with the use of body cameras the consequences it has towards victims can be catastrophic. Thesis Statement This paper recognizes and resolves the different issues those known and unsettled, that might emerge when policing with body camera answer casualties of abusive behavior at home and rape, including issues of protection, conceivable evidentiary difficulties while involving body camera film in preliminary, and potentially negative side-effects such access and utilize may make for such victims. II. Body Main Point: Issues of Privacy and Confidentiality a. Reasonable Expectation of Privacy 1. The Fourth Amendment provides a constitutional foundation for privacy against unreasonable searches in the United States. The Fourth Amendment protests against searches when there is a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” The Amendment specifically cites the right for people to be secure “in their persons, houses, papers, and effects” against unreasonable searches. (Bordelon, Domestic Violence and Body-Worn Cameras: Should Privacy Law Guide Rules on Recording (2022)). Under the Fourth Amendment, there is the matter of the legal expectation of privacy. Does police wearing body cameras violate a reasonableness of expectation of privacy for a victim of domestic violence or sexual assault? 2. Dissimilar to dashboard cameras, which have been used for quite a long time by policing, cameras catch visual film from inside a victim’s home. In contrast to audio devices, body cameras catch both visual and sound documentation. Under as of now suggested strategies or policy, it is hazy how victims in an abusive relationship at home that their security freedoms will be safeguarded, or on the other hand assuming they even have the right or chance to direct what is recorded or imparted to the general population. b. Officers and their Safety Concerns 1. There will be times when victims, suspects, or other vulnerable people do not wish to be on film. However, officers have privacy concerns as well, both in their official capacity and as citizens themselves. (Diana Taylor, Body Cameras for Police: When Should They Be Turned off, 6 L. A. PUB. INT. L.J. 42 (20152016)). How do we differentiate under public policy whose privacy rights and safety concerns are most important? Main Point: Access to Body Camera Footage a. Concerns About Release of Body Camera Footage 1. Although the use of police body-worn cameras has vastly expanded, states vary tremendously in laws prescribing public access to such footage. As of 2016, twenty-one states have enacted statutory provisions addressing the public’s access to such footage. These laws vary from state to state in scope of access and the extent of restrictive measures. Some states such as California, Nevada, and Maryland classify police body-camera footage as public record, leaving no exception that might bar disclosure. (Taylor Emory, Barring Access to the Truth: North Carolina's Limiting Approach to Police Body-Camera Footage, 41 CAMPBELL L. REV. 483 (2019)). Main Point: Evidentiary Challenges a. Footage from Body Cameras Provides Prosecutors with Powerful Evidence 1. The difficulties and questions introduced by the utilization of body cameras don't stop with policing. Obviously, film from body cameras can give examiners strong proof of the activities and proclamations of the two wrongdoers and casualties and the location of the episode, in manners that composed portrayals or still photos can't compare. There are a few issues that current ramifications for examiners and courts while tending to the evidentiary utilization of body camera film. In the first place, similarly as with other actual proof, similar to photos, examiners should establish the appropriate groundwork for body camera video to be conceded. While possibly like the principles and contentions introduced while entering run cam video into proof, the body camera film makes extra inquiries with respect to chain of guardianship; accounts are kept on organization servers or cloud servers and a head will be expected to affirm regarding the innovation and cycle of gathering, distinguishing, and replicating such video film, and explicitly to securities from even accidental changes or obliteration. Also, courts and examiners should decide other evidentiary principles to use when video from body cameras is to be presented at preliminary. This will incorporate deductions that a jury can verify proof and required jury guidelines. b. Evidence from Body Cameras May Conflict with Trauma on Victims 1. The utilization of body cameras by follow up examiners or police may conflict with the research on the effects of trauma of victims in a domestic violence case. It is vital to recognize how a traumatic event impacts the brain, and body cameras may trigger victims to reliving their traumatic event. Though body cameras produce prosecutors with solid evidence, the evidentiary challenge is whether it would further traumatize a domestic violence victim. Main Point: Policy Considerations a. Current Public Policies 1. Policymakers must respond to community concerns about police tactics. Moreover, they balance these concerns while also addressing the reality of the dangers facing law enforcement officials who are tasked with protecting and serving those communities. Increasingly, law enforcement agencies are utilizing technology to both improve public safety and promote police accountability. Consequentially, many criminal justice experts have called for specific technologies to achieve these twin goals. One of the many reform’s advocates have proposed is to increase the use of police body-worn cameras. Currently, onethird of the nation’s 18,000 local and state police departments use body-worn cameras, but this number is increasing. (Kami N. Chavis, Body-Worn Cameras: Exploring the Unintentional Consequences of Technological Advances and Ensuring a Role for Community Consultation, 51 WAKE Forest L. REV. 985 (2016)). b. An Examination of Existing Statutes 1. An examination of existing statutes and case law related to police body cameras and privacy concerns may be helpful. Many states have laws governing when and how police may make such recordings, and how they may be used. Some states may already have laws related specifically to body-worn cameras. In 2016, Florida, Minnesota, and New Hampshire all enacted legislation related to the use and release of BWC video. Victims’ rights laws and legislation related to privacy in general, as well as laws governing preservation of evidence and public records requests, may be implicated by policy relating to BWCs. John Wilkinson, (2017). To Record or Not to Record: Use of Body-Worn Cameras During Police Response to Crimes of Violence Against Women. Aequitas, 14, June 2022. III. Conclusion As innovation propels and the utilization of body cameras turns into the new normal, the consequences for victims of abuse and on the law enforcement framework ought to be assessed all the more vigorously. In spite of the fact that there are many benefits to police and examiners using these cameras, aimless utilization of body cameras might significantly affect victims and witnesses, going from loss of security to profound injury. The wellbeing of victims, witnesses and officials ought to constantly be foremost in approach making. By cautiously thinking about every one of the ways body-worn cameras influence the framework and those engaged with a case, we can take full advantage of this influential proof while simultaneously boosting the security of all interested parties. Improvement or refinement of departmental strategy on this developing innovation should be a cooperative exertion, including the vital partners as a whole, to guarantee that the arrangement is exhaustive and receptive to official security and responsibility as well as casualty security and protection. Work Cited Emily Bordelon, Domestic Violence and Body-Worn Cameras: Should Privacy Law Guide Rules on Recording?, 13 GEO. Mason INT'l L.J. 93 (2022). Diana Taylor, Body Cameras for Police: When Should They Be Turned off, 6 L. A. PUB. INT. L.J. 42 (2015-2016). Kami N. Chavis, Body-Worn Cameras: Exploring the Unintentional Consequences of Technological Advances and Ensuring a Role for Community Consultation, 51 WAKE Forest L. REV. 985 (2016). John Wilkinson, (2017). To Record or Not to Record: Use of Body-Worn Cameras During Police Response to Crimes of Violence Against Women. Aequitas, 14, June, 2022. [https://aequitasresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/To-Record-or-Not-To-Record-Use-ofBody-Worn-Cameras-During-Police-Response-to-Crimes-of-Violence-Against-WomenSIB29.pdf] Taylor Emory, Barring Access to the Truth: North Carolina's Limiting Approach to Police BodyCamera Footage, 41 CAMPBELL L. REV. 483 (2019).
