Last fall, I came across an article titled “US border patrol staff reject body cameras, citing cost and terrain“.
This article opens with the following two paragraphs:
SAN DIEGO (AP) – Customs and Border Protection staff concluded after an internal review that agents and officers shouldn’t be required to wear body cameras, positioning the nation’s largest law enforcement agency as a counterweight to a growing number of police forces that use the devices to promote public trust and accountability.
The yearlong review cited cost and a host of other reasons to hold off, according to two people familiar with the findings who spoke on condition of anonymity because the findings have not been made public. It found operating cameras may distract agents while they’re performing their jobs, may hurt employee morale, and may be unsuited to the hot, dusty conditions in which Border Patrol agents often work.
Body cameras come in many different shapes and forms, and I’m not surprised that some models aren’t well-suited to certain environmental conditions. But the part about “hurting employee morale” really caught my attention. If you’re not familiar with Customs and Border Patrol (CBP), they’re a federal agency with jurisdiction over any area within 100 miles of US international borders; that includes areas adjoining Canada, Mexico, and of course, a very large chunk of Massachusetts.
During recent years, CBP has gotten something of a reputation for harassing people at border crossings and interior checkpoints. For example, they questioned a father as to whether he had his wife’s permission to travel with his children. Agents took the father’s phone, citing concerns that he would record, upload, or share the interaction. In the southwest, CBP is known for “internal checkpoints“, where they can “conduct brief stops for the limited purpose of verifying residence status”, aka a “show me your papers” stop. YouTube is full of
examples of these stops.
Perhaps the “morale” argument applies to the agent in the last video, who clearly didn’t want to be recorded.
But back to the original AP story; it mentioned a CBP feasibility study, so I made a FOIA request for that document. Much to my surprise, CBP provided the document in a very timely manner, and in the electronic format I had requested.
Here’s the study, if you’d like to read it for yourself:
cbp-feasibility-study-body-worn-camera.pdf
The study cites a number of practical concerns; like requirements for video storage, segregation, and access control. It also includes a quote from the International Association of Police Chiefs:
“One of the most challenging issues an agency may face is officer acceptance. If officers feel that the video cameras are being used as a tool to monitor behavior, as several officers felt in the IACP study, they may be resistant to using the cameras.”
and another quote from the American Civil Liberties Union:
“Data should be retained no longer than necessary for the purpose for which it was collected…..”
Makes you wonder, huh?
Although they’re not called out in big quotation blocks, the CBP report found a number of positive benefits from the use of body cameras. These benefits include:
- Reducing allegations and complaints, deterring frivolous complaints and lowering the likelihood of use of force incidents.
- Enhancing training capabilities through utilization of footage as a learning tool.
- Contributing to a civilizing effect on law enforcement/civilian interactions by reducing hostilities between officers/agents and citizens.
- Strengthening officer/agent performance and accountability.
- Simplifying incident review by enabling the quick and immediate review of footage.
In once sense, the International Association of Chiefs of Police is right: body cameras can be used as a tool to monitor agent behavior. I would argue that body cameras should be used as a tool to monitor agent behavior — and to influence it. Particularly if such influence reduces use of force incidents, reduces hostility, strengthens accountability, and provides a tool for learning and feedback. Those are positive changes, and I hope the CBP realizes they’re worth making.
Heck, I’ll take anything that reduces the number of YouTube videos showing CBP agents acting like authoritarian jerks.
Last fall, I came across an article titled “US border patrol staff reject body cameras, citing cost and terrain“.
This article opens with the following two paragraphs:
Body cameras come in many different shapes and forms, and I’m not surprised that some models aren’t well-suited to certain environmental conditions. But the part about “hurting employee morale” really caught my attention. If you’re not familiar with Customs and Border Patrol (CBP), they’re a federal agency with jurisdiction over any area within 100 miles of US international borders; that includes areas adjoining Canada, Mexico, and of course, a very large chunk of Massachusetts.
During recent years, CBP has gotten something of a reputation for harassing people at border crossings and interior checkpoints. For example, they questioned a father as to whether he had his wife’s permission to travel with his children. Agents took the father’s phone, citing concerns that he would record, upload, or share the interaction. In the southwest, CBP is known for “internal checkpoints“, where they can “conduct brief stops for the limited purpose of verifying residence status”, aka a “show me your papers” stop. YouTube is full of
examples of these stops.
Perhaps the “morale” argument applies to the agent in the last video, who clearly didn’t want to be recorded.
But back to the original AP story; it mentioned a CBP feasibility study, so I made a FOIA request for that document. Much to my surprise, CBP provided the document in a very timely manner, and in the electronic format I had requested.
Here’s the study, if you’d like to read it for yourself:
cbp-feasibility-study-body-worn-camera.pdf
The study cites a number of practical concerns; like requirements for video storage, segregation, and access control. It also includes a quote from the International Association of Police Chiefs:
and another quote from the American Civil Liberties Union:
Makes you wonder, huh?
Although they’re not called out in big quotation blocks, the CBP report found a number of positive benefits from the use of body cameras. These benefits include:
In once sense, the International Association of Chiefs of Police is right: body cameras can be used as a tool to monitor agent behavior. I would argue that body cameras should be used as a tool to monitor agent behavior — and to influence it. Particularly if such influence reduces use of force incidents, reduces hostility, strengthens accountability, and provides a tool for learning and feedback. Those are positive changes, and I hope the CBP realizes they’re worth making.
Heck, I’ll take anything that reduces the number of YouTube videos showing CBP agents acting like authoritarian jerks.