1 of 2
Photos by Erin Nelson.
Hoover police officer Cedric Acoffpresses the record button on his Axon body camera as he gets out of the vehicle during a traffic stop. Footage from calls is stored on the Hoover Police Department server for a minimum of 90 days and is grouped into 67 different categories depending on the situation.
2 of 2
Photos by Erin Nelson.
Body camera footage shows an officer responding to a security alarm at a business in Inverness.
Hoover police have been wearing video cameras on their uniforms for the past six years.
Residents and law enforcement officers in the Birmingham-Hoover area seem to be in agreement that having officers wear the cameras is a good thing, but whether that footage should be released to the public is more up for debate, according to a study conducted by two UAB professors.
Ninety-four percent of 535 residents in the greater Birmingham area surveyed said cameras should be worn by all officers in the Birmingham area, and 72% of 279 officers surveyed in four jurisdictions that have started using body cameras, including Hoover, said the advantages of body cameras outweigh the disadvantages.
However, opinions were much more mixed about whether the public should have the right to see any and all body camera footage, and if so, when that footage should be released, according to the study.
Residents gave somewhat contradictory answers to questions about the release of video footage.
While 55% of residents surveyed agreed that the public has the right to view all police body camera footage, 57% also said there are good reasons for the police to keep body camera footage from the public. And 59% said the police should only release body camera footage in specific circumstances.
Two primary reasons given for withholding body camera footage were a concern for people’s privacy and a concern for due process for people accused of crimes.
“If you have to interact with the police, it is usually not for something good,” one survey respondent wrote. “As a citizen, I don’t want my interaction on a bad day to become public record. It is an invasion of my privacy. If I’m having a conversation with an officer about a crime that has just occurred, I wouldn’t want that conversation to be played on the news on Facebook.”
Others were opposed to videos involving children, dead bodies or nudity becoming public, or the possibility that violent outcomes captured on camera could be used to exploit the deaths or injuries of suspects or innocent people.
Some residents surveyed argued that releasing body camera footage before a case is tried in court could lead to cases of people being tried in the court of public opinion.
“Suspects should be innocent until proven guilty, which means footage should not be released to protect the suspect until all the evidence has been collected and an outcome determined,” one resident wrote.
“A judge should be involved in the decision to make video footage publicly available to ensure that private citizens’ safety will not be put at risk by doing so, and should consider how the public release of video footage may impact suspects’ right to a fair trial by an unbiased jury,” another resident wrote.
Others said police should have to release body camera footage as a way to hold
officers accountable and keep the department’s actions transparent.
“We as citizens do not get a choice in whether or not to be under a police force, so the least they can do for us is be honest, just and transparent,” one resident wrote.
Another said it’s important for footage to be released in circumstances where an officer’s actions are called into question.
“I feel that in instances of suspected police misconduct, the community has the right to know how that officer and others involved acted, considering we are supposed to trust the lives and safety of ourselves, our friends and our community to them,” another resident wrote.
Seven respondents expressed concern about inequitable police treatment and said releasing video might help fix the problem.
“Sunshine is the best disinfectant; videos keep everyone honest,” one resident wrote.
“Unless there is an extremely persuasive reason for withholding video footage, all footage should be uploaded from every officer’s camera daily to an open website for public view,” another resident wrote.
Some said releasing body camera footage could help prevent civil unrest in some instances, particularly in cases of strong public protests.
Law enforcement officers were less enthusiastic about the release of body camera footage.
The UAB criminal justice professors, Natalie Todak and Lindsay Leban, surveyed all law enforcement officers employed by the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office and the Hoover, Midfield and Adamsville police departments.
Of 279 officers who responded, 63% percent disagreed the public has the right to view any and all body camera footage, and 83% agreed there are good reasons to keep body camera footage from the public.
The professors also held a focus group session with three Hoover police officers. Those officers said body camera videos should be considered for public release on a case-by-case basis. They said footage of certain groups, such as crime victims and confidential informants, should be withheld from the public for those people’s protection.
“I would not want a video ever released of a victim,” one of the Hoover officers said. “You are [already] traumatizing a victim more by playing that repeatedly [during the investigation]. And then once it hits, once it’s released, it’s public. Like it’s everywhere, once a news source has it.”
The Hoover officers also expressed concern about releasing video too soon, fearing it could hinder due process and jury objectivity.
Hoover police Chief Nick Derzis said having body cameras has been a positive thing because they provide a factual account of what takes place.
“We’ve always lived in a world of ‘he said, she said,’” Derzis said. “This certainly takes all the guesswork out of it. … The great thing is — it’s for the protection of everybody. It’s for the protection of citizens. It’s for the protection of officers. Good accountability, transparency.”
Every uniformed officer in Hoover wears a body camera and is required to turn it on for every traffic stop, call for service, wreck or citizen interaction, Capt. Keith Czeskleba said.
The Police Department keeps all footage at least 30 days and most footage for at least 90 days, Czeskleba said. Some footage, such as video involving a murder case or serious felony, is kept indefinitely, he said.
Hoover police thus far have not captured any gross misconduct on the part of officers on video, Derzis said. There may have been some incidents where officers spoke more aggressively to people than they should have, but the very fact they have the cameras on helps keep officers on better behavior, he said.
“In the old days, when someone might have gotten hot and said something off the cuff, now because everything is on camera, people probably think a little bit before saying anything, compared to where we were years ago,” Derzis said. “I think it makes us a little bit more professional.”
However, the Hoover Police Department does not release body camera footage for general public consumption, Derzis said.
The primary reasons are to protect the privacy of people captured on video and to safeguard evidence before criminal cases go to trial, Czeskleba said.
Police do release body camera footage, sought as part of the discovery process in a court case, but judges often order that the footage cannot be made public, he said.
There are some cases where Hoover police invite people who file complaints about officers’ behavior to view the video footage, Derzis said. Some people take them up on the offer, but some have said to forget about the complaint once they realized the incident was caught on video, he said. There have been multiple incidents where complaints were shown to be invalid by the videos, he said.
Czeskleba said he considers the body cameras to be essential equipment. “I wouldn’t wear a uniform without one,” he said.
Todak and Leban conducted their study in the last three months of 2019 and released their report in November of last year. As this story was being sent to the printer, they were expecting to have a more detailed report published in the Police Practice and Research journal, with assistance from a colleague at Washington State University.
The professors determined that Birmingham area citizens’ attitudes about whether and when to release body camera video are contingent on the context and facts of each case.
However, they concluded that policies and laws governing the public release of body camera footage should adhere to a specific set of guidelines that discern the potential negative effects of releasing footage from the benefits for transparency and accountability, and for mitigating public outcry surrounding controversial incidents.
“Most importantly, decisions on video release should be guided by the understanding of the importance of transparency for garnering public trust in law enforcement, to the extent that videos are released when requested unless it is determined there is good reason not to do so, potentially by an unbiased third party,” the professors wrote.
However, “given the lack of consensus found in the current study, further research is needed to determine an optimum policy that synthesizes police transparency needs with concerns about privacy and justice outcomes.”
