As police body worn cameras (BWCs) are becoming more frequently used in law enforcement, their use and legality continue to be heavily debated. BWCs offer a plethora of benefits, including increasing transparency and accountability in policing, promoting public trust, and protecting officers from false complaints. However, they also raise concerns related to privacy, constitutional rights, and regulatory oversight. Court cases addressing BWC use often reveal varying outcomes based on local and state laws, as well as the individual circumstances of each case.

In this blog post, we will examine some notable court cases that have tackled various aspects of police body worn cameras. We will also explore the legal implications for law enforcement agencies, citizens, and the courts themselves.

1. Glik v. Cunniffe (2011)

This First Circuit Court of Appeals case established a key precedent regarding the right to record police officers performing their duties in public. Simon Glik, a criminal defense attorney, observed the arrest of a young man in a public park and began recording the incident with his cell phone. The police officers arrested Glik for allegedly violating Massachusetts wiretap law.

The court ruled that Glik's right to record police officers in public was protected under the First Amendment, paving the way for public accountability and the legality of recording police actions with BWCs. This case highlighted the need for law enforcement agencies to develop policies and procedures that facilitate transparency while also protecting individual privacy.

2. People v. Thompson (2014)

In this Illinois Court of Appeals case, the court upheld the felony eavesdropping conviction of Annabel Melongo, who secretly recorded a conversation with a court reporter when trying to correct a transcript. The court found Melongo guilty of violating Illinois' eavesdropping statute due to the surreptitious nature of her recording. This decision had significant implications for police BWCs, as many states have two-party consent laws – meaning that both parties must consent before such a recording is made.

This case has led to some debate over whether BWCs should be able to record all bystanders, given the potential intrusion on privacy rights. The Illinois legislature later amended the eavesdropping statute by providing exemptions for police officers who use BWCs, effectively addressing the issue.

3. Cheeks v. Kemp (2014)

This Eastern District of New York case dealt with the question of whether the use of BWCs can create an "undue burden" on the plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights. In this case, the plaintiff sued the Nassau County Police Department after an officer wearing a BWC entered his home without a warrant following a domestic dispute.

The court ruled that the use of BWCs did not create an undue burden for the plaintiff. The decision emphasized the value of BWCs in providing objective evidence in potential use-of-force situations and underscored the importance of department policies that clearly outline the legally permissible instances for BWC use.

4. Mills v. Cambridge (2015)

Christopher Andrew Mills, a paraplegic man, sued the Cambridge Police Department after an encounter with two officers wearing BWCs escalated into a violent confrontation. Mills alleged that the BWC footage was tampered with and manipulated in the police department's favor.

While the court found no evidence of tampering, it did address the importance of proper BWC data management and emphasized the need for law enforcement agencies to establish data storage policies, ensuring the integrity and public trust in BWC footage.

These court cases illustrate the range of legal issues related to police body worn cameras. As BWC usage continues to expand and technology advances, it is essential for law enforcement agencies, courts, and the public to stay informed and vigilant about the evolving legal landscape.

Ultimately, it is the responsibility of our judicial system to determine the balance between transparency, public safety, privacy rights, and technological innovation. These cases offer valuable insights into interpreting and implementing BWC policies, but it is essential for law enforcement agencies to develop and adhere to procedures that recognize the dynamic legal environment while promoting trust between the police and the communities they serve.