February 2010
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Staff Sergeant Darren Laur (see also Darren Laur)
Constable Brendon LeBlanc
Constable Trevor Stephen
Constable Peter Lane
Debra Taylor
May 16, 2011
By Jim Bronskill, The Canadian Press
OTTAWA — The RCMP like to say they always get their man, and soon they might have video of him, too.
The national police force is studying the use of head-mounted video cameras to record confrontations with suspects.
The move follows RCMP field trials in Kelowna, B.C., and Moncton, N.B., last year in which the force tested — and later rejected — other video devices.
Included in the trials were the Taser Cam, an accessory for newer-model stun guns made by Taser International, supplier to the RCMP, and the Vidmic, an audio-video recorder that attaches to an officer's belt radio.
During the pilot, 132 Vidmic video clips were recorded and the Taser Cam was used twice, say RCMP documents obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act. In addition, several still photos were taken with the Vidmic.
The RCMP records show the devices didn't quite meet the force's needs.
Members "expressed concerns" with the Taser Cam because it began recording only when the stun gun's safety switch was set to the armed position, says an August 2010 report on the field trials.
It meant that, in one Kelowna episode, "a significant amount of communication and negotiation" with a man who tried to harm himself and threatened police was not captured on video, notes the report.
In that case, the Taser was not fired.
"Had the situation ended differently, with the subject not complying, the efforts made by the members to de-escalate the situation would not have been recorded," the report says.
Because the Vidmic was mounted on the member's vest or jacket, it was not always pointed in the direction the member was looking, says the report.
Officers also had technical concerns with the Vidmic, including the fact it beeped every few seconds when the battery was low.
"It was noted this could have officer safety implications if the members were conducting a silent approach on foot to an incident."
As a result, late in the trial, the force began looking at a head-worn camera that slips over the ear and connects to a portable mini-computer on the belt.
Ten Axon devices, made by Arizona-based Taser International, were tested only in off-duty settings, such as training, because the video recordings were downloaded directly to a site in the United States, posing potential privacy concerns.
"The members immediately reported that the Axon camera resolved the issues and limitations they had noted with the Vidmic," say the RCMP notes.
Though officers found the mini-computer "quite bulky," the Axon "warranted a more in-depth review."
Based on feedback from officers, the RCMP began new research last month focusing on the head-mounted cameras, said Sgt. Pat Flood, an RCMP spokeswoman.
No field trial is yet underway, she said. But the internal RCMP memos say funding has been set aside in anticipation of the next trial, which might include other police forces.
"If a further pilot is approved, the recordings will be housed in Canada," say the notes. "There is also opportunity to bring other law enforcement agencies in on the expanded pilot project as the server can house their data separately."
At least two other Canadian police forces have tested body-worn video devices. A report on the Victoria police department's 2009 trial found the technology provided "the best evidence possible" and that the video could be used in court. It also said officers' awareness of their surroundings increased, while public hostility and aggressiveness decreased.
Police tout video as a means of documenting their side of the story when conflicting accounts of an altercation arise. However, civil libertarians have warned that police use of video raises important questions about the citizens' rights.
The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association has argued that it's no coincidence a number of videos police misconduct have come from the public, not police.
A vivid example is the case of Robert Dziekanski — who died in 2007 after being hit with an RCMP Taser at the Vancouver airport — an episode recorded by a fellow traveller carrying a video camera.
The RCMP report recommends that future study of video look at data storage and retention, cost, training and recertification, and privacy-related concerns.
September 6, 2010
Katherine Leyton, Open File Community Powered News
Although there are no immediate plans for Toronto police to begin using body cameras, the force appears to be moving in that direction.
“You have to look ahead and look at trends,” says Mark Pugash, director of the Toronto Police Service public information unit. “Law enforcement in both North America and Europe is going in that direction so it would be a mistake to rule [the use of body cameras] out.”
It's a sensitive issue in the wake of Toronto's G20 summit, which sparked debate about police powers earlier this summer.
The technology — small digital video cameras that can be clipped to an officer’s uniform or ear — is already being used by some American and British police forces and has recently been tested by police in Victoria, B.C. Edmonton police are expected to conduct a year-long trial of body-mounted cameras in 2012.
Pugash cites accountability as well as public and officer safety as the main reasons behind the force’s interest in the technology.
“One of the things that research has shown is that with in-car cameras the majority of complaints that are made against police are found with the camera evidence to be unfounded," Pugash says. "And so one of the things the camera does is to protect officers against unreasonable allegations. If the police officer misbehaves, then the evidence is there and that officer is held accountable. It protects officers. It protects the public. It also provides the best possible evidence for court proceedings.”
Civil rights advocates are skeptical the technology would make officers more accountable.
“One concern is whether it’s an officer’s discretion to decide when those cameras are on and when they’re off,” says Cara Zwibel, director of the anti-discrimination program at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. “Imagine a number of situations where an officer may just record a reaction to something as opposed to what prompted that reaction.”
The cameras also raise concerns about privacy. “One of the things we don’t know is how long the police plan on keeping what’s recorded, what type of uses they might put their recordings to and whether those recordings will be disclosed to the individuals who get recorded, because presumably if you were charged with a criminal offence [the video] would be relevant evidence,” Zwibel says.
Cases such as the 2007 death of Robert Dziekanski at Vancouver International Airport, where RCMP tried to seize a citizen's video that showed the man being hit with five Taser blasts, provide a legitimate basis for concern over who would control such recordings.
Should they decide to adopt body cameras, Pugash says, the Toronto police would work closely with Ontario's information and privacy commissioner, as well as consult with the public, to address any issues of concern.
“What we’ve seen so far is that the public, pretty much throughout the city, would like security cameras faster than we’re able to put them in," he says. "We’ve seen excellent examples of where [these technologies] work but you have to have very strict rules and regulations about how you use them.”
Zwibel is not as confident about the effectiveness of cameras; she points out that although more than 70 closed-circuit television cameras were in operation in downtown Toronto during the G20, the police have appealed to the public to send them cellphone videos of any criminal activity they may have seen.
“I think there’s a point at which we have to question whether just because we can do something, we should,” she says. “Just because we have the technology to record, to have these closed-circuit television cameras downtown, to have body cameras and microphones, is that something we should do and does every interaction with the police need to be recorded with a video camera? Does this really do anything to help improve our public safety?
"I guess the question I’d want to pose to the police is whether they would have any problem with a member of the public whipping out their cellphone camera when they’re being questioned by the police and recording the interaction. My suspicion is that in many cases they would be quite concerned about that and they would say, ‘Turn your camera off.’ ”
See the archived map for the period February 2009 to February 2010 here.
