SMPD To Equip All Officers With Body Cameras

Officers of the San Marcos Police Department (SMPD) have successfully integrated the use of body cameras in their daily work.

Recent cases of police brutality have facilitated the growing discussion of law enforcement’s use of body cameras to provide an unbiased account of their interactions with civilians. SMPD is embracing the new tool, while many have expressed privacy concerns regarding the new technology.

SMPD have adopted in-car videos to record police work since 2004, said Bob Klett, Assistant Chief of Police. SMPD began testing body cameras on officers of the Downtown Foot and Bike Patrol about a year ago.

Klett said the body cameras serve as an extension of the in-car video and capture what an officer is observing.

“Officers are at the point today where they really don’t want to drive the car without the video,” Klett said. “I think our officers are certainly for the idea of (body cameras).”

Citizens sometimes call to complain about an officer’s conduct. Video usually confirms the officer followed the correct procedure, Klett said.

“It was very surprising to me that some of the things people would call to complain about when video evidence clearly shows the person was lying in their allegations,” Klett said.

Klett recognizes the body cameras are helpful in collecting evidence, but their use has other issues.

The video may fail to capture what happened before or during the incident depending on what part of the body the camera is located or where the officer is positioned, he said.

“Everything is open to interpretation,” Klett said. “A police officer is making split second decisions that later on, when people are looking at the video, (they) can rewind.”

A camera adds another level of “stress” and responsibility an officer has to think about when engaged in law enforcement action, said Kye Kennedy, corporal of Downtown Foot and Bike Patrol.

“An incident can occur so rapidly that an officer may not have the opportunity to turn the (camera) on,” Kennedy said.

Security of the video is another factor to be considered, Kennedy said. Some cameras use flash cards for storage depending on the model and, unfortunately, can be tampered with. The video’s security is important for a prosecutor to look at when evaluating the “integrity of the evidence.”

Kennedy does not share the same opinions others have regarding privacy issues of using body cameras.

“The video is a public record,” Kennedy said. “I don’t see a privacy issue with these body cameras more than any other piece of equipment that we use.”

The officers currently using body cameras patrol in public venues and do not enter the homes of citizens, Klett said. Other officials who use the cameras regularly include school resource officers and the outlet mall patrol, Klett said.

“There always have been a few officers that share the ‘us against them’ mentality,” Kennedy said. “And it’s unfortunate that some officers don’t share a good outreach to community that we have here.”

The citizens and local law enforcement have developed good “community relations,” Kennedy said.

Resistance happens with any new technology, he said.

“It’s amazing to me sometimes what we hear officers doing in other parts of the country,” Klett said. “Police forces are generally driven by community expectations.”

SMPD is currently waiting for a state or federal mandate to provide funding if body cameras are required, he said.

Alexa Tavarez is a senior reporter for the University Star where this story originally published, and is reprinted here through a news partnership.