Study: Cops Not Wearing Body Cameras Twice As Likely To Use Force

If the purpose of President Obama's request for $75 million to help local police departments buy body cameras is to make it easier to prosecute officers who use excessive force against civilians, then the grand jury's decision not to indict an officer in the death of Eric Garner on Wednesday suggests that the proposal might not achieve that goal.

Video recorded on Staten Island in July shows Officer Daniel Pantaleo executing an apparent chokehold on Garner. Pantaleo told the grand jury that he did not intend to harm Garner.

Ever since a jury acquitted the policemen who killed Rodney King in 1991 in spite footage of officers beating him to death, it's been clear that even video evidence isn't necessarily proof beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal proceeding against an officer. They can't always show what officers are thinking and feeling, the Supreme Court has ruled that juries must generally respect police officers' judgment about when force is necessary to protect themselves and the public. Body cameras wouldn't change that.

That said, if the goal is not simply to prosecute officers, but to help them do their job better and to improve their relationships with civilians, then cameras just might help.

The preliminary evidence is promising, if still incomplete. One study in Rialto, Calif. found that officers who did not wear body cameras were twice as likely to use force as those who were. Initial results from another study in Mesa, Ariz., suggest that 65 percent fewer complaints were filed against officers who wore cameras.

There are still real questions about how body cameras should be used and what to do with all of the data they generate. The hardware won't remove the decades of mistrust that have accumulated between the police and the people they're sworn to protect. Also, the cameras are unaffordable for many local police departments.

Yet $75 million is a rounding error in the federal budget. If police chiefs are interested in purchasing cameras, it would be the least Congress could do to chip in.