Guest column: Cameras protect police, too. (Dave Gray, SAR)

Retired law enforcement officer Dave Gray of Palm Coast wrote persuasively in the St. Augustine Record why we need police body cameras.

Who could oppose body cameras?

Only a shill for controversial St. Johns County Sheriff DAVID SHOAR, who legally changed his name from "HOAR" in 1994.

from the March 11, 2020 St. Augustine Record:




Guest column: Cameras protect police, too
The St. Augustine Record
By Dave Gray
Posted Mar 10, 2020 at 5:04 PM

I am writing in response to your editorial regarding the use of body cameras by law enforcement agencies. I am retired law enforcement and I completely agree with your assessment. After having completed a 29-year career in law enforcement, during which I was promoted to lieutenant and had a responsibility for investigating allegations of officer misconduct in Washington State for eight years prior to my retirement, I know a little bit about the challenges of investigating allegations of misconduct against law enforcement officers.

While the vast majority of officers do their jobs ethically, compassionately and according to their agencies’ policies, officers are human and not exempt from bad behavior such as was evident in the recent videotaped arrest that your editorial referred to in St. John’s County.

Law enforcement agencies that have purchased body-worn cameras for officers and have enacted policies mandating their use during all interactions with the public know the value of this important technology not only for the community, but just as importantly as a safeguard for the officer and that officer’s agency. When I began my law enforcement career in Southern California in the late 1970s, there was no such technology, and in the first 10 years that I was a street cop, I faced investigations twice from arrestees who made unfounded complaints against me pertaining to their arrests.

Fortunately, both of those allegations against me resulted in findings that I had done nothing improper during the arrests. Had there been body-worn camera technology at that time, I would have welcomed it. And in those two cases involving me, it would have allowed investigators to have an important tool in their arsenal when conducting the investigations and very well may have eliminated the citizen complaints to start with if the persons being arrested knew they were being videotaped.

Likewise, I firmly believe that law enforcement officers in general react in a more positive way when they are aware that their every move and every word in public is being recorded and might be reviewed by their agency’s brass. In my view, it is a win-win situation.

Those in law enforcement who are not in favor of having body-worn cameras, which I think are in the minority, cite the expense and frequently say the cameras may give only a partial view of a situation that could be taken out of context.

But to those I would say that the initial expense of purchasing body cameras is outweighed by the possibility of very expensive civil litigation and court judgments, as past police misconduct cases have shown. Even a partial recording of an incident to better explain what occurred is better than none and should be viewed as just another tool for the investigator’s use. We have the benefit of so much useful technology in today’s world, and I count body-worn cameras as one of the most beneficial examples of technology that benefits both law enforcement and society as a whole. I hope that we will finally see body-worn cameras commonly in use by all law enforcement agencies nation-wide, regardless of their size.

Dave Gray lives in Palm Coast.