We have to give credit where credit is due. Early this week, Westover City Council approved a new officer body-worn camera software that changes the way footage is stored.
Westover Police have been at the center of controversy for nearly a year now. First a lawsuit filed in July 2020 on behalf of Andre Howton, who was beaten and arrested by Westover officers on New Year’s Day 2019; then a letter from officers in the department condemning one of their own in August 2020; and in January, a second lawsuit filed, this time for an incident in August 2019 where William Cox was beaten and arrested after filming a police vehicle driving by.
In response, the police department and city council have made steps toward addressing excessive use of force and holding officers accountable. This is one of those steps.
With the old body-cam software, officers would have to hook a cable from the camera to a computer, then they could control what footage went where. With the new system, the body-cam is put on a docking station, which automatically offloads the footage and sends it to off-site storage. If an officer wants footage deleted, a letter must be submitted with the request.
Officers’ body-cams recorded the New Year’s Day incident and has been essential evidence in providing justice for Howton. In Cox’s case, on the other hand, the lawsuit alleges officers’ body-cameras were never turned on or the footage was deleted. Cox’s phone was confiscated and never returned, and the only video of the incident comes from a nearby business’s security camera. If the body-cam footage was deleted, the new software can prevent that from happening again. But if the cameras were never activated, the new software is less helpful, to put it mildly.
The software update is a good first step toward transparency and accountability, but there are still problems if the cameras aren’t turned on. We’re proud of Westover’s council and new police chief, Joe Adams, but we hope to see more reforms.
Westover is investing in software to preserve body-cam footage now, but there must first be footage to preserve. In the “Westover Police Department Body Worn Camera Policy,” there are lists of when an officer should or should not activate body-cams, but with the caveat: “… there may be situations in which operation of the device is impractical or may be an impediment … . Additionally, the Department recognizes human performance limitations … .” Then it says: “… officers shall make every reasonable effort to activate the body-worn camera prior to initiating, or as soon as practical after initiating, the following police actions,” which includes “all enforcement encounters” where there is reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
Humans are fallible — we understand that — but what if an officer doesn’t make “every reasonable effort” to activate their camera as outlined? In the entire eight-page document, there is nothing about consequences for an officer who fails to turn on their body-camera. There is no transparency and accountability without consistent camera use. Perhaps that is the next step Westover council and police should look into.
