University Police officers began wearing body cameras last semester, but, due to some technical issues with the cameras, the department says it is too soon to tell how useful, in practice, they will be for the officers.

At the end of the fall semester, the department purchased 55 cameras, which were given to all sworn-in officers at the department, costing a total of $34,292, according to Major David Kelly, who handles support services for the University Police Department.

Kelly said that the cameras help to document police-public interactions, including contacts, arrests and critical incidents, as well as aiding in the ability for Internal Affairs or supervisors to evaluate an officer’s performance. 

The police department first began its field tests in October 2015, but had to stop the use of the body cameras shortly after. In March, the police department was contacted by L-3, the company from which the cameras were purchased, and were informed of a manufacturing issue. 

“Essentially, a small machine screw will come loose within the unit due to the vibration that occurs when the unit is turned on and off,” Kelly said. “In order to update and repair our BWC’s [Body-Worn Cameras], we have sent all of them back to L-3. We do not have an estimated return date at this time. Once all of the units have been received, they will be reissued to the officers and deployed for use.” 

Jack Moorman, the chief of police for University Police, said recent publicity around body cameras encouraged the department to look into using them in practice. 

“You see so much publicity about interactions between law enforcement officers and the public that I think it is real important to make sure that we’re documenting our interactions that we do have,” Moorman said. 

Moorman explained it is very important to have the objective view of the body cameras in case anything happens while an officer is on duty. He said that when there is a situation where somebody gets injured, there are usually two sides of the story, and it is necessary to have definite proof of what actually happened. 

“If we do have an encounter, and somebody makes a complaint about how our officers handled the particular situation, whether that officer was right or wrong, we have video of it so that we can go back and reveal if that officer did do something wrong, we want to hold him accountable, and if not, then it is always nice to have the proof that the officer didn’t do anything wrong,” Moorman said.

According to Moorman, there were issues concerning when the cameras were recording. The department has specific policies that state when the cameras should be on or off, but many cameras would begin recording on their own. He believes that the technical issues are related to the recent popularity of body-worn cameras and the increase in productivity.

“Whether it is in-car cameras in police vehicles, closed-circuit TV’s throughout campus or body-worn cameras worn by officers, as policing continues to embrace the technologies of the 21st century, we will continue to see programs implemented that enhance an agency’s ability to provide for the safety and security of the community they serve,” Kelly said. 

According to Kelly because the program is still recent, it is too soon to be able to tell the effectiveness of having the officers wear body cameras. He acknowledged that some people support the idea of putting cameras on officers while others do not.

“The body cameras are just another way to make sure that your department is serving its community properly and that personnel are doing the things they should be doing, and it is just another source of documentation of that,” Moorman said.