ST. LOUIS • City police officers believe in-car cameras are being
used against them, and they are trying to find ways to avoid driving cars
equipped with them, according to union grievances.
Emails dated April
13 from Capt. Mary Edwards-Fears to superiors and underlings reveal officers'
concerns that cameras — installed in about half of the city's 300 patrol
division cars — make police vulnerable to second-guessing.
"We are
missing critical evidence for our cases when we allow them to avoid using
vehicles with cameras in them, for fear of being caught in a compromising
position," Edwards-Fears wrote. "Your job as managers in the business
is to assist your officers in following the rules and regulations, not
assisting them in circumventing them."
At issue are two
probationary officers investigated after a woman said they planted guns and
drugs on her 16-year-old son. Video exonerated them of that claim but revealed
that one struck the handcuffed teen, which led to the firing of both.
The grievance asks
that they be rehired and given a disciplinary hearing. It says the department
should have considered that the teen had pointed a gun at one of the officers,
that probationary cops should not be partners and that other officers should
have handled the suspect afterward.
Police-car
cameras, typically faced out the windshield, have been around for more than 15
years but were slowly embraced by large departments because of the cost. They
have a proven record of supporting good police work, exposing bad, and
providing rock-solid evidence against DUI suspects and others.
Technology is
moving toward tiny cameras attached to officers' uniforms, although the Las
Vegas Police Protective Association has threatened to sue that department for
not negotiating terms first, according to the Las Vegas Sun newspaper.
About a year ago,
police here began using car cameras donated by the St. Louis Police Foundation,
a private support group. Now, 140 district vehicles have them.
Jeff Roorda,
business manager of the Police Officers Association, complained about
inconsistent use of the recordings. "Officers should know what the cameras
are going to be used for, when the cameras are activated and how they will be
reviewed and what the discipline will be if you have a violation that results
from the cameras," he said. "Right now, all that is in constant
flux."
Police Chief Dan
Isom dismisses the concerns as "growing pains." He said, "New
technology and change is always difficult for an organization. If you talk to
other departments, our growing process with this is consistent."
He said videos
were valuable for training, evidence, protecting officers against false
complaints and "to make sure people are following the protocol of the
police department."
Isom said the
number of officers disciplined over what supervisors have seen on videos is
"very little."
In-car cameras
caught Officer Jason Stockley brandishing a personally owned rifle at a drug
suspect, who was later shot and killed by police Dec. 20. The department does
not allow officers to carry personally owned rifles and still is investigating
the matter internally.
Officer David
Wilson was seen striking a handcuffed teenage suspect in January. He was
criminally charged with assault in April, and an internal investigation is
under way.
The union wants
the department to draft a policy on how to use cameras for discipline.
Isom doesn't see a
need: "I'm not going to draft a policy for those who violate our
policy."
He said each of
the nine districts may have a different approach.
Referring to
sergeants in her command, Edwards-Fears' email says, "Each of you is
responsible for viewing the in-car camera footage of all arrests, all pursuits
and all shots fired incidents and anything of interest that could catch our
superiors' attention."
The Police
Officers Association president, David Bonenberger, is a Sixth District
sergeant. He said he reviewed tapes to critique his officers, not discipline
them.
He sees the point
of having cameras, but not if they're going to be used for head-hunting.
Police unions
elsewhere have pushed departments to draft policies that range from limiting
cameras to monitor only what happens outside of a police car to outlining reasons
why supervisors should review tapes.
In Renton, Wash.,
a city of about 90,000, police outlined a list of reasons supervisors need to
document for reviewing tapes, including any use of force.
In Eugene, Ore., a
city with about 156,000 people, the Police Employee's Association helped draft
a policy that requires the city to notify and negotiate with the union about
any changes.
Last month, Dallas
police suspended a special unit's routine review of patrol car videos after
officers complained of being targeted for infractions, such as speeding on
calls to help fellow officers.
In the Illinois
State Police, supervisors are required to randomly audit tapes to make sure
policies are followed, said Trooper Mike Link.
St. Louis County
police had about 100 camera-equipped cars from about 2005-10 but couldn't
afford to keep them up after a federal grant ran out, Chief Tim Fitch.
He said
supervisors there needed a reason for a review. "We don't want to play
'gotcha'," Fitch said. "That's how some departments play games. They
have a video and say, 'Your report doesn't match what's in the video.'
"But in the
heat of battle, in what we do every day, your memory isn't always that great,
so it's important for the officer to view the video and make the video part of
their report."
THE ROOKIES
Officers Jacob
Fowler and Rory Bruce were not allowed to review the video during an internal
affairs investigation in which the department alleges Bruce can be seen
striking a handcuffed 16-year-old on Feb. 20.
Moments before,
the teen pointed a gun at Bruce's partner, Fowler, who then fired a shot and
missed him, according to police reports.
Isom said the
officers and sergeant could have viewed the video right after the incident, but
didn't.
Union leaders
contend that Bruce didn't remember striking the teen or expect a disciplinary
issue, so he had no reason to review the tape.
Bruce, 35, was
charged in April with misdemeanor assault; both were dismissed from the force.
Addressing the
incident, Edwards-Fears wrote that probationary officers should not be
partners, "because the experience isn't there." She also said
sergeants should keep any officer subjected to an assault away from the
suspect.
"We failed in
this case, and I am not proud of this loss."
She supports the
firing, but wrote, "Unfortunately, the case was dismissed and the offender
was released because of the officers' actions."
Bruce's attorney,
Joseph Hogan, said Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce's office initially promised
a copy of the video if he agreed to limit its release, but he was later told he
could only see it in the prosecutor's office.
"That's not
the way the world works," he said, likening it to refusing to turn over
police reports or other key evidence.
Joyce said in a
prepared statement that it is her office's policy to make surveillance tapes
available for defense attorneys and defendants for viewing at her office only.
Hogan has declined to view it that way.
Hogan filed a
motion last week to try to force prosecutors to release the video, saying he
should be allowed to view it at will, watch it with his client and enhance it.
In the prepared
statement, Joyce's office responded: "It is Mr. Hogan's prerogative to
file a motion. We will address this matter at a hearing where it is
appropriate, rather than grandstand in the media."