Video footage from a Nevada Highway Patrol dashboard camera of a Henderson
Police officer kicking a man in the head during a traffic stop, Feb. 7, 2012.
Warning: The footage contains material that may be offensive.
Metro Police don’t have dashboard cameras, but this month officers will
begin testing one type of body-worn camera with hopes of purchasing more of the
cameras and putting them into regular use within the next fiscal year.
No specific money has been set aside yet for the cameras, a county
spokesman said Monday. But during Metro’s Fiscal Affairs Committee two weeks
ago, Metro told County Commissioner Steve Sisolak the department could use
money from its forfeiture fund for the potential purchase of the cameras and
related expenses.
Sisolak sits as one of five members of the Fiscal Affairs Committee, which
oversees Metro’s budget. He said testing of at least one camera could be completed
in July, but the department planned to look at four or five more camera models
before making a decision about which one to buy.
He added that he was happy Metro was moving toward getting the cameras.
“It’s something that will protect both officers who are wrongly accused and
help clear up allegations and issues of police and citizen conduct more
conclusively,” Sisolak said. “Ultimately, (the cameras) will strengthen the
public’s trust in the department.”
To help ensure Metro’s entry into the new age of video documentation of
police stops, a group called Cameras 2012 has formed. The local chapter of the
NAACP and Restore Trust Las Vegas joined to form the group.
Richard Boulware, NAACP first vice president, said the group’s aim is not
only to ensure the department gets body-mounted cameras but also dashboard
cameras.
“There is no better way to restore faith in the police department and to
vindicate police officers in light of unwarranted accusations,” he said.
Metro spokesman Sgt. John Sheahan said Metro doesn’t have dashboard cameras
because most of an officer’s interaction with the public takes place outside
his or her vehicle and out of view of those fixed cameras.
To get the body-mounted cameras in use, however, Metro might have to first
defend itself in court. The Las Vegas Police Protective Association is not
backing down from its contention such cameras can’t be forced upon officers
without first negotiating with the union.
Chris Collins, union president, said the cameras represent a “clear change
in working conditions,” as they add new requirements to an officer’s daily
routine, including downloading the camera’s data. The cameras, he added, also
could impact an officer’s safety. Both factors, he said, mean it is “mandatory”
for the department to include the cameras within the scope of its union
contract.
If the department moves to buy the cameras without that contractual
consideration, “we are going to take legal action,” Collins added.
Sheriff Doug Gillespie could not be reached for comment. But when the Sun
outlined a similar union argument in February, the sheriff replied that he
didn’t see body cameras as a contract matter. If the union’s contention on the
camera were true, Gillespie had reasoned, the department also would have to
negotiate when putting lights on a police car and a shotgun inside it.
Gillespie had said he was committed to getting the body cameras, which are
being used or tested at hundreds of departments throughout the country. At the
time, the sheriff’s only worry was how to pay for the program.
In the coming year, the department projects a base forfeiture fund of $1.45
million, with an additional $6.88 million added to it from the fund balance of
the overall budget to bring the total to $8.3 million. The forfeiture fund
shows projected expenses of $5.2 million for “minor equipment” and $2.8 million
for “capital equipment.”
Sisolak said that until a camera model was chosen, the exact amount of
money drawn from the fund to pay for the cameras wouldn’t be known.
When a camera system eventually is picked, the biggest expense will be data
storage, Sheahan said.
“It’s the gift that keeps on giving, so to speak,” Sheahan said of the
potential cost of storing video of police calls.
The body-camera systems are proprietary, so storage would likely be the
responsibility of the chosen company, which likely also would charge a fee for
storage.
Metro officers, Sheahan added, are called up to 1 million times per year.
Even if only a fraction of those results in some video record, the storage requirements
could be daunting.
Storage costs also will depend upon on how long Metro plans to store the
video, which is policy that has not yet been worked out, Sheahan said.
In the interest of watching out for taxpayer dollars, Sheahan made clear
Metro is moving ahead – but carefully. Though committed to getting body
cameras, he said, the department doesn’t want to pick a system that will be
technologically obsolete in six months.
Boulware, of Cameras 2012, said the cost of replacing the equipment
shouldn’t be Metro’s main concern right now.
“That the technology may be obsolete in a year or two doesn’t mean you put
accountability on hold,” he said.
He added that the amount of money Metro pays in settlements and legal fees
for police misconduct cases may be more than the cost of replacing cameras
every few years. Boulware also said “community groups” are talking about
starting a campaign to educate the public about the use of and need for the
video cameras.
Metro’s lack of even dashboard cameras became more noticeable due to some
recent cases involving incidents of alleged police misconduct.
Earlier this year, for instance, the city of Henderson agreed to a nearly
$260,000 settlement, with Nevada kicking in another $35,000, due to the
dashboard recording of an October 2010 incident involving Henderson Police Sgt.
Brett Seekatz.
Adam Greene was captured on a Nevada Highway Patrol dashcam swerving as he
drove east on Lake Mead Parkway. After Greene was dragged from his car and five
officers put him on the ground, Seekatz came into camera shot and kicked Greene
in the head five times. Greene, it was discovered, was suffering from diabetic
shock. Seekatz was disciplined by the department but not fired. City Council
members said they didn’t know of the incident until this year. They were
angered by it and, shortly after the Sun published the video, Henderson Police
Chief Jutta Chambers announced her retirement.
Metro had its own embarrassing video incident from March 2011.
Resident Mitchell Crooks was videotaping police on a routine stop near
Maryland Parkway and Desert Inn Road when Officer Derek Colling approached him
and, within seconds, had Crooks, who was now screaming, on the ground and under
arrest. Colling’s approach and questions are caught on video; then the camera
is dropped. Talk and screaming can be heard, but none of the subsequent
altercation is on video.
Crooks filed a federal lawsuit alleging his rights were violated. Charges
against Crooks were dropped, and the sheriff fired Colling in December. (Trying
to get his job back, Colling filed a complaint with an arbitrator.)
In February, Metro agreed to pay a $100,000 settlement to Crooks.
Had enough? Write to the Speaker of the House, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515 and demand federal
hearings into the police problem in America.
Demand mandatory body cameras for cops, one strike rule on abuse, and a
permanent DOJ office on Police
Misconduct.