By Kathryn LaMontagne

Police “Reforms” You Should Always Oppose…
3. Are the proposed reforms primarily technology-focused? If yes, then you should oppose them because:
a. It means more money to the police.
b. Said technology is more likely to be turned against the public than it is to be used against cops.
c. Police violence won’t end through technological advances (no matter what someone is selling you).[1]

            Although many authorities touted body-worn cameras (BWCs) as critical to police accountability, these cameras were quite literally “turned against” the public from the start [2] One of the demands that came out of the early days of the Black Lives Matter movement was greater transparency and accountability from the police. [3] BWCs were presented as a tool that would objectively show interactions between police and citizens.[4] What BWC footage shows however, is a grainy “point of view” perspective shot of the public, the officer is not in frame.[5] BWC footage is used in cases against the public and even when considering the constitutionality of police actions.[6] It is imperative that courts address the inherent bias present in BWC to protect the public and deliver justice. Concepts of “filmic enunciation” and “the gaze” from film theory can inform the cinematic nature of BWC footage, addressing this bias.

            Video evidence is widely regarded in mainstream culture, by judges, and in courts as “true” and “unbiased.”[7] Having evidence of officer and citizen interactions promised to be a solution to the issue of transparency and accountability. [8] The implementation of BWCs was embraced by police forces and promoted by many vocal stakeholders including, activist groups and legislators.[9] This technological reform promised police accountability through greater surveillance, but the officers are not the ones being surveilled by BWCs.[10] The dominant rhetoric around BWC footage did not address the inherent bias of this footage as it depicted the public through the perceived perspective of an officer. The promise of BWC footage hinges on the dominant belief that film is an objective media.[11] However, film is not objective. It is not truth, but rather a medium that depicts perspective. [12] Film is subject to all the biases and rules of depiction of a painting.[13] What gives film the illusion of truth is the filmic enunciation: the system that presents the framework of film as truth. [14]

            Part of what creates the framework of film as truth in cinema is the depiction of the film through the point of view of a character; that point of view is not fixed on one object or from one perspective. [15] Similarly, BWC footage depicts the point of view of an officer, but the point of view is not static, it is discretionary; it shows choppy images of where the officer directs the camera. This change in framing and subject of BWC footage is what creates the illusion of truth in the viewer.[16]

            While the choppy quality of the film contributes to the perceived truth of the footage, the perspective from which the film is shot further biases the viewer in favor of the officer by putting the viewer in the “position” of an officer during an interaction with the public.[17] BWCs are typically placed high on an officer’s chest. [18] This near-eye-level recording creates a “point of view” shot. The footage depicts what is directly in front of the camera, with audio from the scene and recording of the officer’s voice.[19] For a viewer watching the footage, they are put into the position of occupying the world through the perspective presented by the BWC footage.

            In Christian Metz’s book, The Imaginary Signifier, he speaks about how when someone is viewing a film they take on the position of the spectator.[20] Metz argues that the spectator is “all perceiving,” their reality is in the film frame.[21] Since the spectator’s body is not visible on screen, the viewer accepts what is being presented as their own vision.[22] The viewer is then positioned “entirely on the side of the perceiving instance.”[23] When someone views BWC footage, they step into the position of the officer, who in this situation is the theoretical “all seeing spectator.”[24] This position as the truth wielding spectator creates an inherent bias in the viewer that favors what is being shown before them—despite the other circumstances that are happening all around the filmed frame—including the officer’s own actions.

            In Laura Mulvey’s famous film theory article “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema” she breaks down the concept of the gaze in film.[25] The “gaze” refers to the power dynamics that come along with being the active viewer and the object, or the party to be viewed.[26] Mulvey describes the active/looking party as occupying the position of the hero, the position of power and truth.[27] When the hero, the active/looking party, is depicted as a police officer or a representative of the law, the looking party’s perspective is representative of the “law” and is meant to connote truth.[28] Meanwhile the “to be viewed” party is inversely affected by the way they are framed.[29] The object to be looked at is presented as the object of scrutiny, a viewer watches the object as a spectacle on screen, they are disempowered through being surveilled.[30] This parallels how bodycam footage is presented with the officer occupying the position of hero, the looking party. The public is the looked at object, the object of scrutiny, their actions are the ones on display, they are disempowered. When watching BWC footage the viewer sees the public as spectacle while occupying the position of the officer, who is positioned as the “hero.”

            When courts and juries treat BWC footage as objective it is dangerous for the public partially because of the reasonableness standard that officers are held to in cases where they are being charged with excessive force. In Graham v. Connor, the court held that “The ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.”[31] The framing of an officer as the spectator in BWC footage puts them in a position of power.[32] This position of power is likely to favor the perceived reasonableness of the officer on the scene. The camera gives an impression of the officer’s perspective, but it is not the true or objective account of the interaction between police and the public. 

            This was exemplified in the case of Derrick Price. While Price was sitting in his car officers approached him because he was a suspect in a crime. Price complied, getting out of his car and onto the on the ground as the officers headed towards him.[33] Despite Price’s compliance, the officers brutalized him.[34] The officers on the scene were wearing BWCs, and what the footage showed was shaky footage of the officers running to the scene, audio of the officers shouting at Price to “[s]top resisting.”[35] The BWC footage depicted a high stress and potentially threatening scene.[36] However, security footage from a nearby building showed that Price complied with orders and attempted to surrender to officers who brutally beat him.[37] The footage not only presented a bias in favor of the officers, the officers also wrote their incident reports depicting the fiction their BWC footage showed.[38]

            The idea that BWC footage represents an objective view of interactions between police and the public is the first place to begin when addressing the issues with the footage itself. If we can call attention to the fact that this footage is not truth, that it is a biased perspective, we can make clear eyed decisions on whether and how we use the footage all together. If the public can understand the cinematic nature of BWC, people can make informed decisions on whether to and how to use this medium.

[1] Mariame Kaba, Police “Reforms” You Should Always Oppose…, Prison Culture Blog (Dec. 1, 2014), https://www.usprisonculture.com/2014/12/01/police-reforms-you-should-always-oppose/.

[2] Howard M. Wasserman, Moral Panics and Body Cameras, 92 Wash. U. L. Rev. 831, 831-32 (2015).

[3] Id.

[4] Eric Umansky, The Failed Promise of Police Body Cameras, N.Y. Times, (Dec. 13, 2023) https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/13/magazine/police-body-cameras-miguel-richards.html.

[5] Body-Worn Camera Frequently Asked Questions, Bureau of Justice Assistance U.S. Dep’t. of Just. (2015) https://bja.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh186/files/media/document/BWC_FAQs.pdf.

[6] See State v. Bliss, 291 A.3d 551, 555 (R.I. 2019) (“Officer McKenna’s bodycam footage was the most compelling evidence, refuting defendant’s claim that he was complying.”); Floyd v. City of New York 959 F.Supp.2d 668, 685 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (finding that BWC footage can address the constitutionality of stop and frisks by NYPD officers).

[7] Umansky, supra note 4.

[8] Wasserman, supra note 2, at 832.

[9] Id. at 832–33.

[10] Id.

[11] Umansky, supra note 4.

[12] Daniel Dayan, The Tutor-Code of Classical Cinema, 28 Film Quarterly No. 1, 22, 28 (1974).

[13] Id.

[14] Id. at 22.

[15] Id. at 28–29

[16] Id.

[17] Id.; Christian Metz, The Imaginary Signifier 48 (1977).

[18] Bureau of Justice Assistance, Body-Worn Camera Frequently Asked Questions, U.S. Dep’t. of Just. (2015) https://bja.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh186/files/media/document/BWC_FAQs.pdf.

[19] Id.

[20] Metz, supra note 17.

[21] Id.

[22] Id.

[23] Id.

[24] Id.

[25] Laura Mulvey, Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema, Film Theory and Criticism:

Introductory Readings 801–15 (Leo Braudy and Marshall Cohen, Oxford U.P. 1975).

[26] Id.

[27] Id. at 814.

[28] Id. at 815.

[29] Id. at 815.

[30] Id.

[31] Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989).

[32] Mulvey, supra note 25 at 814.

[33] Harlan Yu & Maria Bogen, The Illusion of Accuracy How Body-Worn Camera Footage Can Distort Evidence 4-5 (Upturn Leadership Conference 2017).

[34] Id. at 4.

[35] Id.

[36] Id.

[37] Id. at 5.

[38] Id. at 4.