In the wake of one of the most controversial police shootings in modern times, a growing interest by the public has been placed on whether or not officers should be required to wear body-cameras at all times. In case you missed it, here is a brief recap of the events in Ferguson, MO:
Fatal Shooting: An unarmed, 18 year old black male was killed after being shot multiple times by Darren Wilson, a white male police officer. Details of the incident were slow to be released, and in the absence of information, racial tensions and violence grew.
Questions have arisen. Did the officer feel threatened? Did the victim attack the officer? Was the shooting justified? Details of the circumstance that led to the shooting have yet to be answered and tensions remain high. More...
September 11th, 2001 taught American law enforcement just how critical information sharing and analysis is to preventing and responding to crime.
As a result of this awareness, The U.S. Department of Justice developed the National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan (the Plan). The Plan provides a path to “improving the collection and analysis of information to create valuable and actionable intelligence products.’ (National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan, Version 2.0, Oct 2013).
For over 10 years, the Plan has provided law enforcement with assistance on internal business processes to improve access to intelligence data. From this effort, significant strides have been made in the collection, analysis and sharing of criminal intelligence (intelligence-led policing) across all law enforcement communities. More...
In the United States today, trust in government at the state and local levels is at an all-time low. In fact, a recent study by the Pew Research center reveals that a staggering 80 percent of citizens “never trust” the government.
Unfortunately, this public distrust seems to be trickling down from the government and spreading to other agencies – especially police departments.
Though there is not a clear explanation for why the public feels this way, certain events provide clarity. Six police officers in Wilmington, Delaware, were questioning a suspect in a local neighborhood when shots fired on the group, wounding a state trooper. Despite multiple witnesses, not a single person came forward – and the gunman still walks the streets. More...
Criminals can often run, but thanks to the emergence of social media and technology, they cannot hide. Surveillance cameras not only provide an image of the suspects, but they present indisputable evidence to corroborate eyewitness testimonies. Oftentimes, the videos or still images extracted from surveillance cameras are shared on social media, resulting in tips and additional information used to identify and locate suspects.
The Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department recognizes the importance of the evidence provided by surveillance cameras, which is why they recently partnered with PublicEngines, a cloud-based solution that facilitates crime analysis, to increase the video footage available in surrounding areas. The main initiative of their partnership is to gain access to commercial and residential security cameras quickly and effectively. Community involvement is essential to making this happen. Citizens can register their cameras through CrimeReports.com and agree to share basic information. The information and camera footage will remain anonymous, and law enforcement must still request access to the footage. However, Public Safety Stewards will be able to view the location of the cameras in order to contact camera owners in the event of an incident in the area. More...
Our social movement app counts on a caring public to confidentially communicate their public safety concerns to peers and the stewards of public safety, and we’re not the only ones utilizing photo and video evidence to record or capture incidents. There is a growing trend of putting lapel cameras on police officers. This movement has obvious pros, but what about the cons?
Privacy and Constitutional Rights: As mentioned in a previous article, there are strict laws about recording an individual without consent. So would this mean that each time an officer is entering someone’s home or any private property, they have to receive consent from the property owner? What happens if an officer forgets to turn off the camera and captures incriminating evidence? Are the images captured from these cameras considered public record?More...