Commentary: Racial Justice Collaborative advocates for bodycams for Delaware police

The police report said Floyd physically resisted officers but made no mention of the prolonged restraint. That cellphone video proved otherwise. But should justice be a matter of luck? Should we have to rely on someone being in the right place at the right time with the right equipment to know what happened in a police-involved incident?”

The single-most critical piece of evidence in the Derek Chauvin murder trial was undoubtedly the nine-minute, 29-second video of George Floyd’s slow-motion murder, in which he can be seen and heard saying, “I can’t breathe.” Twenty-seven times. History suggests that, without that videotape evidence, former officer Chauvin might not have been convicted.

But here’s the thing: The fact that the video even exists is a matter of happenstance. A 17-year-old happened to be in the neighborhood at the time of the confrontation and had the presence of mind, and the guts, to record the entire incident on her cellphone. The graphic video captured a scene dramatically different from what the initial police statement described as a “medical incident during (a) police interaction.” The police report said Floyd physically resisted officers but made no mention of the prolonged restraint. That cellphone video proved otherwise.

But should justice be a matter of luck? Should we have to rely on someone being in the right place at the right time with the right equipment to know what happened in a police-involved incident? Shouldn’t there be a better way to ensure that we have an accurate, objective, impartial record of exchanges between police and the public they serve — especially in use-of-force situations, which involve a disproportionate number of people of color? Enter police body-worn cameras (BWCs).

Body-worn cameras have been in use by some police departments in the United States for more than a decade. A study conducted by the Pew Research Center says that the overwhelming majority of the public (93%) — and to a lesser degree, police (66%) — support the use of BWCs. But here in Delaware, use of BWCs is not universal among the state’s law enforcement agencies. Proposed legislation in Delaware aims to change that. Various bills now before the House would require that most state law enforcement officers wear, and use, body-worn cameras to record all interactions with the public and that departments retain camera recordings for at least 90 days.

The Delaware Racial Justice Collaborative (DRJC), an organization of more than 250 community and civic leaders representing more than 150 businesses, nonprofits and community-based organizations from all three counties, strongly supports legislation that would require the use of BWCs.

The DRJC believes that the use of body-worn cameras will promote its goal of eliminating systemic racism in Delaware. We believe that BWCs:

• Generate greater trust between the public and law enforcement by creating situations in which all parties know that their actions are being videotaped.
• Promote accountability by creating objective evidence of the interactions between all parties, holding everyone accountable for their actions.
• Foster greater transparency and openness by allowing the public to see everyone’s — the officers’ and the public’s — actions.
• Provide an impartial eyewitness account by recording events and dialogue exactly as they happen, protecting both the public and police.
• Aid in evidence collection and court proceedings. A study by the International Association of the Chiefs of Police found that 93% of prosecutors said video evidence is an effective tool for their jobs and reduces time spent in court.
• Improve officer training and development. Scenario-based training using BWC footage helps police evaluate officers and identify areas where more training is needed.
• Help police identify and correct problematic trends in policing, allowing departments to revise protocols sooner than they otherwise might.

Use of body-worn cameras is not a panacea. Greater overall transparency regarding policing activities, especially those involving use of force, should be a given. And yes, body-worn cameras are not infallible. They malfunction, they don’t always capture the entirety of a situation surrounding an incident, and they don’t work at all if they’ve been turned off.

But universal use of body-worn cameras by law enforcement agencies in Delaware would undoubtedly be a giant step forward in improving relations between police and the communities they serve. It’s hard to understand why we wouldn’t want to take that step together.

Lorenzo G. Hopkins is a member of the Delaware Racial Justice Collaborative, where he serves as co-chair of the Criminal Justice Committee. He has 28 years of state and federal law enforcement experience and has witnessed firsthand the benefits of the effective use of police body-worn camera programs. He resides in Camden.