Law Assignment: Critically Evaluating Policing on Camera

This essay provides a critical evaluation of the research article 'Policing on Camera' by Ajay Sandhu and Kevin D Haggerty, which investigates the impact of surveillance cameras on police officers. The study identifies three distinct orientations among police officers: 'camera shy,' 'habituated,' and those who see cameras as a 'strategic advantage.' The essay discusses how increased surveillance affects police behavior, accountability, and public perception, referencing incidents of police misconduct and the role of mass media. It explores the challenges faced by officers, including concerns about career implications and the potential for unfair criticism, while also acknowledging the benefits of cameras in solving cases and pre-empting false accusations. The conclusion highlights the complex and contradictory relationship between police officers and camera technology, emphasizing the need for policies that balance accountability with the ability of officers to effectively perform their duties.

0 | P a g e
Criminology
Policing on Camera

1 | P a g e
The objective of this paper is to critically evaluate the research conducted by Ajay Sandhu
and Kevin D Haggerty titled ‘Policing on camera’. This study focused on analysing the impact
of private and surveillance cameras on the police to understand its impact on the police
officers. This study collected data from over 200 hours of in-field observations and
discussion with approximately 60 different officers (Sandhu and Haggerty, 2016). This study
provides that the opinion of police officers were clustered in three different orientations
which are characterised by the researchers as (1) camera shy, (2) habituated and (3)
strategic advantage. This study evaluated many incidents in which public cameras become a
crucial tool to identify the misconduct of police officers such as the case of Eric Garner,
Michael Brown and others. Although these incidents show that there are many benefits of
recording the work of police officers; however, there are many potential negative factors as
well which resulted in making it difficult for police officers to discharge their duties
effectively. One of the key problems is that recorded pictures and videos did not tell the full
story about the pressure faced by police officers while doing their job. Many times these
“evidence” are used by mass media to portray the entire police department as a group of
corrupt individuals (Lippert and Newell, 2016). These incidents create challenges for police
officers who are doing their job by making them anxious about how they should perform
their duties. This paper will evaluate the evidence found in this study to determine the
impact of camera surveillance on police officers along with an evaluation of its positive and
negative impacts.
The post 9/11 secured environment was intense, and the police introduced measures to
prevent civilians from recording them. On the other hand, citizens, journalists and social
activities develop new ways through which they can record police officers and their
activities without being fined or arrested. This setting changed in the summer of 2014 when
two incidents highlighted the issue of police violence, racism and accountability. The
shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown and choking of Eric Garner showed the evil side of
police and how officers misuse their powers against ethnic minorities (Smiley and Fakunle,
2016). After these incidents, the mass media and public pressured the police officers into
taking measures to record their officers in order to hold them accountable for their actions.
The objective of these measures is to put the police officers in the eye of surveillance and
public cameras which focused on recording their misconduct to ensure that they did not

2 | P a g e
misuse their powers. This form of discipline resulted in shaping the individual behaviour of
police officers. Foucault’s model of panoptic surveillance provides that this setting leads to a
situation where a few watches the work of many (Foucault, 1977). However, Mathiesen
(1997) argued in his research that modern media allow many to watch a few which creates
substantial pressure on them. People use television, smartphones and the internet as tools
to scrutinise the actions of police officers in order to maintain discipline. These practices
transform the police from ‘low visibility’ to ‘high visibility’ occupation in order to increase
accountability.
Due to the rapid changes in the occupation brought by rapid expansion of technological
advancements, the police officers are affected in both positive and negative manner. The
‘camera shy’ category of officers did not prefer to be on the camera, and they avoid it by
using different ways. For example, some officers prefer to wear opaque face shields at
public protests and remove their nametags in order to avoid identifying on the camera. They
place black tape on their badge number since they consider that being on camera might
negatively affect their career or personal life. A recent study conducted on Canadian police
officers by Rankin (2013) found that police were charging citizens who were filming them for
obstructing justice. These examples show the extreme measures which are taken by police
officers in order or avoid camera while doing their job. Many officers know where the public
surveillance cameras are located, and they avoid going near those places while doing their
job. These officers focus on finding ways through which they can avoid the camera
surveillance since they worry about their career growth. A key reason for this ‘shyness’ is
that in most incidents, the media spread the news quickly between the public and they are
often misguided by lack of information (Kroener, 2013).
The growth in the number of ‘fake news’ is a good example of this problem; most media
sources try to find news which is interesting rather than finding the truth. It creates a
challenging environment in the media since most news is ‘click-bait’ which is referred to the
content whose main purpose is to attract attention and encourage visitors to click on the
particular link. These headlines did not worry about being right or wrong, and most people
just read the headline to make up their mind about a particular situation (Noble, 2018). It
creates a challenging environment where the work of some police officers are watched by
many people who view different incidents from different perceptions without considering

3 | P a g e
the fact that whether their perspective is true or not. It creates a challenging environment
for police officers who have family and children since they have to worry about them while
doing their job. People start to interfere with the personal lives of police officers if they
engage in any immoral activities. It is not necessary that the charges imposed on them are
necessarily true; however, once people made their mind about something, then it is difficult
to change their mind even with the truth (Leishman and Mason, 2012). The ‘camera shy’
police officers are aware of this situation; therefore, they take extreme measures to avoid
putting them face in front of the camera.
However, this is not the case with all officers as found by Sandhu and Haggerty (2016) who
provided that there are ‘habituated’ officers as well who no longer see that cameras as a
threat for their career. They have become used to the attention which they get from the
public while doing their job and they barely think about the consequences of being on the
camera. They believe that it is a part of their job and they are fine with this setting. Most city
officers are not concerned about the cameras since they work in a camera-rich environment
and they can just be an extension of the inter-personal stares which they receive routinely
(Bud, 2016). In the case of public surveillance cameras, these officers barely notice them
while doing their job. These officers did not see evidence of cameras being sensational
career-destroying devices. They know that potential consequences of going “viral” on the
internet if they do something unsympathetic which result in their criticism by the public;
however, happening of such event is highly unlikely due to which these officers did not
worry about the cameras.
A key reason for this habitual behaviour is that the officers know that there is a lack of
interesting moments in the film due to which people barely notice them. Until there is
something sensational on the video, people did not notice the work of police officer. The
mass media plays a crucial role in the same because different media sources use small
incidents and portray them as devastating incidents which force the public to notice these
incidents (Leman-Langlois, 2013). However, these cases are relatively low in number due to
which most police officers did not worry about them. If the officers are continuously worried
about the cameras, then it becomes challenging for them to discharge their duties. They
find it distracting them during their job, and they worry about these cameras more than
worry about solving the case. With time, these cameras become a part of their job, and they

4 | P a g e
avoid thinking about to focus on the case. If they try to stop people from filming them, then
it makes them more suspicious, and they are more likely to go to extreme measures to film
the officers (Kassin et al., 2014). Therefore, cameras have become a part of their job,
especially in urban areas and they embrace this culture rather than conflicting with the
same.
The third type of police officers considers that cameras did not create obstacles in their job;
instead, they assist them by making their job easier. The strategic advantage police officers
think that cameras can be used as tools to solve cases quickly since they assist them in
collecting relevant information and clues about a particular case. There are two key ways
through which police officers can take advantage of surveillance and public cameras which
include making cases and managing encounters (Potere, 2012). For example, public
surveillance cameras capture an incident of robbery, murder or kidnapping which makes it
easier for police officers to identify the face or body of the criminals. Most police officers
use the cameras in their smartphones to take pictures of the crime scene or other relevant
clues. It makes it easier for them to access the information without going through a long
process. The use of cameras by citizens allows police officers to tell their side of the story as
well. Since the actions of police officers are documented, it becomes easier for them to
show that they were not wrong in the particular scenario (Kitzmueller, 2014).
Officers prefer to use cameras to gather evidence, and they expect citizens to produce
footage which can assist them in conducting their investigation. Sandhu and Haggerty
(2016) found in a particular case where the city officer McGarnagle received a series of
videos and footages from people who witness the incident which assisted the police in
quickly identifying, locating and arresting the suspect of a robbery. It shows that benefits of
using cameras by the public to record criminal activities. However, one of the biggest reason
due to which cameras provide a ‘strategic advantage’ to police officers is that it allows them
to pre-empt unfair criticism. The cameras are used by police officers as an ostensible mirror
of realisation which protects them from unfair depiction and bogus complaints regarding
their actions. It assists in identification of false accusations which people made against
police officers since they have the proof to show that they were not wrong in the particular
scenario. Due to these videos, police officers are able to pre-empt lengthy and stressful
internal investigations on their conduct (Ariel, Farrar and Sutherland, 2015). It has made

5 | P a g e
their job more efficient which is why they prefer to being recording in surveillance and
public cameras.
In conclusion, the controversy surrounding policing on camera is highlighted in this article
which also shows different perspective of police officers on the issue. Many incidents show
that cameras should be a part of policing since it makes it easier to hold officers accountable
for their illegal or immoral actions. On the other hand, many argue that these cameras
restrict the capabilities of police officers to effectively do their job. Police officers are
broadly categorised into three groups which include camera shy, habituated and strategic
advantage. Cameras shy police officers did not prefer to put themselves in front of the
cameras, and they take extreme measures to avoid these cameras in order to protect their
career and family. The habituated police officers did not consider the cameras as a threat
since it is a regular part of their job based on which they did think about it as often. Lastly,
many police officers consider cameras as a strategic advantage which assist them in making
cases and pre-empting unfair criticism and false accusations which are a part of their job. It
shows that although there are many positives of policing on camera; however, there are
many negative impacts as well which are mostly caused by interference by mass media to
gain profits. Policies should be made to protect the career and family members of police
officers who are recorded by citizens to use cameras as a tool for generating a strategic
advantage in policing.

6 | P a g e
References
Ariel, B., Farrar, W.A. and Sutherland, A. (2015) The effect of police body-worn cameras on
use of force and citizens’ complaints against the police: A randomized controlled
trial. Journal of quantitative criminology, 31(3), pp.509-535.
Bud, T.K. (2016) The rise and risks of police body-worn cameras in Canada. Surveillance &
Society, 14(1), p.117.
Foucault M (1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage.
Kassin, S.M., Kukucka, J., Lawson, V.Z. and DeCarlo, J. (2014) Does video recording alter the
behavior of police during interrogation? A mock crime-and-investigation study. Law and
Human Behavior, 38(1), p.73.
Kitzmueller, M. (2014) Are You Recording This: Enforcement of Police Videotaping. Conn. L.
Rev., 47, p.167.
Kroener, I. (2013) 'Caught on Camera': The media representation of video surveillance in
relation to the 2005 London Underground bombings. Surveillance & Society, 11(1/2), p.121.
Leishman, F. and Mason, P. (2012) Policing and the Media. London: Willan.
Leman-Langlois, S. (2013) Technocrime. London: Willan.
Lippert, R.K. and Newell, B.C. (2016) Introduction: The privacy and surveillance implications
of police body cameras. Surveillance & Society, 14(1), p.113.
Mathiesen, T. (1997) The viewer society: Michel Foucault'sPanopticon'revisited. Theoretical
criminology, 1(2), pp.215-234.
Noble, S.U. (2018) Critical Surveillance Literacy in Social Media: Interrogating Black Death
and Dying Online. Black Camera, 9(2), pp.147-160.
Potere, M. (2012) Who Will Watch the Watchmen: Citizens Recording Police Conduct. Nw.
UL Rev., 106, p.273.

7 | P a g e
Rankin, J. (2013) Exclusive: Toronto police arrest man, take phone after attempt to film
takedown at Sheraton. [Online] Available at:
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/05/26/exclusive_toronto_police_arrest_man_tak
e_phone_after_attempt_to_film_takedown_at_sheraton.html [Accessed 25/01/2019].
Sandhu, A. and Haggerty, K.D. (2016) Policing on camera. Theoretical Criminology, 21(1), pp.
1-18.
Smiley, C. and Fakunle, D. (2016) From “brute” to “thug:” The demonization and
criminalization of unarmed Black male victims in America. Journal of human behavior in the
social environment, 26(3-4), pp.350-366.