Livingston police consider body cameras, look at privacy concerns

Livingston police officers soon could wear body cameras, a step some law enforcement leaders say protects the public just as much as the men and women in uniform.

But others are concerned the devices could invade privacy.

“I know some officers don’t want them,” said Mayor Rodrigo Espinoza. “But I think it helps people see that law enforcement is acting in good faith. In the long term, it can only improve the confidence people have in the police.”

That confidence has wavered in recent years, the mayor said, but he believes the cameras will restore it by documenting police conduct. The devices also will bolster officer safety, he said.

Mayor Pro Tem Gurpal Samra agrees. He pushed to have the body cameras placed on a City Council agenda next month. The cameras are estimated to cost $60,000 to $70,000, officials said, but that amount includes dash cameras for inside police vehicles.

That estimate would cover the cost of six dash cameras and 20 body cameras, officials said.

“We get a lot of citizen complaints about officers being rude, and a lot of times we get half the story,” Samra said. “The camera is an independent witness – it doesn’t care if you’re an officer or a citizen – it’s going to record what it sees.”

Livingston Police Chief Ruben Chavez said he fully supports body cameras. The San Jose Police Department, where Chavez spent the majority of his career, discussed buying body cameras in 2010. Chavez said it is only a matter of time before all police departments have them.

“Some people have the impression that it’s Big Brother watching, but that’s not the case,” Chavez said. “It’s just a way to document the activity on a daily basis.”

Most Livingston officers support the idea, and one has even purchased a body camera on his own, Chavez said.

If the council approves the body cameras, Livingston would be the third agency in Merced County with the devices. The Merced and Dos Palos police departments already use the cameras.

Dos Palos Police Chief Barry Mann said his department has used the cameras for two years. His department is working on obtaining dash cameras for police vehicles.

“It’s been outstanding. I’m a firm believer in it, not only for the protection of the citizens but also for the officers,” Mann said. “We get leveled with all kinds of complaints. Some are valid and some are frivolous, and this allows our officers to tell their side of the story without opening their mouth.”

The Atwater Police Department has dash cameras, and Chief Frank Pietro said he is thinking about adding body cameras. In Gustine, police Chief Doug Dunford said his department recently installed dash cameras. He also is considering body cameras but has a few concerns.

“It still doesn’t give you a good view of everything that’s going on,” Dunford said. “At least with the car cameras you’re getting a wider view.”

A question posted on the Sun-Star’s Facebook page generated wide support for the cameras. However, one reader worried they might deter rape or domestic violence victims from coming forward. “We have victims’ rights for court purposes, can we have them for the body cams as well?” posted Austin Michael Becker.

Merced police Sgt. Jay Struble said the body cameras encourage victims to be more “open and honest.” The video also provides evidence for court cases, especially if the victims later deny the abuse.

“You have cases where the victim changes their story, and if we have them on video, we can prosecute without the victim’s cooperation,” Struble said. “Not only do you have the audio, but you can also see the injuries on the victim and the state they’re in.”

This story was originally published March 30, 2015 at 9:06 PM with the headline "Livingston police consider body cameras, look at privacy concerns."