Police Body Cameras Trump Privacy


The loss of individual privacy worldwide is a residue of technology. Almost nothing can be kept secret anymore—even information never intended for others to see or read. Because we leave digital footprints each time we use a computer or talk on a cell phone, our writings and speech are monitored, collected, and analyzed by the ubiquitous National Security Agency. Moreover, the data and information collected can be stored forever.


Many Anaheim residents and visitors will soon contribute involuntarily to the city’s data archives: video recordings, collected by cameras worn by Anaheim police officers, their purchase and use recently approved by the Anaheim City Council. In previous postings, I questioned the need for cops with Kodaks and the validity of the Council’s rationale for its vote. The cameras purchased are expensive ($1,150,000), and no substantive evidence has yet been presented to support the effectiveness of this technology for the Council’s stated purposes: “Little is known about citizen attitudes toward body-worn cameras, most notably whether the technology increases trust, legitimacy, and transparency of the police” (White, 2014, p. 35). The cost and misunderstandings about the effectiveness of video recordings notwithstanding, privacy is the public’s biggest concern about their use.

The California Penal Code (§633) authorizes police officers to record communication between persons and events without permission—even confidential communication. Otherwise, both parties must agree to permit recording. Police officers when called may record upon entering a home, conducting official business, serving a warrant, or during exigent circumstances (there is probable cause and no time to secure a warrant). There is no privacy for occupants that exclude videotaping. In California it is even legal for a police officer to plant a recording device surreptitiously inside a police car or jail cell. Because courts ruled that police officers may audio record persons in public places (United States v. Taketa), there is no reason to believe that courts will regard video recordings as different from audio recordings. In short, no privacy exists when a person interacts with a police officer (People v. Lucero).

In developing policies and setting standards for the use of body-worn police cameras in Anaheim, Chief Raul Quezada must consider many questions related to privacy and a broad range of other topics:

  • Which persons and which encounters will be videotaped?
  • At which point do officers press “go” and stop” on their cameras?
  • Will officers be required to videotape only encounters with the public?
  • Or will officers be required to keep the videotape rolling throughout a 12-hour shift?
  • How will the police department respond to officers who fail to record important  incidents?
  • Will footage of police misconduct be released to the public?
  • Which activities or events will be excluded from videotaping?
  • Under which conditions will officers alert or warn persons about being videotaped?
  • How will the use of video cameras differ when used to investigate versus to support arrests?
  • Will the department release the video of shootings for public viewing?
  • How will the department use cameras and still protect witnesses and police informants?
  • Will the use of cameras discourage potential witnesses from volunteering information?
  • Which members of the department may access or edit videotapes?
  • If officers record each encounter and event throughout a shift, can they maintain positive relationships with the public?

Quezada’s answers to these questions, and many more, and the implementation of new policies, many related to privacy, will influence the success of Anaheim police using video recorders. There are potential benefits from their use. The public’s behavior and police behavior will likely improve, resulting in fewer complaints about police officers and fewer incidents requiring use-of-force. Ever-present during implementation of video recorders, however, is the elephant in the room—the further perceived deterioration of privacy—a factor that may increase distrust between police officers and community members. Whether any increased transparency will result from cops with cameras, the persistent mantra heard during Council meetings, remains problematic.


People v. Lucero, 190 Cal. App. 3d 1065 (1987).

United States v. Taketa, 923 F.2d 665 (9th Cir. 1991).

White, M. (2014). Police officer body-worn cameras: Assessing the evidence. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/3p2jfv8

 —Hugh Glenn




  1. Exactly the same questions I have. If an officer enters my home, is he required to have a body cam on? Am I permitted to refuse the taping since I’m in the privacy of my own home? What about interviews with rape victims? Minors? Child abuse? Domestic abuse? Seems like a far reaching device we are giving away….

  2. Ha ha! gangbanger sympathizers should be careful what they wish for. Law enforcement with cameras will finally help shut down criminal street gangs in Anaheim.

  3. Another huge waste of taxpayer money.

  4. Hello my friends and fellow Advocates,
    I wanted to share the following complaint I just sent to Anaheim PD, and ask that you please file your own complaint at the website shown to help bring protection to those in need. When you get to the website choose “Complaint” for request type and let them know you want to file a complaint regarding the police department. Of course you can add what ever you wish, but this is what I just sent them. They usually respond with in ten days and holding police accountable is a job we must do. Also feel free to join my Facebook group, “Homeless Advocates for CHRIST”. Thanks so much for your help and prayers, and I do hope to hear from you soon. ————————–
    “It has just come to my attention that the homeless (and certainly many others) who get arrested are often released with out their property. The property is taken to a far away location, and many homeless (who at times are mentally disabled) lose their medication, keys, wallets, bikes, blankets, etc. for many days (if not forever). This seems to amount to cruel and unusual punishment and those who are homeless should have their property given to them upon release from jail due to the extremely vulnerable state they are in. Anaheim is supposed to be the “City of Kindness”, but this action by police proves otherwise. Is there anything you can do to make sure the homeless get their property at the same time they are released from jail? WWJD?”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *