How perfect that the first U.S. police department to study body-worn cameras on officers was in Rialto, Calif., where Rodney King met his Maker.
Years before King died in 2012 of a drug overdose at his home in Rialto, he became famous when Los Angeles police officers beat him following a high-speed chase – an act captured on video shot by a man looking on from his balcony.
King had been dead not quite a year when Rialto conducted an experiment with body-worn cameras. By then, video of police behaving badly had become ubiquitous. The media loved playing such videos over and over. Attorneys cleaned up with settlements. (King received $3.8 million.)
Police often countered that citizen-shot video didn’t tell the whole story. It didn’t show what led up to officers resorting to force. Now body-worn cameras can do just that. They can capture video evidence from the officers’ perspective.
For one year Rialto’s 54 frontline officers were assigned body-worn cameras, and the results were striking.
Before the experiment, Rialto police averaged about 65 use-of-force incidents a year and received about 24 citizen complaints against officers.
During the experiment, the use of force dropped to 25 incidents, and citizen complaints dropped to three.
It wasn’t that Rialto police suddenly became docile. The people they encountered presented fewer problems when they were told they were on camera. Researchers at the Force Science Institute found that body-worn cameras conveyed a “straight-forward, pragmatic message: ‘You are being watched, videotaped, and expected to follow the rules.’”
The camera’s “neutral third eye” affected the psyches of officers and suspects alike, researchers found. The camera prompted suspects to “cool down” and deterred officers from reacting with force.
The Rialto study captured the interest of police departments across the country and even the United Kingdom.
Many major American cities now require body cameras on patrol officers, but not Portland, Ore. As usual, Portland is arguing about it. This city likes “community input.” It is part of Portland’s touted progressive values. Everything is mired in various committees, task forces, boards, commissions and of course reports and more reports. Portland likes to do its own thing – then announce it is creating a national model.
However, on the subject of body-worn cameras, attorneys with the U.S. Department of Justice recommended last week that city officials stop talking and start acting.
Since 2014, the city has been under a federal court order to change how Portland police interacts with the mentally ill after an investigation found the department engaged in excessive force.
Last year U.S. District Court Judge Michael H. Simon, who has been overseeing the court order, noted that more than five years ago he first asked about body-worn cameras for police. Had there been any progress? He was told the police were considering a pilot program but hadn’t received support from city council.
What’s the real holdup? Egos and fear of the truth.
Two egos in particular: Portland City Commissioner Jo Ann Hardesty and Dan Handelman of Portland Copwatch. They are two long-time police critics, and their relevancy is on the line. They need cops behaving badly. They don’t need members of the community behaving badly and caught on camera.
Hardesty is a black activist who has been protesting the Portland Police Bureau for 30 years. A classic example of her approach to law enforcement: In April 2012, then in her role as community activist, Hardesty appeared on Oregon Public Broadcasting’s radio show “Think Out Loud” to encourage black youths not to cooperate with police.
Hardesty said when she sees police stopping young black males, asking for ID and asking to search them, she stops and takes pictures. Then she asks the youths who have been stopped what the police said to them.
The answers she hears are usually: “You have a backpack that looks like one a suspect is wearing,” or “we’re looking for a weapon and want to do a search.”
When the kids say “yes” to a police search, Hardesty lectures them on why they should say “no.”
In 2020 Hardesty was elected to the Portland City Council, and she set about seeking her revenge on police. At various times she has complained that body cameras cost too much, and they could violate the privacy of community members. She wants to know who is going to see the video.
Lately, she has tempered her criticism, saying “the devil is in the details,” perhaps sensing the inevitable – there is growing support for body cameras. People would like to see what the police see. Expect Hardesty to fight to keep the footage as private as possible – especially if it exposes black swagger.
Handelman is a white peace activist who has been called the dean of Portland cop watchers. He always speaks at public hearings and has been watch-dogging police for roughly as long as Hardesty. His approach is methodical. He pores over thousands of pages of city reports related to policing. His ideology is driven by Peace and Justice Works’ principles of non-violence.
Handelman once found an analysis-of-compliance report “insulting” because it did not single out the number of police stops involving people of color. He was offended by a promotion for a community event called “Meet the Heat” where citizens could meet officers. To Handelman it suggested violence. He has objected to less lethal bean bag rounds filled with lead pellets as “a scary idea.” He opposes the term “excited delirium” to describe how some people behave under the influence of drugs. He has objections to pepper spray, which contributed to a death in 1988. Anything that could possibly restrict the community’s free speech is anathema to Handelman. But he drew the line recently at the phrase “bullet points” when it was used during a PowerPoint presentation. Given the recent increase in gun violence, he suggested they should be called “dots” instead.
Those are some of the insights Handelman has offered at meetings of Portland’s police oversight groups. Currently the city has two — the Citizen Review Committee and the Portland Committee for Community-Engaged Policing, which replaced an earlier group, the Community Oversight Advisory Board. The latter group was disbanded when its meetings were repeatedly taken over by a noisy rabble claiming to be mentally ill. In true Portland fashion, this group was initially hailed as a “national model.” (See “Held Hostage by the Mentally Ill”)
A new, Hardesty-initiated and voter-approved oversight group is in the works that will have subpoena powers and be able to discipline police. Handelman has said he will be part of it.
When it comes to body-worn cameras, members of Portland Copwatch have decided to remain neutral, but Handelman is personally very critical.
He prefers that footage from body cameras only be used to hold officers accountable. He insists that officers must not be allowed to view the footage before writing a report or giving a statement regarding a use of force. His concern is that police could use the footage to change their statements. Handelman’s contempt of police is so complete that he sees no value in pursuing the truth if it could help an officer.
On this he may have gone too far. During a meeting in January 2020 of the Portland Committee on Community-Engaged Policing, Handelman offered his usual criticism, but somebody else countered with a fresh viewpoint.
Edward Jones, a retired criminal defense attorney and Multnomah County Circuit Court judge, said he has read police reports for 30 years.
“It’s dumb telling cops they can’t (look at the video first). … Everybody downstream in the criminal justice system reads those reports. They need to be as right as they can be,” he said, adding the footage shouldn’t be used as a trap for police officers.
“That is wrong-headed … potentially those cameras can improve the quality of reports we get …,” Jones said. “They will improve the quality of justice.”
Inaccurate police reports are not a solution to any problem in the criminal justice system, Jones noted.
No, but they can bolster the prejudices of cop critics like Handelman and Hardesty who, even before she was elected to the council, denounced as “ludicrous” the idea that officers should be allowed to review footage before writing reports.
Of less interest to Handelman and Hardesty is how body-worn cameras can help police. There is another lesson from Rialto, Calif. in that, too.
When I was a young newspaper reporter in San Bernardino and assigned to the Rialto bureau, I covered my first cop killing. Sgt. Gary Wolfley, who was white, was shot with his own gun by an unarmed black man.
How did Dennis Mayfield get Wolfley’s gun? We only have Mayfield’s version of events. Wolfley never lived to tell his version.
What would a body-worn camera have told?
– Pamela Fitzsimmons
Related:
I never thought I’d agree with Ed Jones (former public defender and judge) but he’s absolutely right about bodycams. Crime is not a video game, what is served by trying to trap an officer?
It is fascinating that in so much of America police hating “community leaders” have demanded the cameras.
Perhaps it is that Hardesty knows what they will show many suspects acting in ways that will astound jurors.
I’ve been going to Portland’s various police oversight meetings for a few years, and it’s usually the same handful of folks who speak. They are often critical of police. Jones was a surprise.
His treatment by PCCEP co-chair Andrew Kalloch was a disappointment, though. After Jones finished speaking and returned to his seat, Kalloch scolded him for using the word “dumb.”
Among PCCEP’s “group values” is open-mindedness. There was nothing open-minded in Kalloch telling Jones that he shouldn’t use the word “dumb.” What is the point in asking for public comment, and then telling the public what they can say?
Kalloch has since moved to Eugene and is no longer on PCCEP.
Hardesty hates police too much to be useful. This guy Handelman, is he a Quaker? My daughter used to go to a Friends church so I don’t have a problem with Quackers. Police work can be routine and nonviolent for a long stretch. When it isn’t, you deal with the trouble in front of you. You can’t stop and have a prayer meeting.
Handelman gets quoted all the time. He doesn’t think police should ever hurt anyone. Putting him in a position to tell police what to do is like making a Quaker head of the Dept. of Defense. If we had Quakers running the government in the 30s and 40s, we’d all be speaking German.
I’ve never heard Handelman mention religion. Before he became the primary spokesman for Portland Copwatch, he was quoted in the news for organizing peace protests against the Gulf War, the Iraqi War, etc. He objects to any use of force by police.
There was an allusion to WWII at the meeting I wrote about. When U.S. attorneys suggested that Portland hold ranking officers of lieutenant and above responsible for approving use of force at last year’s riots and protests, Handelman objected: “Nuremberg established that following unlawful orders isn’t OK. Cops should have known better.”
While he was quick to equate cops with Nazis, he apparently forgot the primary principle established in the Nuremberg trials: Each person is responsible for his or her own acts. That goes for everyone, including the criminal suspects that Handelman zealously protects.
When Ms. Hardesty ran for City Council, she talked about the need for a new form of government in Portland and promised to help make it happen.
As Commissioner Hardesty, she lobbied her colleagues for a ballot measure to establish a new police oversight group.
Had she worked as hard for a ballot measure to overturn Portland’s outdated and ineffective form of city commission government, we might be ready to see true change in Portland.
The police are not the problem in Portland. Weak leadership is.
I worked with Dan Handelman years ago on a project unrelated to his police watching. Dan is an old-fashioned Portland Peacenik. He’s not a bad guy. He gets obsessive when he’s fixed on something. That business about dots replacing bullet points is funny. It’s harmless. Some of the other is not harmless.
The protests last year were not peaceful. They were taken over by small violent mob. The rest of the crowd went along passively with the vandalism like Peaceniks. I might have sympathized once. Not after last year. You know about the Red House, I’m sure. I went over to help a friend. It was terrifying. The cops were outnumbered and had to back down. I guess Dan liked that. I guess he thinks its peaceful to stack tires drenched in gasoline next to people’s houses and threaten to burn the whole neighborhood down.
The other person who commented about Nazis doesn’t understand Peaceniks like Dan. They’ll go along with Nazis as long as its peaceful and they’re taken care of.
I don’t want to take over your blog or whatever this is, but on an unrelated matter I support the recall of Ted Wheeler. A guy like Dan has some power but not much. Wheeler is dangerous.The person who said Portland needs a new form of government is right.
Do click on the frowning photo and travel L-R with the images. Including the last one which provides information as to how the local authorities handled this gent.
https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1423019216668610561
He who is not angry, whereas he has cause to be,
sins. For unreasonable patience is the hotbed of many vices, it fosters negligence, and incites not only the wicked but the good to do wrong.”
I was not familiar with that quote by John Chrysostom. His “golden mouth” would not be welcome in Portland. He would find Portlanders to be a very soft tribe, and they would think he was all work and no play.
I noticed another quote by him: “I do not know whether anyone has ever succeeded in not enjoying praise. And if he enjoys it, he naturally wants to receive it. And if he wants to receive it, he cannot help being pained and distraught at losing it.”
It’s the perfect companion quote to “The Vanishing Legacy of Barack Obama” by Matt Taibbi.
Why you want to pick on Dan? He wouldn’t hurt a fly. Cop maybe but not a fly. Dan’s OCD, Obsessive Compulsive Dork. His group can’t help PoPo. THE PROBLEM IS PORTLAND. Not the bureau. I’d bet Chief Lovell doesn’t make it to his second anniversary.
The problem might be that Portland clings to its radical past dating back to the Great Depression. As history goes, Portland’s radical past isn’t that interesting. Other American cities have been the scenes of far larger riots.
Perhaps we don’t have anything else historic to brag about. Portland’s radical past has left a mark on relations between police and a hard-core fringe that likes to carry on the tradition of protesting.
Last year during a meeting of the Citizen Review Committee, another police oversight group, during a discussion of 2020’s protests, Chairwoman Candace Avalos said, “People here are super-passionate. It’s in our DNA.”
Changing the police is not likely to change Portland’s DNA. Protesters complain that the police are brutal, but they also complain if the cops don’t show up to their protests.
I was a member of a foot patrol on Mt. Tabor. Tidiness was our motivation
The group had been put together by a retiree who lived on the hill. Beyond clean up we handed out flyers urging dog leashing and taking care not to entice car prowls.
Capping the reservoirs had become an urgent concern because Randy Leonard had(I believe)received federal funds to protect the water supply in the wake of 9/11.
Many people, myself included, did not want the resevoirs covered. It was a contested matter but pretty civilized.
One mid-day while walking with a foot patrol group a woman new to town from Philly stopped her car and asked what we were about. One of the foot patrol women gave a quick and impassioned version of the resevoir cover struggle.
I was struck by how quickly this newcomer became passionate about and dedicated to fighting the power that wanted to cover the resevoirs. She knew nothing about the matter. Our woman whom I considered something of a nutter made a pitch to her and now she was on fire to protest.
I mean what was Hecuba to her for pity’s sake? It all died away in squalor as the project was abadoned and the material purchased for the job was bought on eBay by in the know Water Brueau employees who schemed to resell it for a nice profit.
La Pasionaria from Philly never did join our tidiness group but she did become a pretty active activist. She was just eager to shake her fist and yell with the mob.
Radical past generally means fuckwits on the prowl
“Fuckwits on the prowl.” Nicely put. Could be a lot of that later today, especially with Ted Wheeler’s weak plea to choose love.
Great riff, Pamela – spot on.
I have long thought the solution to “Hardesty, etal” were body cameras for the police. Not to change the minds of the hardened cop hating ideologues, but for the broader public. I believe they would be incredibly informative and would betray the false narratives constantly being played by politicians and the ignorant woke – for lack of a better descriptor. I think they would have helped a great deal last year – the violence that our civil servants were regularly subjected to was beyond the pale. (To say nothing of the money it may save us on ridiculous settlements given based on misplaced outrage – and Progressive politician appeasement)
I also imagined, as you note in your writing, that it would give bad cops pause in their interactions with citizens – who either like to mix it up physically a bit too much and/or “color” their report narratives – a good thing.
Jo Ann Hardesty, whatever her faults, is no dummy. She has fought long and hard against equipping Portland Police with body cams. The question is why would an avowed police reform advocate be against the ultimate in police transparency? The answer is she knows that body cams do not, as promised by the advocate community, catch cops doing corrupts things, but rather catch criminals doing criminal things and show cops dealing with terrible situations that they are almost always able to resolve without serious injury to anyone involved. Hardesty’s power in this city is based almost entirely on her opposition to PPB, therefore her livelihood is directly dependent on PPB being viewed negatively by the electorate. I would grant Hardesty the honor of being a “true believer”, along with all the other extremists that can claim the same, except she has asked for personal police protection when she felt scared, so her conviction to limit government funded armed security is apparently limited to only those she approves of.
It’s like Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot who closed the streets around her home and had extra officers assigned to her neighborhood because of safety concerns. Too bad folks living in South Side Chicago can’t receive that kind of service.
Everyone on the mainstream propaganda locomotive is really upset at this prospect:
“Lovell, Mayor Ted Wheeler, community leaders and anti-fascist protesters are gearing up for an anticipated far-right gathering Sunday afternoon at Tom McCall Waterfront Park.”
I hate this town and its lazy, lying, brainless inhabitants.
By now, you’ve probably heard how the southbound lanes of the Fremont Bridge were also shut down for an hour Sunday night. Some street racers took over.
I wish I had a bit of encouragement to offer you, but the brainlessness in this city is much worse than COVID-19. Candace Avalos, chair of the Citizen Review Committee, used her Sunday column in OregonLive to talk about body-worn cameras. She’s concerned about who will get to see the video.
Another one of Avalos’ worries: “Will police officers’ filming and documenting of people’s political activity during protests harm or discourage people from expressing their First Amendment rights?”
Maybe in the future those street racers will claim they are expressing their First Amendment rights.
The precedent is already there for street racing to be legal protest activity… as long as you declare it is protest activity before you do it. Refer to the case of the naked guy at PDX
https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/legally-weird/naked-tsa-protester-john-brennan-strips-victory-from-prosecutors/
where the article makes clear the legal distinction here wasn’t whether or not the law against exposing ones genitals is constitutional but whether breaking the law was was predetermined to be in protest or after-the-fact lawyering which apparently made all the difference.
The World Naked Bike Ride adopted this caveat to avoid issues with their violation of city code by claiming the naked ride is “a global protest against oil dependency.” Sure. That’s what it’s all about.
Portland routinely tolerates the take over of city property by protesters, homeless, and homeless protesters because… well, in true Portland passive-aggressive non-action fashion, it would be uncomfortable to tell them no.
If the street racers preemptively declare this is a protest against… something (progressive position — of course), the group would have a legitimate defense that any enforcement taken would be the city infringing on first amendment rights (especially if the spokespeople for the group were BIPOC) based on the acceptance of other city code violations for the purpose of protest and the acceptance of illegal, even dangerous, street use for whatever reason the county offers as reason it won’t prosecute taking over streets for the purpose squatting or protest.